whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: Benny on July 03, 2012, 12:22:28 PM

Title: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Benny on July 03, 2012, 12:22:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Traveler on July 03, 2012, 12:23:51 PM
Nope. You're not missing anything.  :o
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: One Above All on July 03, 2012, 12:28:38 PM
The Bible says so. The Bible is the word of YHWH, so it must be true. How do we know it's the word of YHWH? Because the Bible says so.

That's what you're missing. This makes perfect sense to a brainwashed person/theist.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Benny on July 03, 2012, 12:31:02 PM
Nope. You're not missing anything.  :o

The Bible says so. The Bible is the word of YHWH, so it must be true. How do we know it's the word of YHWH? Because the Bible says so.

That's what you're missing. This makes perfect sense to a brainwashed person/theist.

:?  It can't be that simple...it's that simple?   :-\
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Traveler on July 03, 2012, 12:35:28 PM
Apparently, if you add up the ages of the people in the bible, and the things that are described in it, you get approximately 6,000 years. Now, some people apparently add it up to equal 10,000 years, or something in between. But you get the idea. Yes, its stupid. Yes, if flies in the face of every scientific discovery about dating substances. But, hey, apparently god has a sense of humor and plants fossils just to trick us. Or maybe the devil did it.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: naemhni on July 03, 2012, 12:47:13 PM
Nope. You're not missing anything.  :o

The Bible says so. The Bible is the word of YHWH, so it must be true. How do we know it's the word of YHWH? Because the Bible says so.

That's what you're missing. This makes perfect sense to a brainwashed person/theist.

:?  It can't be that simple...it's that simple?   :-\

Yes, it is.

(http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nick on July 03, 2012, 04:11:19 PM
At one time they thought the Earth was the center of the universe and of course those who thought the Earth was flat.  They want to believe so bad that all logic is pushed to the side of their pea brains.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on July 03, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
:?  It can't be that simple...it's that simple?   :-\

Sadly, very very sadly, it is. Their twisted logic goes like this: "If any part of the bible is proven wrong then our [their] whole faith is in jeopardy so we [they] must adhere to ever bit of the bible and accept it all as the absolute truth." Thus they believe the universe was created in only 6 days in a really fuct-in-the-head order (because the bible said so) and original sin and all of creation is only about 6000 years old. Yet they are not put in psychiatric institutions because religion has a sacrosanct &) place in society.

What's worse is they're doing everything they can to corrupt science to their own ends to "prove" their beliefs. Thus "Answers in Genesis" and the Noah's Ark and bible & dinosaur parks. Kent Hovind (in jail for tax fraud) and Ken Ham (who looks like the missing link) are the main two YEC I know of. Scary men.

EDIT: spelling
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 03, 2012, 10:38:57 PM
Only Samothec could clarify something that makes no sense!  ;D
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Wrec on July 04, 2012, 04:03:18 AM
I agree with Samothec, but I'd like to go one step further;

The worshippers of mental lazyness do indeed think the bible (and let's not forget all the other holy books for that matter) is gods word and therefore must be correct. And they defend it, first by trying to apply failed logic, and when they're caught they resort to foot-stomping and other childish forms of behaviour. The funny thing is, most modern creationists still allow women to have equal rights, positions in church and even to speak in church.

It begs the question; if they're willing to disregard certain portions of the bible but not others, who chooses what to not believe and what to believe?

I'm pretty certain the answer is because religion is popular. They WANT to have a "fanbase", and attacking science doesn't really hurt your fanbase. Attacking women, however, hurts half of your fanbase. No church with just men is a fun church.

This is also why they attack education so much. It's precisely education that makes people aware of the world and how it is studied, and if they could just get education stymied, there'd be easy pickings for the congregations to lie without getting caught. It's also cheaper for the faithful to attack education than to invest in educating their pastors/imams etc.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Graybeard on July 04, 2012, 05:37:32 AM
In the 17th century, Archbishop James Ussher wrote, "In Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti" (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world.) In this book, he worked out that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, Oct 23, 4004 BC - by using biblical genealogy.

Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8)

Ussher was a Protestant. In the UK, Henry VIII had broken from the Church of Rome and rejected papal authority. This meant that there was no longer any way of resolving interpretation issues in the Bible (other than guidance from Luther who, himself, was not granted any infallibility.)

A consequence of this was that each man became his own priest. The Age of Science was dawning but the Scientific Method was in its infancy. Ussher did take great pains with his calculations and researched ancient documents. He himself was rabidly anti-Catholic and for this he received royal patronage and his ideas broadcast as "The final Proof of God." Ussher felt that the Church of England needed to steal a march on the papists; this was one way of doing it.

The results were widely praised and nobody could find fault with his meticulous research. It therefore became not so much established doctrine, but a "well it's been proven" concept.

The Puritans, who accepted such things, then went off to the Americas and took the idea with them. In response to later, mainly European, ideas and discoveries, their descendants, anxious not to offend God and anxious not to suffer cognitive dissonance, created an increasing number of excuses as to why the Earth was young and everyone else was mistaken.

Ussher's ideas, whilst not rejected, are rarely brought out, perhaps because the Biblical genealogies are patently unreliable. Instead, the YECs currently rely a lot on various anomalies in radio active decay and cumulative evidence of various floods in isolated areas.

They seem to have reached a point at which the war is over but they are still fighting, in the hopes that something will turn up which will add new piece of evidence, so they may start the war again.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jetson on July 04, 2012, 08:54:31 AM
At one time they thought the Earth was the center of the universe and of course those who thought the Earth was flat.  They want to believe so bad that all logic is pushed to the side of their pea brains.

Minor correction Nick, at that time, they had no idea there was a universe.  Although everything apparently revolved around the earth, according to the ignorant humans of the time.   ;D
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Aspie on July 05, 2012, 02:35:32 AM
Personally, I find YEC to make more sense than most of the alternative Christian stances. The "science is totes compatible with religion" brands essentially take the narrative of the Bible and put it into a blender until it's a nice, smooth cloud of vapor. They work from the same premise as YEC does that the Bible is absolutely true, except instead of standing their ground and defending its core elements they willfully disintegrate these elements not only as a means to enforce a NOMA non-aggression pact with science, but as a preemptive defense against any discoveries that could potentially stand in stark contrast to sacrosanct biblical assertions. As a result, the eternal, absolute authority of the Bible is reduced to a shape shifting ghost that attempts to validate itself by swathing itself around scientific explanations. For example, it's insisted that Genesis was always meant to be read as metaphorical, but since no Adam and Eve scenario could possibly make an iota of sense in the context of evolution it's reduced to silly poetry about how populations of humans, at some unspecified point of "perfection" in evolutionary development after being magically imbued with souls, disobeyed God, and that's why Jesus had to have a very bad weekend (now that was totally literal).

It's basically dogma that conforms to science while declaring science to be doing the conforming. It's why members of these kinds of sects are always so fond of trumpeting "scientific facts" from the Bible, pointing at vague passages using poetic language and declaring them to fit perfectly with the most current scientific conclusions. Why, God was talking about all this stuff way before it was considered cool by scientists! And, of course, if you point to any of the blatant scientific absurdities surrounding them you'll be met with the platitude of "the Bible is not supposed to be a science textbook!"

YEC is exactly what you'd expect from religion - claims to fixed, unyielding, absolute truths from a higher authority that scoff at the challenges of unbelievers. The more liberal Christian doctrines, however, seem to epitomize tacit concession to the weakness of their own position to the point of having to dilute a perfect God's words to rescue him from falsification.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: joebbowers on July 05, 2012, 03:02:55 AM
It begs the question; if they're willing to disregard certain portions of the bible but not others, who chooses what to not believe and what to believe?

Most of them don't realize they're disregarding portions of the bible. Most of them have never read it. They're just worshipping how they've been told to worship. Like sheep.

When it's pointed out that they are disregarding portions of the bible, this is no problem. Their brain engages in a sort of double-think, where they can believe two completely contradictory things at once without conflict. They know the bible is partially wrong, but they simuntaneously know the bible is completely right.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Graybeard on July 15, 2012, 08:03:26 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?
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23212.0.html
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 15, 2012, 08:22:39 AM
The problem, though, is that while YEC might "make more sense" than other kinds of Christian theism, in that it doubles-down on what it believes to be true rather than compromising with reality, the fact is that the belief that something is true makes no difference to whether it is actually true.  Think of it like a poker game, and YEC is running a bluff because its hand can't win.  The most bluffing can do is convince people to 'quit' and let it win, but it can't actually win if people call its bluff.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jedweber on July 15, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
It begs the question; if they're willing to disregard certain portions of the bible but not others, who chooses what to not believe and what to believe?

Most of them don't realize they're disregarding portions of the bible. Most of them have never read it. They're just worshipping how they've been told to worship. Like sheep.

When it's pointed out that they are disregarding portions of the bible, this is no problem. Their brain engages in a sort of double-think, where they can believe two completely contradictory things at once without conflict. They know the bible is partially wrong, but they simuntaneously know the bible is completely right.

I don't think this is quite the problem for non-literalist Christians that you guys think it is, or should be. A mainline (i.e. non-fundie) Christian presumably has faith that Jesus is their savior and that the core teachings or messages of the Bible are broadly "true." But they may have no problem admitting that beyond that, they simply don't know precisely which details are true in a strictly historical sense. They can certainly acknowledge that Old Testament creation legends and miracle stories are unlikely to be true in terms of any scientific details*. The takeaway from those stories is the belief that God created the universe and imbued humans with a purpose - the details are mythology created by ancient believers trying to explain their world, or provide a framework for the all-important message.  In their view, fundies arguing about YEC are approaching the Bible in a fundamentally misguided way, and missing the forest for the trees...

*This is not necessarily some new-fangled liberal view arising from weakness, either. It goes back at least as far as St. Augustine, who criticized those who took Genesis literally in his own day. I would argue that it's the fundies and YECers who are outside of the traditional mainstream of Christianity, so we should not treat their approach as the default. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Mooby on July 15, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Adding to jedweber, Christian fundamentalism arose from a movement in Christianity towards revering the Bible as the sole source of God's revelation.  Only a subset of Christian denominations are sola scriptura, and only a subset of those are Bible literalists. 

So not every Christian is particularly concerned with proving the historical accuracy of the Bible, or even deciphering which is which.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Aspie on July 16, 2012, 02:46:21 AM
I don't see either approach as being any less valid than the other; my opinion on the matter is simply from the position of faith. If I believed with all my heart that God had in any form inspired the Bible with the intention of conveying absolute truth I wouldn't be content to settle for halfhearted speculation of God's word being some liquified code that seeps into ancient mythology and couches itself neatly between the ramblings of men, of Genesis being a metaphor for a rock named God that rolls downhill and sets off a Rube Goldberg machine of the Big Bang, biogenesis, and evolution, of an entire narrative that's not meant to explain anything, but to be haunted by a Holy Spirit. It's the total apathy in spite of an unshakeable desire for God's wisdom which leaves me bewildered. It's like seeing enthusiastic Christians expressing awe over everything in nature they attribute to God from the trees to the tides, but becoming dreary-eyed and lethargic when faced with the entire substance of the Bible, simply chalking up most of it to irrelevant details that don't require going any further than the assume that there's a profound, spiritual meaning that's beyond them. It's not the fact that such Christians are not particularly concerned with deciphering historical details, but the fact that they don't seem to care whether there even are any details to be found. If I were as sure of the existence of God as I was the existence of my backyard I'd want to grab every trivial, minute detail of anything he could have possibly wanted to share that I could get my paws on, not leave it shrouded in mist.

To an outsider, it just looks like a gnawing doubt which too heavy an investment could threaten - the polar opposite of a mindset full of conviction in a divine truth.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jedweber on July 16, 2012, 09:06:32 AM
If I were as sure of the existence of God as I was the existence of my backyard I'd want to grab every trivial, minute detail of anything he could have possibly wanted to share that I could get my paws on, not leave it shrouded in mist.

I think that's what the fundies are trying to do, claim knowledge down to the trivial, minute details. But mystery can have a powerful appeal.

Look, no one would have watched shows like "Lost" or "The X-Files" year after year if all the explanations were laid out matter-of-factly up front. People like the slow, incomplete reveal, the tantalizing hints that something amazing and wonderful and not fully explicable is behind it all, (And when the writers DO try to wrap things up with concrete explanations (i.e. when they get cancelled), look at how many fans end up angry and disappointed!)

Maybe that's a silly analogy, but many religions know how to invoke the appeal of mystery at least as well as any fiction writer.

Quote
The existence of theological mysteries is a doctrine of Catholic faith defined by the Vatican Council...

Theologians distinguish two classes of supernatural mysteries: the absolute (or theological) and the relative. An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. A relative mystery is a truth whose innermost nature alone (e.g., many of the Divine attributes), or whose existence alone (e.g., the positive ceremonial precepts of the Old Law), exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature....In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.
...
The knowledge of the supernatural is more excellent than any human wisdom, because, although incomplete, it has a nobler object, and through its dependence on the unfailing word of God possesses a greater degree of certitude. The obscurity which surrounds the mysteries of faith results from the weakness of the human intellect, which, like the eye that gazes on the sun, is blinded by the fulness of light.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Mystery

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Aspie on July 17, 2012, 02:35:09 AM
I thought the analogy was apt for your point. I would contend that the typical fascination over mystery, however, is not simply being content to let it sit on a dusty pedestal to the end of days; it's the suspense, the anticipation, the mental repetition of "what are we going to uncover next?" that keeps people excited. If the X-Files didn't at least sustain the illusion of Mulder and Scully slowly getting closer to the truth by keeping the main characters on that path and tossing a bone when appropriate it would've been much less popular. The value of a good mystery is strongly correlated with the interest in unraveling it with the expectation of revealing something.

But this case is the complete opposite, where people are celebrating having a mystery which they clearly don't want to even be solved. Even the perspective that they worry that solving any mysteries therein will reduce the miraculous to the mundane flies in the face of pursuing God's wisdom in the first place as it's basically just an arbitrary decision that, okay, this is the point where God didn't want us to learn any more and we can chalk up the remainder to fun, magical riddles that were specifically designed not to be understood by us.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 17, 2012, 10:58:59 AM
Actually, that's entirely the point.  Believers want to work on solving the mystery of God.  It's just that it's so huge that nobody can solve it, which doesn't stop them from trying.  To the true believers who aren't fanatics, all of the things that science discovers are also clues to that mystery.  They aren't going "no, no, this can't be true, I'm not listening, lalala" (that's how fanatics think, they assume they already know and thus don't want to hear anything else), they're going "how do I fit evolution/abiogenesis/bigbang/whatever into the mystery that is God"?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Aspie on July 18, 2012, 11:29:39 PM
I would say that proclaiming something inexplicable and beyond the realm of human intellect is antithetical to the entire concept of investigation. Jedweber's link is a perfect example or how such denominations treat such mysteries - by declaring them outside the bounds of human study and reason. From their standpoint science can't possibly contribute because theological mystery "exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature", "lies above the finite intelligence", "results from the weakness of the human intellect, which, like the eye that gazes on the sun, is blinded by the fulness of light." For them the solution itself is the mystery. It's not something that's meant to be solved because it already is. There is nothing left to study; the fingerprints, the DNA, the body, the smoking gun, the signed confession, the written testimonies of over a dozen eye-witnesses, etc. are laid bare before you, but your puny human mind is just too weak to put it all together and see the big picture. They view supernatural truth as being the ultimate optical illusion - there's nothing to be decoded or studied or better understood, we simply fail to accurately perceive it.

Their concept of mystery here is fundamentally different from ours. Investigation of any other mystery would involve the pursuit of evidence with the expectation of greater understanding. Investigation of "theological mystery", however, involves presupposing the truth of specific religious tenets and accepting marked areas as being completely off-limits to understanding. Contrary to being open to science for clues they have already declared this mystery unsolvable - case closed, end of story, pencils down. Such behavior doesn't foster inquiry, it shuts it down. In the end the only thing that sets them apart from the fundies is that apparently whenever the magic decoder rings start getting too close to anything which could potentially be tested or investigated they start going haywire and shooting off sparks. I can certainly understand the appeal of a religion that works to make sure its every assertion is entirely unfalsifiable, claims to be an ally of science with the buzzword of "compatible", and boasts about being the golden mean between fundamentalism and angry atheism, but it's the way they rationalize such a situation to themselves that I find difficult to wrap my head around. It's basically divine revelation with static, declaring their pipeline to God to be strong enough to glean certain absolute truths which are beyond them, but not others.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Aspie on July 19, 2012, 03:06:36 AM
whoops, just meant to edit ><
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jedweber on July 19, 2012, 11:02:03 AM
I would say that proclaiming something inexplicable and beyond the realm of human intellect is antithetical to the entire concept of investigation. Jedweber's link is a perfect example or how such denominations treat such mysteries - by declaring them outside the bounds of human study and reason. From their standpoint science can't possibly contribute because theological mystery "exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature", "lies above the finite intelligence", "results from the weakness of the human intellect, which, like the eye that gazes on the sun, is blinded by the fulness of light." For them the solution itself is the mystery. It's not something that's meant to be solved because it already is.

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.  The religious we're talking about are just admitting that, but it doesn't mean they don't strive to understand such things more deeply.  Even in the link I quoted, they don't put such issues entirely beyond study and reason (even if they put complete understanding out of reach).  They just leave it to the realm of theology and philosophy.

We may think it's all BS about imaginary nonsense, but that's another story. I'm sure a field like theology has its own methods and standards, such as they may be, and it progresses over time, like Catholic theology building on the work of thinkers like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

On the other hand, questions such as how and when the Earth came into being, or whether living creatures evolve over time, CAN be addressed with the tools of science. Plenty of religious people are fine with that, and willing to let science lead wherever it may. They would think that the fundies are wrongly mixing unrelated fields of study...
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Noman Peopled on August 20, 2012, 09:25:01 AM
Nope. You're not missing anything.  :o

The Bible says so. The Bible is the word of YHWH, so it must be true. How do we know it's the word of YHWH? Because the Bible says so.

That's what you're missing. This makes perfect sense to a brainwashed person/theist.

:?  It can't be that simple...it's that simple?   :-\
I don't think so. The stronger appeal is the natural instinct of people to live as their eers do, and embody the same values as they do. Which is a great stabilizing factor and not all that problematic unless it includes exclusivity in some form, which is of course very common in religion as well as dogmatic ideologies.
That's so very problematic exactly because it provides a stable framework for social interaction (at least locally). Which is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective (depending, as always, on the environment) but well ... remember that bible bit about rape victims having to marry their rapists? That made sense from an evolutionary perspective too. It doesn't mean people aren't idiots/assholes, it just means their social group won't disintegrate.
Most people just want to live comfortable lives and a huge part of that is not second-guessing the most fundamental part of your social habitat.

Feeble as it may be, the "... bible->god->bible->god ..." way of thinking is only a post-hoc rationalization in my view.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on August 20, 2012, 09:25:03 PM
I would like to know how evil equates to 666.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Garja on August 20, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
I would like to know how evil equates to 666.

-Nam

You dont know? I thought it was obvious....

365 days a year
101 dalmations
39 books in the OT
27 books in the NT
72 virgins promised to follows of Allah for dying a martyr
45 of Colts as prophesied by Cardinal Billy Dee Williams
5 The number of Jackson siblings.
=666  Coincidence?

Ergo - 666 is evil.  God is real.


Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: 3sigma on August 22, 2012, 05:57:42 AM
Wait, what? That’s only 654. You forgot the twelve drummers drumming.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Garja on August 22, 2012, 08:07:59 PM
Damn you math!

I even made a spreadsheet to keep track... so .... in a way.... its Bill Gates' fault ;)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on August 24, 2012, 03:36:56 PM
Wait, what? That’s only 654. You forgot the twelve drummers drumming.

Are you sure it shouldn't be the 12 disciples?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Noman Peopled on August 25, 2012, 03:45:09 AM
The 12 who?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: PaulGL on May 20, 2013, 03:23:11 PM
Chapter Six.  Prehistory                                                                        p.102

I.   The “Creation versus Evolution” Controversy; or:
“Much Ado About Nothing”
II.   The Methods Utilized in Divine Creation:
A.   Evolution
B.   Catastrophism
C.   Direct Divine Intervention

Chapter Seven.  Past History: The World System                              p.145

I.   The Material System
A.   The Origin of the Material System
B.   The True Purpose of the Material System
II.   The Religious System
A.   The Source of Religion
B.   The World’s Religions
C.   The Jewish Religion
D.   Christianity, the Religion


From: amessageforthehumanrace
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on May 20, 2013, 03:31:12 PM
PaulGL, you agreed to not spam the boards with cut and pastes when you signed up. If you continue, your posts will be moderated.  
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Tonus on May 22, 2013, 11:45:02 AM
I.   The “Creation versus Evolution” Controversy;

That is only a "controversy" to creationists.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Garja on May 23, 2013, 10:06:08 AM
Yeah, they really dont seem to understand the issue.

I tried to get into a discussion on youtube yesterday with a YEC.  I asked him to present his evidence for a young earth.  It was amazing how quick he scattered.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 11:54:14 AM
Yeah, they really dont seem to understand the issue.  I tried to get into a discussion on youtube yesterday with a YEC.  I asked him to present his evidence for a young earth.  It was amazing how quick he scattered.

There is no physical support for a "Young" earth. But there is scriptural support for a specific Creation effort. Any review of divine interventions points to "time" as the unusual aspect.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: One Above All on June 10, 2013, 12:01:21 PM
There is no physical support for a "Young" earth.

I'd give you a +1 for that sentence alone, but the rest is just... awful.

But there is scriptural support for a specific Creation effort. Any review of divine interventions points to "time" as the unusual aspect.

"Scriptural support", as you call it, is bullshit. By your logic, scriptural support also shows that Zeus overpowered Chronus and ruled the Earth from Olympus.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 12:01:42 PM
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?

There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored.  "Lunatic" is pretty strong considering that people often swallow ideas that don't belong.  'Life in space" is an example of lunacy that some bought, others didn't. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: The Gawd on June 10, 2013, 09:33:21 PM

There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored.  "Lunatic" is pretty strong considering that people often swallow ideas that don't belong.  'Life in space" is an example of lunacy that some bought, others didn't.
you realize WE are in space right? the sheer vastness of space I do find it difficult to believe that there is not other life out there, we just happen to not be near it. Somewhere in the universe there is likely an alien thinking theyre alone in the universe. And its highly more likely than a invisible magical space pappy. At least we have rock solid proof of life in the universe... nothing for invisible sky daddies.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on June 10, 2013, 09:49:25 PM
There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored.

Should the rest of what the Bible says be ignored, too, or just this part?  I'm all for not taking it seriously.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 13, 2013, 09:36:13 AM
There are a few hard-to-swallow ideas that men have come up with and a "young" earth was one imagined by a high mucky-muck in one church. It should have been ignored.

Should the rest of what the Bible says be ignored, too, or just this part?  I'm all for not taking it seriously.

The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth.  Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk.  Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week.  A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea.   None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 13, 2013, 09:44:37 AM
you realize WE are in space right? the sheer vastness of space I do find it difficult to believe that there is not other life out there, <snip>

I'm not influenced by your belief system that you surround yourself with.
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science.  Nothing lives off the earth.

As far as dreams of other life.....lets be practical.  Multiply the odds of life, by the speed of light, and by the time you find this statistical-planet-possibility, your radio message of success will not reach earth before humans all turn to dust.  And that assuming your traveling at the speed of light.  If you do then humans you left behind will all be dust after the first moment anyway. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 13, 2013, 09:53:02 AM
There is no physical support for a "Young" earth.
I'd give you a +1 for that sentence alone, but the rest is just... awful.
But there is scriptural support for a specific Creation effort. Any review of divine interventions points to "time" as the unusual aspect.
"Scriptural support", as you call it, is bullshit. By your logic, scriptural support also shows that Zeus overpowered Chronus and ruled the Earth from Olympus.

That sounds like a Dr. Who episode, but I don't recall which one.  Every research effort will produce some fiction and some non fiction sources.  I've only chosen the Christian scriptures because they explain human nature to a T.   Standard Psychology theory is light years behind in explaining the nature of good and evil and human pride. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on June 13, 2013, 11:38:14 AM
The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth.  Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk.

That's what creation-as-is by a god is supposed to be like.  Adam and Eve created as adults, the Garden created with all its wonders already set up, etc.  Otherwise, what's even being created?

Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week.

Uhh, yes it does.  If something starts on one day, and is finished 6 days later, then after another day to rest, it's 7 days old.  That is directly what the Creation account says.  As I said, I'm all for not taking it seriously.  But at least admit that you're doing the same, and selectively at that.

A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea.   None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.

They didn't have to mention it.  It was already written in the scripture you pretend to believe in.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on June 13, 2013, 01:48:23 PM
That sounds like a Dr. Who episode, but I don't recall which one.  Every research effort will produce some fiction and some non fiction sources.  I've only chosen the Christian scriptures because they explain human nature to a T.   Standard Psychology theory is light years behind in explaining the nature of good and evil and human pride.
I wonder if you'd be able to go into more detail on how Christian scriptures 'explain human nature to a T'?  There really isn't a chapter or anything that says "The Nature of Being Human" or anything like that, so I'd like more detail on what you mean by that.  Perhaps some examples - I'm just unclear on how the bible clearly describes the nature of good and evil and human pride for example.  Or maybe a different type of example - does the bible provide any means of dealing with, for example, clinical depression, or autism, Asperger's, dementia, Alzheimer's, or other psychological diseases?  Does the bible provide any insight into the nature of confirmation bias, pattern recognition, cognitive dissonance, or the Forer effect?  Any discourse on theories of human memory and recall?

I would also like to ask if other scriptural texts like the Koran, the Vedas, The Book of Mormon, Dianetics (maybe a stretch to call this 'scriptual'), or other texts also contain accurate descriptors of human behavior, and if that has any influence on your view.

I will state that I do disagree with you that the bible does a good job of describing human nature.  But even beyond that...describing human nature isn't exactly something that necessarily requires divine intervention to put down on paper.  There are large swaths of fiction that do an excellent job of describing different aspects of human nature.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 06:00:33 AM
That sounds like a Dr. Who episode, but I don't recall which one.  Every research effort will produce some fiction and some non fiction sources.  I've only chosen the Christian scriptures because they explain human nature to a T.   Standard Psychology theory is light years behind in explaining the nature of good and evil and human pride.
I wonder if you'd be able to go into more detail on how Christian scriptures 'explain human nature to a T'?  There really isn't a chapter or anything that says "The Nature of Being Human" or anything like that, so I'd like more detail on what you mean by that.  Perhaps some examples - I'm just unclear on how the bible clearly describes the nature of good and evil and human pride for example.

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


Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 06:06:38 AM
The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth.  Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk.

That's what creation-as-is by a god is supposed to be like.  Adam and Eve created as adults, the Garden created with all its wonders already set up, etc.  Otherwise, what's even being created?

Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week.

Uhh, yes it does.  If something starts on one day, and is finished 6 days later, then after another day to rest, it's 7 days old.  That is directly what the Creation account says.  As I said, I'm all for not taking it seriously.  But at least admit that you're doing the same, and selectively at that.

A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea.   None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.

They didn't have to mention it.  It was already written in the scripture you pretend to believe in.

I have come to the realization that the scriptures are accurate.
But the descriptions of trees and fruit and such do not describe a seed 7 days old in soil.
Even if it did, what is soil?

So nothing is described as being created "young".   Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.
That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.
It disagrees with people who think the Bible requires a "young" earth, when it doesn't.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on June 14, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
I wonder if you'd be able to go into more detail on how Christian scriptures 'explain human nature to a T'?  There really isn't a chapter or anything that says "The Nature of Being Human" or anything like that, so I'd like more detail on what you mean by that.  Perhaps some examples - I'm just unclear on how the bible clearly describes the nature of good and evil and human pride for example.

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
So a few things:

a) That's a rather...non-specific response.  I was hoping for more detailed analysis on your part truth be told.  In a sense, I asked "Where do we find discourse on human nature in the bible?" and you answered "In the bible.".  Not terribly helpful.

b) That link doesn't really say a whole lot anyway.  It's a blanket search for the term "the heart" throughout the entirety of the bible, and many of the passages that come up are pretty unimpressive insofar as 'describing human nature'.  Many of these are poetic passages that have similar equivalents in the poetry of a high school student, while others appear to be general observations that can be readily had by simply hanging out with another human being for 12 seconds.

c) Please don't take this as an insult or anything, but do you read much?  Like, other books?  Fiction, non-fiction, poetry, research, etc.  It's just that...if these passages give you some great insight into human nature that you otherwise would not have gained...if these passages seem to be impressive or divinely inspired to you...well, it would just seem like you haven't read anything else.  Seriously.  There are other works out there that provide far, far, FAR more detailed discourse on the human nature than what can be garnered from here.  Hell, I get a better sense of the nature and behavior of a child from one panel of a Calvin & Hobbes comic than I get from the entirety of the bible.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on June 14, 2013, 09:35:19 AM
So nothing is described as being created "young".   Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.
That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.

Do you really not understand what is meant by "young earth"?  Or are you being intentionally obtuse?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Traveler on June 14, 2013, 10:43:43 AM
...
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science.  Nothing lives off the earth.
...

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 08:48:37 PM
...
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science.  Nothing lives off the earth.
...

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by
talking about "water" here or there.  Its a scam to get more funding.

 We can't even create life here.  How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere? 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 08:56:27 PM
while others appear to be general observations that can be readily had by simply hanging out with another human being for 12 seconds.

And the opposite is even more true.  Understanding human nature gets better after reading scripture more.
But you are correct.  The Bible is not required to see the truth about God and man.  The scriptures simply
agree with my observations the best.

Yes, I started by reading the entire Sci-Fiction section in my Jr. High and then H.S. as well as 2 SF classes options for english.
Then being in R&D I read a lot for 20 years, mostly science journals.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 09:02:14 PM
So nothing is described as being created "young".   Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.
That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.

Do you really not understand what is meant by "young earth"?  Or are you being intentionally obtuse?

I disagree with Creationists who claim the earth should look to be only 10,000 yrs old.
I'm not clear if it DID happen around then, but the description of the finished result is
not one of a  planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

So for Creationists to insist on a young earth is a waste of time.  I believe what the scriptures say and
the scriptures don't describe a young earth.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on June 14, 2013, 09:49:24 PM
but the description of the finished result is not one of a  planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

Bully for you, if you don't follow YECs.  But I think their point is a deity capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating it in a way that would appear to be old. So your scientific standards of what a young planet should look like are irrelevant because they do not jibe with the bible, which is all those tards care about.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on June 15, 2013, 12:34:23 AM
...
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science.  Nothing lives off the earth.
...

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Isn't a star a type of life? I mean they're "born", they are around a very long time then they "die". Isn't the Universe itself life? Or even Nebulas, and the like? I'm not saying they're self-aware or anything but it is life, no?[1]

-Nam
 1. in response to you but more directed at SkyWriting in response to you after this comment.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 15, 2013, 02:51:32 AM
Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by
talking about "water" here or there.  Its a scam to get more funding.

Welcome to the forum, SW.

I agree: we have yet to find direct evidence of extraterrestrial life. But we've barely begun to look. And it isn't being "duped" to recognize that the conditions and key elements of life as we know it aren't unique to Earth. Even in our own solar system, liquid water definitely exists on the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn, for instance.

Among the hypotheses of how and where life started on Earth (abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis) is the "deep sea vent theory". The compositions of Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn) include trace metals, silicates and carbon compounds that life-as-we-know-it uses. So at least some of the conditions that may have originated all life on our own planet can be found elsewhere in our own backyard, astronomically speaking.

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

Also true. We haven't created wholly artificial life. Yet. Abiogenesis is a very new field in biology / chemistry. Some important stepping-stones to actually making life from non-living elements have been accomplished, however. These include the creation of an artificial bacterium genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life)). From the relevant section:
 
Quote
In May 2010, Craig Venter's group announced they had been able to assemble a complete genome of millions of base pairs, insert it into a cell, and cause that cell to start replicating.[26] For the creation of this "synthetic" cell, first the complete DNA sequence of the genome of a bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides was determined. A new genome was then designed based on this genome with watermarks and elements necessary for growth in yeast and genome transplantation added, as well as part of its sequence deliberately deleted. This new genome was synthesized in small fragments—over a thousand overlapping cassettes of synthetic oligonucleotides were created—which were then assembled in steps in yeast and other cells, and the complete genome finally transplanted into cell from another species Mycoplasma capricolum from which all genetic material had been removed.[27][28] The cell divided and was "entirely controlled by (the) new genome".[28] This cell has been referred to by Venter as the "first synthetic cell", and was created at a cost of over $40 million dollars.[28]

There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that:[28] the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."

Life is chemistry, enormously but not insurmountably subtle. Given the immense size and age of the universe, and that the conditions that produced our life-bearing world are not unique, it's a reasonable hypothesis that life exists elsewhere.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 04:00:45 AM
Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by
talking about "water" here or there.  Its a scam to get more funding.

Welcome to the forum, SW.

I agree: we have yet to find direct evidence of extraterrestrial life. But we've barely begun to look. And it isn't being "duped" to recognize that the conditions and key elements of life as we know it aren't unique to Earth. Even in our own solar system, liquid water definitely exists on the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn, for instance.

No, we are just about finished. Traveling at light speed won't get us to another planet before life on earth is gone.
And we don't travel at light speed well.

Quote
Among the hypotheses of how and where life started on Earth (abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Deep_sea_vent_hypothesis) is the "deep sea vent theory". The compositions of Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn) include trace metals, silicates and carbon compounds that life-as-we-know-it uses. So at least some of the conditions that may have originated all life on our own planet can be found elsewhere in our own backyard, astronomically speaking.

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

Also true. We haven't created wholly artificial life. Yet. Abiogenesis is a very new field in biology / chemistry.

You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive.
If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.
It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".
Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.
And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of such
theories ad experiments going at all times.   But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of water
makes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.

mars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/water-on-mars-nasa-opportunity-rover-life_n_3404901.html

Venus
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1999792,00.html

Pluto
http://www.universetoday.com/91228/does-pluto-have-a-hidden-ocean/

but
http://www.universetoday.com/19309/water-on-uranus/








Some important stepping-stones to actually making life from non-living elements have been accomplished, however. These include the creation of an artificial bacterium genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life)). From the relevant section:
 
Quote
In May 2010, Craig Venter's group announced they had been able to assemble a complete genome of millions of base pairs, insert it into a cell, and cause that cell to start replicating.[26] For the creation of this "synthetic" cell, first the complete DNA sequence of the genome of a bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides was determined. A new genome was then designed based on this genome with watermarks and elements necessary for growth in yeast and genome transplantation added, as well as part of its sequence deliberately deleted. This new genome was synthesized in small fragments—over a thousand overlapping cassettes of synthetic oligonucleotides were created—which were then assembled in steps in yeast and other cells, and the complete genome finally transplanted into cell from another species Mycoplasma capricolum from which all genetic material had been removed.[27][28] The cell divided and was "entirely controlled by (the) new genome".[28] This cell has been referred to by Venter as the "first synthetic cell", and was created at a cost of over $40 million dollars.[28]

There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that:[28] the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA."

Life is chemistry, enormously but not insurmountably subtle. Given the immense size and age of the universe, and that the conditions that produced our life-bearing world are not unique, it's a reasonable hypothesis that life exists elsewhere.

But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort.
We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 04:06:24 AM
...
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science.  Nothing lives off the earth.
...

I'm sorry, but I find this particularly amusing. Science is about inquiry. There is ample evidence that life is possible off the earth. Whether there is intelligent life is another matter entirely. But life? Very likely.

Isn't a star a type of life? I mean they're "born", they are around a very long time then they "die". Isn't the Universe itself life? Or even Nebulas, and the like? I'm not saying they're self-aware or anything but it is life, no?[1]
-Nam
 1. in response to you but more directed at SkyWriting in response to you after this comment.

There are a few definitions, but "biological" is the central theme of most of them.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 04:14:23 AM
but the description of the finished result is not one of a  planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

Bully for you, if you don't follow YECs.  But I think their point is a deity capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating it in a way that would appear to be old. So your scientific standards of what a young planet should look like are irrelevant because they do not jibe with the bible, which is all those tards care about.

I'm no longer a YEC simply because they taught me to read the scriptures for confirmation of any spiritual ideas
and the scriptures describe an "old" earth at the end of Creation week.  I don't know the detaisl of how Jesus
turned water into wine either, but it was either water or a fine vintage of wine.   If it was the later, then "time"
was added to the mix somewhere.  So it's not logical for a Creationist to expect a young earth. Some priest came
up with that idea.

Mankind, particularly science, is very poor at past events.  In fact, the scientific method only covers future events.
Nothing about past events.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=the%20scientific%20method&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=9cc36caf4d2cdbc4&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.aWc&biw=1280&bih=899
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 15, 2013, 09:00:44 AM
The Genesis account does not describe a "young" earth.  Adam is not an infant, trees have fruit on them, and Adam and Eve can talk.  Nothing about the Creation account says that anything was 7 days old on the 7th day of Creation week.  A Catholic priest came up with that idea that the earth is young and "Creationists" bought into the idea.   None of the Apostles ever mentioned it.
Young Earth Creationism is the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to an 'old' Earth, billions of years old.

I'm not influenced by your belief system that you surround yourself with.
Oh?  Too bad.  You could probably learn something from opening your mind a bit.

Quote from: SkyWriting
The facts remain that no life exists off of the earth.
Lets just stick to the science.  Nothing lives off the earth.
And I'm sure you'll continue repeating this, like a mantra, until the day scientists discover the life that almost certainly exists elsewhere in the cosmos.

Quote from: SkyWriting
As far as dreams of other life.....lets be practical.  Multiply the odds of life, by the speed of light, and by the time you find this statistical-planet-possibility, your radio message of success will not reach earth before humans all turn to dust.  And that assuming your traveling at the speed of light.  If you do then humans you left behind will all be dust after the first moment anyway.
You don't even know what the actual odds of life are, do you?  Or how odds work to begin with.  Not to mention that you don't seem to understand how the speed of light works either.  There are dozens of stars within a hundred light-years of Earth, several of which have been found to have planets which are probable candidates for life, and we're getting to the point where we can detect the presence of water on a planet remotely too.  So we'd only have to check them, not go to each star in sequence.  Not only that, but human civilization has existed for over 6,000 years.  I highly doubt that humans would be 'dust' before an expedition could go to such a planet and send word back.

I have come to the realization that the scriptures are accurate.
But the descriptions of trees and fruit and such do not describe a seed 7 days old in soil.
Even if it did, what is soil?

So nothing is described as being created "young".   Creation seems to be "mature" from day one.
That's why science does not disagree with the scriptures.
It disagrees with people who think the Bible requires a "young" earth, when it doesn't.
Which is totally irrelevant.  As we've discovered with clones, something can only have existed a few months or years (its age), and yet be physically mature.  You're playing with technicalities (and failing miserably).

Your being duped. There is none. People are duping you into such thinking by
talking about "water" here or there.  Its a scam to get more funding.

 We can't even create life here.  How could it happen by natural causes elsewhere?
That's what these scientists - who you accuse of running a scam to get funding - are trying to discover.  Because that's what science is about, discovering how things actually work and what actually exists, rather than ignorantly proclaiming things based on religious texts that were written by people who at least had some excuse for their own ignorance.

I disagree with Creationists who claim the earth should look to be only 10,000 yrs old.
I'm not clear if it DID happen around then, but the description of the finished result is
not one of a  planet 1 week old, what ever that would look like.

So for Creationists to insist on a young earth is a waste of time.  I believe what the scriptures say and
the scriptures don't describe a young earth.
Young Earth Creationists argue that God magically created the Earth - in its present form, more or less - a few thousand years ago.  And yet you persist in declaring that because they talk about things being 'young', they must be referring to physical maturity, not age.

Like it or not, SkyWriting, you are a Young Earth Creationist, because you argue that the Earth was created in its present form and base it on what Scripture says.

No, we are just about finished. Traveling at light speed won't get us to another planet before life on earth is gone.
And we don't travel at light speed well.
Now you're just being silly.  Civilization on Earth has existed for thousands of years.  And yet you proclaim that we couldn't even make it to another planet, traveling at light speed, before humans die out?  The nearest star system, Alpha Centauri, is only four light years away (I dunno if it has planets or not, but it's a good example).  Traveling at light speed, it would only take eight years, round-trip.  I realize that's probably a significant percentage of your life span, but I'm pretty sure humanity would still be here after such an expedition.

Now, the fact is that we don't know how to travel at light speed.  We don't even know how to accelerate things to anywhere near light speed.  So more than likely, those four light-years to Alpha Centauri would take a lot more to actually travel, using current technology and methods (for example, using orbital slingshot mechanics to gain speed beyond what would be possible through a conventional rocket, not to mention that once a rocket is accelerated, it stays accelerated unless acted upon by an outside force).  But still, it's remarkably ignorant to say that humans would be dust before we returned.

Quote from: SkyWriting
You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive.
If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.
It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".
Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.
And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of such
theories ad experiments going at all times.   But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of water
makes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.
Given your apparent lack of understanding of things like biology and chemistry, you probably should stop trying to sound like you're knowledgeable about things like science.  Especially since you think that the Creation described in Scripture is an accurate description of how things actually happened - even though there were no humans around to see the process happening, let alone able to record their stories accurately.  Genesis is nothing more than an invented story to try to explain why humans exist, not much different from the dozens of other creation myths that other people have come up with.

Quote from: SkyWriting
But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort.
We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.
We probably wouldn't need a million years.  We might not even need a thousand, at the rate at which technology is developing.

----

You say you're not a Young Earth Creationist, yet you declare that Scripture is accurate and describes how things really happened.  That means you probably believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that life was created in a mature form, and so on.  Well, that's Young Earth Creationism to a T.  Young Earth Creationism doesn't declare that organisms and things created by God during the 'Creation' were created through natural processes - it declares that God magically poofed them into existence, in fully mature forms.  They did not exist before God did this, according to Genesis.  That means no matter how old they look, their actual age would only have been a day on the day after 'Creation'.

And that's why you're still a Young Earth Creationist.  Because you believe in an Earth that is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to an Earth that is billions.  A 'young' Earth, as opposed to an 'old' one.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 15, 2013, 11:13:29 AM

You've been overexposed to a vacuum for so long that thoughts seem like they are alive.
If life could develop on it's own it would be common place on earth and would have a law of nature to support it.
It might read like any Frankenstein story: " Take organic material, warm it, add light, life forms".
Not that advanced of course, but there would at least be ONE observation that would lead to life.

A creationist parody that doesn't resemble biology as we know it. The first replicating molecules and their immediate percusors were absurdly simple by the standards of life now, billions of years later. Even if abiogenesis could recur in the modern era outside a lab, the results would be immediately metabolized by single-celled organisms.

Quote
And because it's so hard to really get things going....we've proven....then you should have millions of such
theories ad experiments going at all times.   But we exist in a pure vacuum of facts and just the thought of water
makes scientific grown men tinckle in their pants about the possibility of life.

mars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/water-on-mars-nasa-opportunity-rover-life_n_3404901.html

Venus
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1999792,00.html

Pluto
http://www.universetoday.com/91228/does-pluto-have-a-hidden-ocean/

but
http://www.universetoday.com/19309/water-on-uranus/

But it's not reasonable that we spend time and energy we don't have on the effort.
We don't have a million years just to find a worm on another planet.

Thanks for the links. Sure, the possibility of even single-celled life elsewhere in the solar system is exciting. And aside from confirmation that life existed elsewhere, actually studying such life would definitely be valuable: comparing an independent evolutionary lineage to ours would give profound insight into biology and the life sciences in general.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on June 15, 2013, 07:36:04 PM
So life is only "true" life if it's "biological"?

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on June 16, 2013, 12:32:20 AM
The first replicating molecules and their immediate percusors were absurdly simple by the standards of life now, billions of years later. Even if abiogenesis could recur in the modern era outside a lab, the results would be immediately metabolized by single-celled organisms.

That's a fascinating point about other organisms possibly scarfing up the products of abiogenesis in the wild.  The molecules could simply bind chemically to a small section of DNA, enhancing or masking out part of an allele, and continue their replication as a variant of that cell line rather than as separate units of proto-life.

Considering how crowded the biosphere is at present, I would be utterly astounded if they were to discover any freestanding colonies of self-replicating molecules.  I think in vitro observation is far more likely to succeed.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 16, 2013, 02:45:41 AM
The first replicating molecules and their immediate percusors were absurdly simple by the standards of life now, billions of years later. Even if abiogenesis could recur in the modern era outside a lab, the results would be immediately metabolized by single-celled organisms.

That's a fascinating point about other organisms possibly scarfing up the products of abiogenesis in the wild.  The molecules could simply bind chemically to a small section of DNA, enhancing or masking out part of an allele, and continue their replication as a variant of that cell line rather than as separate units of proto-life.

Considering how crowded the biosphere is at present, I would be utterly astounded if they were to discover any freestanding colonies of self-replicating molecules.  I think in vitro observation is far more likely to succeed.

Precisely. Current life on Earth has the advantage of 3.5 billion years of mutation and natural selection. The result of any new abiogenesis would have to somehow equal that to even have a chance at competing.

Designed organisms might well do so, which is one concern about synthetic life: if we ever manage to pull it off, it might then be possible to create a form of life that could out-compete any naturally-ocurring one.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 18, 2013, 12:27:34 PM
In response to SkyWriting's post on this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25054.new.html#new (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25054.new.html#new)


We do need more fishing worms.  I look forward to having another source.

But here's the thing.  Why would it have any importance?  So what?   
Chemistry produces life, there are chemicals in other places, what would be the big deal?   
It would be like discovering that the opposite side of the sum produces heat, just like this side does.
Hey, the moon is dusty on both sides!   Big splattering deal.

A good question, SW. Assuming we find even single-celled life off-Earth and are able (which would most likely mean it's in our solar system) to learn about its makeup, here's my answer. I doubt it will satisfy you, but to educate myself and any interested onlookers...

Primarily, its importance would be as a comparison to Terrestrial life. Does it use DNA? If it does, then that strongly implies a common origin. Even if it uses a similar water-carbon, left-handed sugar chemistry, there could be subtle differences (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html)). Such things have been theorized, but in my example, human biologists would have actual samples to examine.

If it doesn't use DNA, what does it use as an equivalent? Or does it even have an equivalent? If it doesn't use water-carbon chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry)), does it use perhaps silicon? Titanium or aluminum oxides? Sulfur?

What can be deduced about its evolutionary history? Can we find its molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock)) and discover how old it is compared to Earth life? Fossils? What is its average rate of evolutionary change?

Such comparisons would be extremely valuable in giving insight into how our biochemistry works. Does alien life do certain things more or less efficiently? This could lead to an explosion of new applications in medicine similar to the new techniques for treating cancer and genetic diseases, to name just one possibility.

Lastly, I would also expect theists of all kinds to be interested in such a discovery. Just as most god-believers have no problem accepting the fact of evolution, I think they would accept the existence of alien life as compatible with their religious views. There would likely would be a vocal minority of doubters and detractors as well.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 08:49:30 AM
In response to SkyWriting's post on this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25054.new.html#new (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25054.new.html#new)


We do need more fishing worms.  I look forward to having another source.

But here's the thing.  Why would it have any importance?  So what?   
Chemistry produces life, there are chemicals in other places, what would be the big deal?   
It would be like discovering that the opposite side of the sum produces heat, just like this side does.
Hey, the moon is dusty on both sides!   Big splattering deal.

A good question, SW. Assuming we find even single-celled life off-Earth and are able (which would most likely mean it's in our solar system) to learn about its makeup, here's my answer. I doubt it will satisfy you, but to educate myself and any interested onlookers...

Primarily, its importance would be as a comparison to Terrestrial life. Does it use DNA? If it does, then that strongly implies a common origin. Even if it uses a similar water-carbon, left-handed sugar chemistry, there could be subtle differences (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html)). Such things have been theorized, but in my example, human biologists would have actual samples to examine.

If it doesn't use DNA, what does it use as an equivalent? Or does it even have an equivalent? If it doesn't use water-carbon chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry)), does it use perhaps silicon? Titanium or aluminum oxides? Sulfur?

What can be deduced about its evolutionary history? Can we find its molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock)) and discover how old it is compared to Earth life? Fossils? What is its average rate of evolutionary change?

Such comparisons would be extremely valuable in giving insight into how our biochemistry works. Does alien life do certain things more or less efficiently? This could lead to an explosion of new applications in medicine similar to the new techniques for treating cancer and genetic diseases, to name just one possibility.

Lastly, I would also expect theists of all kinds to be interested in such a discovery. Just as most god-believers have no problem accepting the fact of evolution, I think they would accept the existence of alien life as compatible with their religious views. There would likely would be a vocal minority of doubters and detractors as well.

That's all good.  But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust.   So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason.    The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Jag on June 19, 2013, 10:38:45 AM
That's all good.  But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust.   So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason.    The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

For someone who is demonstrating his ignorance of science all over this forum, you sure do post a lot of BS disguised as information.

Can you explain how you can just arbitrarily declare that we'll all be dust before anything COULD be found? What is the basis for your emphatic statement? Because I gotta tell ya - it looks like you're pulling another one directly out of your backside with this post.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 19, 2013, 11:18:10 AM
That's all good.  But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust.   So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason.    The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

Sure, making money is an acceptable reason for space exploration. It's unfortunate, but pure science is rarely enough (by itself) to convince people to invest in such expensive, long-term projects. Even stable, wealthy governments, without some political end in view (getting to the Moon before the Commies showed us up, for instance) are reluctant to pay more than a pittance for it.

That's why enterprises like SpaceX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX)) and Planetary Resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources)) are important. Their goals are to expand humanity's reach into space and make money along the way. Given hard work, some government help and a bit of luck, I don't see why they can't do it.

Can you support your claim that religious reasons are the driving force behind space exploration? In my hypothetical example, I predicted religious interest over the discovery of alien life, but it's quite a leap to say that religion has contributed to the field in any substantial way.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 08:27:36 AM
That's all good.  But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust.   So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason.    The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

For someone who is demonstrating his ignorance of science all over this forum, you sure do post a lot of BS disguised as information.

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.
I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on June 20, 2013, 09:48:58 AM
So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.
I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.

Maybe she's not articulated it well, but I think the issue is your ignorance and complete lack of supporting evidence for your claims combined with arrogance and condescending tone.   It sort of gives the impression you are not here to discuss, but to preach and troll.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on June 20, 2013, 10:20:12 AM
So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.

Personally I think you should just try to address knowledge gaps so that we can all be on the same page in our discussions.  There's no shame, and amazing long-term benefits, in saying "I don't understand what they mean by ______ in this article, here.  Could someone please explain it in non-technical terms?"
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2013, 12:32:06 PM
That's all good.  But by the time we COULD find any, we would be dust.   So the one reason is to make money...an acceptable reason.    The other is most likely the driving force, for religious reasons.

For someone who is demonstrating his ignorance of science all over this forum, you sure do post a lot of BS disguised as information.

So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.
I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.

And I don't see how this addresses my question, which I see you left out of your response.

I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that I think you should hide your ignorance, based on my off-hand remark. screwtape did a fine job of making my point more clearly, but I'll go a little further for you, just so we're as clear as we can be.

I followed your posts on a couple of topics in one sitting yesterday. I'm seeing a pattern of relying on tiny bits of science when it suits you, and whitewashing over tons more when it doesn't. I'm not ever remotely prepared to debate the bible so I don't get involved in biblical debates. You seem equally ill prepared to debate science, so I'm puzzled by your persistent efforts to do so. I freely admit I have a non-tolerant attitude toward anyone who relies on the god-of-the-gaps argument, which is more or less what you are doing. In other words, if YOU don't understand, then the only possible explanation that YOU see must be god. Science has many more plausible explanations which you appear to dismiss out of hand, seemingly without even bothering to find your own areas of ignorance FIRST. There's no shame in not knowing all the answers, but there certainly should be some attached to making up unsubstantiated nonsense to fill in the blanks. And be very clear - in this instance I'm not referring to your belief in a deity in particular, I'm talking about things like additions to biblical stories to support your beliefs. Or arbitrarily deciding that we'll all be dust before ... well apparently just about anything - you seem to think all becoming dust is due to occur in the next few weeks for as often as you've been throwing that phrase around.

Now, please address my original question, which was the point of my post: Can you explain how you can just arbitrarily declare that we'll all be dust before anything COULD be found? What is the basis for your emphatic statement?


Edited: corrected spelling error
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2013, 12:50:46 PM
So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.
I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.
The problem is not that you're ignorant so much as it is that you apparently think you aren't.  For example, you keep saying that there is no point in looking for life elsewhere because "earth would be dust" before we could find it.  You tried to claim that if we sent a spaceship at near the speed of light to a planet 13 LY away, "earth will (be) dust before they return".  Both of these statements are demonstrably false (as I did with your spaceship example), yet you presented them as if they were true beyond question.

Do you see the problem?  You don't really understand what you're talking about very well, yet you not only act as if you do (which would be aggravating in and of itself), you take on a condescending and arrogant tone in the process.  And when people call you on it, you don't really listen very well.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on June 20, 2013, 02:31:27 PM
To put things in perspective regarding our prospects of space exploration and finding extraterrestrial life, consider that the first human space flight was less than 60 years ago.  At that time, the most advanced computers on the planet were the size of a room.  Today, you're probably carrying superior computational power around in your pocket or purse.

A new field of scientific research takes time to get started, but once it hits its stride it just keeps building on its foundations and refining its methods.  I don't think Alpha Centauri is that far away at all, either in time or in distance.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 02:49:20 PM
To put things in perspective regarding our prospects of space exploration and finding extraterrestrial life, consider that the first human space flight was less than 60 years ago.  At that time, the most advanced computers on the planet were the size of a room.  Today, you're probably carrying superior computational power around in your pocket or purse.

A new field of scientific research takes time to get started, but once it hits its stride it just keeps building on its foundations and refining its methods.  I don't think Alpha Centauri is that far away at all, either in time or in distance.

4.3 light years.  Buuut we don't travel at light speed.  We would need 10,000 times as much power to reach 1/100 of light speed.  Or 800 years round trip.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 02:51:55 PM
So you feel I should hide my ignorance so that no one would find out how ignorant I am.
I don't see how that would benefit you if I appeared smarter.
The problem is not that you're ignorant so much as it is that you apparently think you aren't.  For example, you keep saying that there is no point in looking for life elsewhere because "earth would be dust" before we could find it.  You tried to claim that if we sent a spaceship at near the speed of light to a planet 13 LY away, "earth will (be) dust before they return".  Both of these statements are demonstrably false (as I did with your spaceship example), yet you presented them as if they were true beyond question.

Do you see the problem?  You don't really understand what you're talking about very well, yet you not only act as if you do (which would be aggravating in and of itself), you take on a condescending and arrogant tone in the process.  And when people call you on it, you don't really listen very well.

I firmly hold that nobody should take my word for anything and should check the facts themselves on anything they doubt.

Then if your concern is about my reputation, I appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine when found wrong.  I love being corrected. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2013, 03:18:22 PM
I firmly hold that nobody should take my word for anything and should check the facts themselves on anything they doubt.

Then if your concern is about my reputation, I appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine when found wrong.  I love being corrected.
I don't care about your 'reputation', I care about the fact that you're acting like you know things despite showing that you don't, all the while gaily ignoring what people are actually trying to say to you.  It gives the lie to your statement that you love to be corrected.

For example, let's take your response to Astreja just now.  She pointed out that technologies improve over time, such as how computing technology has improved over the past 60 years.  Your response was to blithely say that it would take "10,000 times as much power to reach 1/100 of light speed".  As if you didn't really even think about what she said.

The first real computer, ENIAC, could operate at 200,000 cycles/second (200 kHz).  The computer I'm typing this response on has a dual-core processor that operates at 2,000,000,000 cycles/second (2 GhZ).  That's a 20,000 fold increase in computing power just from processor speed.  It very clearly illustrates how effectively technology can improve over time.  While space flight and computers are different fields, it's reasonable to conclude that working on space flight would pay similar dividends over time.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2013, 03:26:09 PM
Now, please address my original question, which was the point of my post: Can you explain how you can just arbitrarily declare that we'll all be dust before anything COULD be found? What is the basis for your emphatic statement?

Still waiting......
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 07:46:44 AM
I firmly hold that nobody should take my word for anything and should check the facts themselves on anything they doubt.

Then if your concern is about my reputation, I appreciate your concern, but I'll be fine when found wrong.  I love being corrected.
I don't care about your 'reputation', I care about the fact that you're acting like you know things despite showing that you don't, all the while gaily ignoring what people are actually trying to say to you. <snip>

I'll cover this again.  I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics. 
Perhaps I'm not like you.  Consider there is room in the world
for people not looking for answers. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on June 21, 2013, 09:36:47 AM
I'll cover this again.  I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics. 
Does this include your own mind?

Quote
Perhaps I'm not like you.  Consider there is room in the world
for people not looking for answers.
That's fine if you aren't looking for answers, but stop providing bull$*!+ answers to people who are seeking answers.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on June 21, 2013, 10:27:44 AM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on June 21, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
I'll cover this again.  I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics.
Perhaps I'm not like you.  Consider there is room in the world for people not looking for answers.
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.
You claim to not be here for either reason - then why are you posting here?

Plus, the way you post pretty much screams that you want to change our minds. (You haven't shown enough knowledge to be here to teach.)

As for people who aren't looking for answers - that means they are content to be a human shaped cow and I have no use for them since they will not make any appreciable contribution to the human race.

If you really want to be one then stop posting on the internet and chew your cud. Otherwise start trying to be honest.


I need to add that the others have been quite reasonable to you but you aren't doing the same in return. People like you are the main reason why I stopped calling myself Christian long before I lost my religion.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: alexreflex on June 21, 2013, 04:07:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on June 21, 2013, 04:38:29 PM
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
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 05:44:44 PM
I'll cover this again.  I'm not trying to change any minds on any topics. 
Does this include your own mind?

Quote
Perhaps I'm not like you.  Consider there is room in the world
for people not looking for answers.
That's fine if you aren't looking for answers, but stop providing bull$*!+ answers to people who are seeking answers.

You will learn that you have no power over what other people say..as you mature.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on June 21, 2013, 06:22:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 09:34:58 PM
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
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 09:40:32 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 09:58:16 PM
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/ 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Traveler on June 21, 2013, 10:19:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on June 22, 2013, 03:02:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 22, 2013, 03:39:55 AM
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 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_on_space_exploration_each_year)

From the linked article:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on June 22, 2013, 01:45:13 PM
<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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 22, 2013, 05:40:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 22, 2013, 05:50:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 22, 2013, 10:25:53 PM

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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 22, 2013, 11:04:48 PM

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 (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'.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 23, 2013, 01:07:15 AM

 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on June 23, 2013, 04:20:16 AM
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
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 23, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:17:23 AM

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 (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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:20:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:25:43 AM
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.

(http://img.phombo.com/img1/photocombo/6153/cache/abstract_65_Cute_Dog_wallpapers-23.jpg_Dog_17_forum_thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:29:06 AM

 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:33:26 AM

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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:36:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:39:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Mrjason on June 26, 2013, 09:03:01 AM
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 (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space_exploration/benefits.page)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 26, 2013, 01:56:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 05:13:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 26, 2013, 05:47:09 PM

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.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 26, 2013, 06:27:20 PM

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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 26, 2013, 06:56:51 PM


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/ (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 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_is_spent_on_space_exploration_each_year)):
Quote
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.



Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 26, 2013, 09:09:22 PM
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.

Quote from: SkyWriting
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 (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.

Quote from: SkyWriting
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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on June 28, 2013, 02:49:57 AM
Religion does not mention space aliens or other forms of life.

Are you sure? Watch an episode or two of "Ancient Aliens". Given how little you know and understand reality you'll believe in no time.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on June 28, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
Religion does not mention space aliens or other forms of life.

Are you sure? Watch an episode or two of "Ancient Aliens". Given how little you know and understand reality you'll believe in no time.
Wouldn't 'god' and entities like 'angels' qualify as 'other forms of life' anyhow?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on June 28, 2013, 02:23:50 PM

 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.

Religions are full of different alien forms of life: angels, spirits, demons, giants, witches, fairies. What did I leave out? Oh yeah, gods, that's what religions talk about a lot. And you are correct when you say that there is zero evidence for any of those things. As you say, zero evidence = not happen.

Now, if only people focused as little attention on supernatural magical non-existent god-beings as they currently do on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe....
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 29, 2013, 12:40:50 PM
Now, if only people focused as little attention on supernatural magical non-existent god-beings as they currently do on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe....
I would rather have them focus as much attention on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe as they do on religious stuff.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on June 29, 2013, 07:49:03 PM
Now, if only people focused as little attention on supernatural magical non-existent god-beings as they currently do on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe....
I would rather have them focus as much attention on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe as they do on religious stuff.

You said it better.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 30, 2013, 08:39:42 AM
Now, if only people focused as little attention on supernatural magical non-existent god-beings as they currently do on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe....
I would rather have them focus as much attention on the scientific exploration of the rest of the universe as they do on religious stuff.

That is religious stuff.  There is nothing out there better than what we have here. 
It's the religion of space exploration.  The worship of the cosmos.  Havng faith that all
our answers are out there.  Faith that out there is wealth, and peace, and health.
That space has the answer to our origins, the answer to life.   Out there is our salvation.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 30, 2013, 08:41:59 AM
Religion does not mention space aliens or other forms of life.

Are you sure? Watch an episode or two of "Ancient Aliens". Given how little you know and understand reality you'll believe in no time.

Those are re-runs.  It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 30, 2013, 08:43:33 AM
Religion does not mention space aliens or other forms of life.

Are you sure? Watch an episode or two of "Ancient Aliens". Given how little you know and understand reality you'll believe in no time.
Wouldn't 'god' and entities like 'angels' qualify as 'other forms of life' anyhow?

I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on June 30, 2013, 08:50:09 AM
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.

Your statement is much more accurate than mine was.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 30, 2013, 09:25:44 AM

That is religious stuff.  There is nothing out there better than what we have here. 

This is a positive statement of fact (akin to saying "There is no God"). Please DEMONSTRATE how you think you know this statement is true. Since you haven't explored everything that's "out there" I predict you will very much be struggling with this one.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on June 30, 2013, 09:34:26 AM

I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.

Then why do you believe in them?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on June 30, 2013, 09:50:37 AM


That is religious stuff.  There is nothing out there better than what we have here. 
It's the religion of space exploration.  The worship of the cosmos.  Havng faith that all
our answers are out there.  Faith that out there is wealth, and peace, and health.
That space has the answer to our origins, the answer to life.   Out there is our salvation.

Exactly what is religious about exploration? Was the journey that found the Americas a religious quest? Was the journey that identified the Higgs Boson religious? No, of course not. People like to investigate - to explore -find out just what there is and how it works. That's all it is.

Now it is quite clear that the earth isn't going to be here for ever - well there are quite a few million years left, or course. Yet at some stage, humans, if they still exist, are going to have to move to a new planet before the sun engulfs earth is fire and radiation. There's lots of time, but we need to explore and we need to understand more about the universe in which we live.

Now, I agree with the other poster that the future is exciting with the thoughts of what we may achieve. Think what we managed in the last century. Yet there is no religious aspect to all this. Where do you see the religious part? 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on June 30, 2013, 09:53:38 AM
That is religious stuff.  There is nothing out there better than what we have here. 
It's the religion of space exploration.  The worship of the cosmos.  Havng faith that all
our answers are out there.  Faith that out there is wealth, and peace, and health.
That space has the answer to our origins, the answer to life.   Out there is our salvation.
The only religious faith here is your own.  And you're making the extremely common mistake of equivocating that faith with the attitudes of others.  Frankly, you're only deceiving yourself when you write things like this.

Space will not be our 'salvation' - salvation implies an end.  It simply is our future.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 30, 2013, 10:10:34 AM

That is religious stuff.  There is nothing out there better than what we have here. 
It's the religion of space exploration.  The worship of the cosmos.  Havng faith that all
our answers are out there.  Faith that out there is wealth, and peace, and health.
That space has the answer to our origins, the answer to life.   Out there is our salvation.

One cannot compare curiosity (space study/exploration) with religion. Well, one can, but one would be wrong.

The difference is simple. Wanting to know things leads not only to new knowledge, but to interesting stuff. If you've flown on an airplane, the very effective de-icing system for the wings? NASA did that. Do you have an LED flashlight? NASA was on the forefront of researching those bulbs. Know anyone with a cochclear implant? That's space technology in action. Been ripped off because you bought one of those cheap memory foam mattresses? Thank NASA research.

While I understand that you would prefer that people just sit on their asses and read the bible, those of us not inclined to do so occasionally go out and do things. Like learn stuff. And invent stuff. And whether it is the computer screen you are reading this reply on, or the Internet connections that make it possible, someone without a giant picture of a white jesus on their wall created it. And keep in mind that your dark ages mentality does not make for a viable culture. Unless we find that burning people at the stake reduces global warming.

Nobody, as in not a single frickin' one, is into space exploration and astronomy because they are under the illusion that they will find all the answers. Nobody is running around out in space with the ultimate goal of proving that there is no god. Nobody is building devices to shoot out into space to puncture holes in your grand little illusions. We all have better things to do (if you don't include hobbies, like participation in this web site.)

It would be wise for you to avoid taking your mentality (worship-based god stuff) and extroplate it to show that all people, even those who disagree with you, worship something. We don't. We've found that appreciation, discovery, usefulness and rationality will carry us further and go much further. Such things are consistent with our real goal: preventing ignorance.

You don't like rockets and telescopes? Fine. Just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, not the ones you've made up. Even though that is the modus operandi of all believers.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on June 30, 2013, 12:03:32 PM
There is nothing out there better than what we have here. 

In all fairness this is demonstrably true, at least within the solar system. Earth life has been optimized by evolution to suit Earth's particular conditions.

It's the religion of space exploration.  The worship of the cosmos.  Havng faith that all
our answers are out there.  Faith that out there is wealth, and peace, and health.
That space has the answer to our origins, the answer to life.   Out there is our salvation.

Please show me an example of what you consider people "worshiping" the cosmos. Because I think your definition of "worship" is different from mine.

No one on this thread has suggested that space exploration will solve all our problems and answer all our questions. I and some others have pointed out errors in your assumptions, and shown that your characterization of space research / exploration as an expensive, wasteful endeavor that returns nothing useful is inaccurate.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on June 30, 2013, 02:35:37 PM

I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.

Then why do you believe in them?

And what exactly would you "study" to find out if angels were material or spirit. Since there is no evidence that any angels exist to "study". By "study" do you mean pointless guessing and speculation?

I suggest that we also "study" whether unicorns are invisible or not. How about "studying" whether or not Vulcans actually have copper-based green blood? Or "studying" which brand of deodorant Bigfoot prefers to use? (I would say Axe.)
 &)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on June 30, 2013, 03:07:28 PM

I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.

Then why do you believe in them?

And what exactly would you "study" to find out if angels were material or spirit. Since there is no evidence that any angels exist to "study". By "study" do you mean pointless guessing and speculation?

I suggest that we also "study" whether unicorns are invisible or not. How about "studying" whether or not Vulcans actually have copper-based green blood? Or "studying" which brand of deodorant Bigfoot prefers to use? (I would say Axe.)
 &)

I think this is more about studying texts that talk about angels - the sort of thing that marks out a biblical scholar. Medieval biblical scholars debated how many angels could fit on the head of a pin so you can see what a serious business this scholarship really is!
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on June 30, 2013, 03:20:31 PM
Those medieval scholars also thought there were women powerful enough to cast spells that told the future, turned people into animals and caused crop failures--but who never managed to figure out when the mob was coming to burn them at the stake.  &)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on July 02, 2013, 03:51:15 AM
Those medieval scholars also thought there were women powerful enough to cast spells that told the future, turned people into animals and caused crop failures--but who never managed to figure out when the mob was coming to burn them at the stake.  &)
(Looks around to make sure no one else is listening.) Shhhh! Someone might think you know too much about witches and work out that you are one of those magically powerful women who realized the mob was coming and escaped. And then lived for centuries and now is encouraging atheism so people won't ever think to look for witches again.   :o
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 02, 2013, 04:28:33 AM
Watch an episode or two of "Ancient Aliens". Given how little you know and understand reality you'll believe in no time.

Those are re-runs.  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? 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on July 02, 2013, 11:03:52 AM
Wouldn't 'god' and entities like 'angels' qualify as 'other forms of life' anyhow?
I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.
How about:

"I'm not sure if angels are material, spirit, or even exist.  I'm not even sure how to define 'spirit' in this context.  I've not studied that at all."
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 02, 2013, 03:03:03 PM
Those medieval scholars also thought there were women powerful enough to cast spells that told the future, turned people into animals and caused crop failures--but who never managed to figure out when the mob was coming to burn them at the stake.  &)
(Looks around to make sure no one else is listening.) Shhhh! Someone might think you know too much about witches and work out that you are one of those magically powerful women who realized the mob was coming and escaped. And then lived for centuries and now is encouraging atheism so people won't ever think to look for witches again.   :o

That has to be it. ;)

Didn't it ever occur to the witch-hunters that they would never be able to capture a really powerful, dangerous witch who was in league with Satan? She would turn them into toads for just thinking about burning her at the stake. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: alexreflex on July 02, 2013, 10:15:50 PM
Didn't it ever occur to the witch-hunters that they would never be able to capture a really powerful, dangerous witch who was in league with Satan?
not really surprising since members of the same group like to beat up homosexuals and/or abuse women, two groups who are not generally known to be aggressive, strong, or able to successfully defend themselves.  powerful witches  would be too dangerous, you know, same as the inhabitants of the valley that possessed iron chariots.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 03, 2013, 08:59:46 AM
Wouldn't 'god' and entities like 'angels' qualify as 'other forms of life' anyhow?
I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.
How about:

"I'm not sure if angels are material, spirit, or even exist.  I'm not even sure how to define 'spirit' in this context.  I've not studied that at all."

I don't know if "Mark Twain" exists, yet I can still research the subject and draw conclusions about "Mark Twain" either way. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 03, 2013, 09:04:21 AM
Didn't it ever occur to the witch-hunters that they would never be able to capture a really powerful, dangerous witch who was in league with Satan?
not really surprising since members of the same group like to beat up homosexuals and/or abuse women, two groups who are not generally known to be aggressive, strong, or able to successfully defend themselves.  powerful witches  would be too dangerous, you know, same as the inhabitants of the valley that possessed iron chariots.

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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 03, 2013, 09:06:00 AM
Wouldn't 'god' and entities like 'angels' qualify as 'other forms of life' anyhow?
I'm not sure if angels are material or spirit.  I've not studied that at all.
How about:

"I'm not sure if angels are material, spirit, or even exist.  I'm not even sure how to define 'spirit' in this context.  I've not studied that at all."

I don't know if "Mark Twain" exists, yet I can still research the subject and draw conclusions about "Mark Twain" either way.

Any human in history we can research is in a different category from angels and spirits. We know about people - we are people and live with people - so this is only an extension of our knowledge of people back into history.

By contrast, anything supernatural like angels and spirits are not common knowledge in the way of people seeing and knowing them. Sure,a holy book talks about them but that's it. To have anything to say about anything supernatural we nee to establish if there is even and supernatural realm - something psychic research has failed to do for 100 years.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 03, 2013, 09:06:56 AM
Didn't it ever occur to the witch-hunters that they would never be able to capture a really powerful, dangerous witch who was in league with Satan?
not really surprising since members of the same group like to beat up homosexuals and/or abuse women, two groups who are not generally known to be aggressive, strong, or able to successfully defend themselves.  powerful witches  would be too dangerous, you know, same as the inhabitants of the valley that possessed iron chariots.

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
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 03, 2013, 09:09:04 AM
Watch an episode or two of "Ancient Aliens". Given how little you know and understand reality you'll believe in no time.

Those are re-runs.  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.
 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on July 03, 2013, 09:31:21 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Mrjason 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 (http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Witchcraft-Lois-Martin/dp/0785822917#reader_0785822917)

Check out the first pages from p.19 onwards
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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




Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: alexreflex 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers 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 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25128.29.html) 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 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25128.msg561449.html#msg561449) 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>>
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: alexreflex 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers 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/ (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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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!
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright 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 (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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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 (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. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Ambassador Pony 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright 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.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme 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 (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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 05, 2013, 09:42:54 PM
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.

The multiverse theory says that universes are created every moment.
That can be your God if you wish. I already know mine.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 05, 2013, 09:47:27 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 <snip>

Then look it up so we can continue speaking:

The laws of science or scientific laws are statements that describe, predict, and perhaps explain why, a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.). An analogous term for a scientific law is a principle.
Scientific laws:
summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts. I.e. "the laws of motion require that"
Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=define+law+of+science&oq=define+las+of+science&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i13j0i22i30j0i8i13i30.14783.27698.2.30943.26.19.5.0.0.0.865.5690.1j7j3j2j3j2j1.19.0.epsugrpqhmsignedin%2Chtma%3D120%2Chtmb%3D120..0.0.0..1.1.17.psy-ab.lfA0MpkiEis&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc&fp=2d51c5bfc01f1cdf&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=899
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 05, 2013, 10:29:35 PM
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.

The multiverse theory says that universes are created every moment.
That can be your God if you wish. I already know mine.

You seem to think we need a god replacement. We don't. Multiverses or otherwise, there is no praise, no worship, no faith, nor any fairy tales required.

We work with information and informed conjecture. Religions work with whatever they have made up, which is somewhat limiting because they have horrible imaginations.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 05, 2013, 11:32:42 PM
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.

The multiverse theory says that universes are created every moment.
That can be your God if you wish. I already know mine.

You seem to think we need a god replacement. We don't. Multiverses or otherwise, there is no praise, no worship, no faith, nor any fairy tales required.

We work with information and informed conjecture. Religions work with whatever they have made up, which is somewhat limiting because they have horrible imaginations.

By "we" you mean you.  Unless you've been elected to office or something.
So just do it rather than preach about yourself.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on July 06, 2013, 12:02:04 AM
By "we" you mean you.  Unless you've been elected to office or something.
So just do it rather than preach about yourself.

I also work with information and informed conjecture.  There's your quorum for the use of "we."
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wright on July 06, 2013, 12:06:51 AM
Thanks for the clarification, SW. I asked what you considered a "natural law" because I didn't know if you accepted the meaning as it's generally understood.

Since you do, then I agree: by our current knowledge, there are no natural laws that require life to come about. Indeed, I'd be surprised if we ever did discover such a principle; the greater part of the universe is utterly unsuited for life as we know it. Hard radiation and harder vacuum.

Though clearly those laws, as we understand them, allow for at least the possibility. Again, experiments have shown potential ways abiogenesis might have occurred. Conclusively, no. But it's a new field, and science has barely begun to seriously examine it.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 06, 2013, 12:11:10 AM
The universe certainly does not seem to require life. Most of it is pretty damn hostile to living things, and just buzzes merrily along, dead as a doornail as far as we can tell. Doesn't mean that there is no other life out there, since there is clearly a precedent for life in the universe.... :D
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on July 06, 2013, 01:58:02 PM
How do black holes require life?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 06, 2013, 09:12:50 PM
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.
There are several issues that you need to resolve with your conjectures here.  First, you have to explain how the Genesis story, which was hearsay since no humans could possibly have existed to observe the bulk of the events described in it, can be considered reliable.  Second, you have to deal with the likelihood that it was originally told by people who were attempting to explain circumstances that already held true (specifically, why people died).  Third, you have to explain away the fact that we've determined through science that things are still being created today (stars, planets, etc).  And fourth, you have to show that only your creation story is a good explanation for the fact of death, including all other creation stories as well as the actual scientific explanation.

Care to take a stab at it?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 06, 2013, 10:08:35 PM
And where did that "poor life counseling" come from, in the perfect world god created?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 06, 2013, 11:08:41 PM
And where did that "poor life counseling" come from, in the perfect world god created?

Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 07, 2013, 05:10:34 AM
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.

OK, Skywriting, lets have at look at what you say here.


(http://www.solarmythology.com/heavens.gif)
[/list]
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2013, 09:00:50 AM
Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.
You mean, not obeying God's orders.  "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, or you will die" is in no way advice.  Also, since when are snakes people?

You see, Genesis 2-3 were in large part to explain how humans knew the difference between 'good' and 'evil' when other animals apparently didn't.  It's only fairly recently (compared to the age of the actual story) that some people (Christians) came up with the interpretation that resulted in the doctrine of "original sin".  The fact that there was a tree of life in the first place, which would apparently grant the ability to live forever, pretty much blows the Christian "humans brought death into the world through original sin" belief out of the water, since if the fruit of that tree was required to live forever, it means death already existed in the world (since if you don't live forever, you eventually die, and humans as 'designed' by YHWH didn't already live forever).
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 07, 2013, 12:22:32 PM
Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.
You mean, not obeying God's orders.  "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, or you will die" is in no way advice.  Also, since when are snakes people?

You see, Genesis 2-3 were in large part to explain how humans knew the difference between 'good' and 'evil' when other animals apparently didn't.  It's only fairly recently (compared to the age of the actual story) that some people (Christians) came up with the interpretation that resulted in the doctrine of "original sin".  The fact that there was a tree of life in the first place, which would apparently grant the ability to live forever, pretty much blows the Christian "humans brought death into the world through original sin" belief out of the water, since if the fruit of that tree was required to live forever, it means death already existed in the world (since if you don't live forever, you eventually die, and humans as 'designed' by YHWH didn't already live forever).

Sorry, but the idea of having an 'original sin' and Jesus being necessary to put things right has been around a few years longer than that. Paul describes Jesus as the new Adam - a man that does everything we do except sin and who thus redeems people. Called Recapitualtion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory_of_atonement), It is clear enough in Paul and Irenaeus   makes it rather more explicit.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
Sorry, but the idea of having an 'original sin' and Jesus being necessary to put things right has been around a few years longer than that. Paul describes Jesus as the new Adam - a man that does everything we do except sin and who thus redeems people. Called Recapitualtion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory_of_atonement), It is clear enough in Paul and Irenaeus   makes it rather more explicit.
Notably, it's a Christian idea - not a Jewish one.  Though, I thought it was much older than Christianity - preceding it by several thousand years.  That's why I wrote that it was fairly recent compared to the age of the story.  Something that is less than 2000 years old is "fairly recent" compared to something that's, say, 5000.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 07, 2013, 01:08:36 PM
Hinduism predates both Judaism and Christianity and has many similar elements: of human errors leading to suffering and the need for redemption and rebirth to get the reward of heaven. I think Zoroastrianism has some of the good vs evil concepts as well with a good creator god and a bad opposing force. Neither one has belief in Jesus as a requirement, however.

And no religion can adequately explain why natural disasters happen even where there are no people around to be punished or why plants and animals (who presumably do not "sin") also get sick, suffer and die. :?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 08, 2013, 05:26:26 AM
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.

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.


Once again....NOT an answer to my question.

You said:
It was "Chariots of the Gods" in past years.
 I went through that phase soon after high school.

What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I asked what you meant by that - whether it meant that you had found new evidence that made you change your mind.  I asked:

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?

And you said no.  So I'm thoroughly confused.  Help me out, Sky - take me through it step by step.

Did you ever believe that the CotG explanation was correct?  If you didn't, can you explain what you meant by "I went through that phase"?

If you did believe it was correct, what was it made you change your mind?  You said "it was just research" - but what does that mean?  Was it new evidence?  Was it that you re-examined the evidence already there?  What specifically do you disagree with in my statement:

.....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?

I'm trying hard to follow your views, Sky, but you don't seem to be making it easy.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 07:28:30 AM
What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html


 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on July 08, 2013, 02:32:38 PM
You seem to think we need a god replacement. We don't. Multiverses or otherwise, there is no praise, no worship, no faith, nor any fairy tales required.

We work with information and informed conjecture. Religions work with whatever they have made up, which is somewhat limiting because they have horrible imaginations.

By "we" you mean you.  Unless you've been elected to office or something.
So just do it rather than preach about yourself.
This coming from the guy who keeps telling us that we f**ked up when one a**hole from long, long ago before any of us were born decided to eat an apple.

Taking advice from other people instead of from the Creator himself.
It was an option for us and we took it. Our mistake.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2013, 02:56:32 PM
What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html
So, you left one possible answer due to lack of hard data and switched to the bible, which has even less hard data? How does that work?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 03:04:00 PM
What do you mean by that?  I took it to mean that - soon after high school - you believed that the Chariots of the Gods hypothesis was correct, while today, you do not.

I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html
So, you left one possible answer due to lack of hard data and switched to the bible, which has even less hard data? How does that work?

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2013, 03:14:49 PM
I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with. I think CHoG people have grown up and now just look at rocks:
Honestly, how this is starting to look is that you thought evolution didn't explain human intelligence, so you searched for something else to explain it, like alien visitations.

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.
In other words, you couldn't find hard data for aliens, so you switched to a belief that didn't require hard data (because it could provide none) in the first place.  That makes no sense whatsoever, unless you were trying hard to avoid acknowledging hard data that existed somewhere else.  Like in evolution.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2013, 03:24:09 PM

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

That only makes sense if you completely ignore and avoid every scientific advance and discovery of the past 150 years. Which means you have to throw away the computer you are using, walk everywhere and stop washing your hands before you eat.

Even the folks who live in the very region the bible comes from accept science. You would have to live like the Amish, only really dirty. &)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 08, 2013, 03:26:05 PM


God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Right... like green plants appearing before there was the sun?

           Like a diurnal rhythm of light and darkness before there was the sun and the moon?

I see what you mean - it all makes sense, doesn't it? Anyway, it's better than having to study biology, geology and cosmology along with mathematics - answers clear cut with no work!
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 03:31:35 PM

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

That only makes sense if you completely ignore and avoid every scientific advance and discovery of the past 150 years. Which means you have to throw away the computer you are using, walk everywhere and stop washing your hands before you eat.

Even the folks who live in the very region the bible comes from accept science. You would have to live like the Amish, only really dirty. &)

Science has nothing to do with Spirit.   
Is there a scientific solution to addiction, lust, stealing, laziness, lying, obesity, loneliness.......is there even ONE scientific solution for anything that involves human choices?   Hoe about the choice to be Amish or to collect junk, or to collect money?  Any scientific solutions?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 08, 2013, 03:38:45 PM

Science has nothing to do with Spirit.   
Is there a scientific solution to addiction, lust, stealing, laziness, lying, obesity, loneliness.......is there even ONE scientific solution for anything that involves human choices?   Hoe about the choice to be Amish or to collect junk, or to collect money?  Any scientific solutions?

Answer my question above and I'll answer yours
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
Science has nothing to do with Spirit.   
Is there a scientific solution to addiction, lust, stealing, laziness, lying, obesity, loneliness.......is there even ONE scientific solution for anything that involves human choices?   Hoe about the choice to be Amish or to collect junk, or to collect money?  Any scientific solutions?
On the contrary, science explains them without requiring people to believe in banal stories about snakes tempting people into eating fruit to explain why death occurs.

More importantly, knowing the actual reasons why those things happen allows us to come up with strategies that actually work for dealing with them.  Assuming they need to be dealt with - I don't think being Amish, collecting junk, or collecting money really hurts anyone.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 03:49:39 PM


God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Right... like green plants appearing before there was the sun?

           Like a diurnal rhythm of light and darkness before there was the sun and the moon?

I see what you mean - it all makes sense, doesn't it? Anyway, it's better than having to study biology, geology and cosmology along with mathematics - answers clear cut with no work!


Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?

"The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from outer space. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

“Staggeringly, we estimate there could be one of these flashes going off every ten seconds somewhere in the sky,” http://spacefellowship.com/news/art34433/deep-space-flashes-light-up-a-new-face-of-nature.html

"For the first 380,000 years or so, the universe was essentially too hot for light to shine. The heat of creation smashed atoms together with enough force to break them up into a dense plasma, an opaque soup of protons, neutrons and electrons that scattered light like fog." http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html


So according to the Science-Fictioneers, there was light before the sun.


The time you speak of is when Adam walked in the Garden with God.  At that time
one only had to think of something and it was.  We don't live in that era.  This is not paradise.


Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
Science gives us the tools to better understand obesity, addictions and so forth. In time, we may find good solutions.  Nobody ever said that science was a magic spell that would quickly and easily fix every human problem. That is the kind of thing that religious people say about god--despite the obvious fact that science works consistently where god constantly fails. It was not god that brought the US infant mortality rate down from 50% to 6/1000 in the past 200 years.

I just spoke yesterday to a sweet Mexican woman whose grandmother had 22 children, of whom 11 survived to adulthood!  This lady has three lovely kids, all of whom will probably, barring accidents or rare illness, live long enough to have grandkids of their own.

No thanks to god or religion, since the grandmother was at least as devout a Catholic as the granddaughter, and no doubt spent a lot of time praying desperately (to no avail) for her babies to live. Clean water, vaccinations and good nutrition have kept more babies healthy than praying ever did.

No matter how much they denigrate science as useless compared to religion or spirit or whatever, I don't see many theists rejecting the goodies that science brings us. And the few that do, like the people who don't vaccinate their kids and rely on prayer alone to heal polio, suffer the consequences. (Or rather, sadly, the kids suffer the consequences...)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2013, 03:53:44 PM
Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?
Of course light was possible before the sun existed.  The question wheels was actually asking was whether having a day-night cycle was possible before the sun existed.  I think you should answer that question.

The time you speak of is when Adam walked in the Garden with God.  At that time
one only had to think of something and it was.  We don't live in that era.  This is not paradise.
I'll take that as a yes, that you do think a day-night cycle was possible before the sun existed because someone just had to think of something happening and it would happen.

You have the temerity to claim that things that scientists have deduced about the early universe are science-fiction, and then you pull out something that would fit right into pure fantasy.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 03:56:28 PM
Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?
Of course light was possible before the sun existed.  The question wheels was actually asking was whether having a day-night cycle was possible before the sun existed.  I think you should answer that question.  Light could go on and off without even clapping.

Yes.  At that time, one only had to think and it was so.  Spirit ruled the material.
There was no death at that time.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 08, 2013, 03:59:56 PM
I don't feel that we are getting anywhere but let's keep trying.

Now, for green plants to grown they need quite a lot of light - the sort of light that comes from our sun. The light that existed in the are of the galaxy that is now occupied by earth and the solar system is something like you can see on a night when there is no moon and only starlight is about. Tell, me, Skwriting, do you think that is enough for plants to grow?

Secondly, suince we are on creation, did you look carefully at the picture I posted illustrating the world which was created according to Genesis and Job 39? Did you notice anything odd about it compared with what we know to be the case today - vast universe with galaxies, stars etc. and the sun the centre of our solar system. How can you think that the biblical accounts which point to a wrong view of the universe has any validity - it is just what men thought at the time it was written.

Thirdly, let's sort out this history thing shall we? Precisely what do you content that science is not good at? I imagine you think it fine enough when forensic evidence from DNA, fibres, finger prints and the like convict a murdered who claims to be innocent? If you do, you have to accept that science can tell us about the past. Of course, it takes some reading and understanding to see how we derive this sort of stuff - criminal stuff of the origin of the universe - and we haven't all the answers... yet, but things are moving along. So, precisely what do you thing science can't manage in connection with history?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.

Damn. Will you stop repeating that lie? Most of science is about figuring out the past. That is what science does quite well. Geologists, paleontologists, archeologists, crime scene experts, even the arson investigators hired by insurance agencies recreate the past with science.

Or do you think these people get paid by petroleum companies, police departments and insurance firms to just make up random sh!t?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 08, 2013, 04:00:46 PM
Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?
Of course light was possible before the sun existed.  The question wheels was actually asking was whether having a day-night cycle was possible before the sun existed.  I think you should answer that question.  Light could go on and off without even clapping.

Yes.  At that time, one only had to think and it was so.  Spirit ruled the material.
There was no death at that time.

Nice try but evading the point. Oh, and can you quote chapter and verse for this view?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2013, 04:08:34 PM
Yes.  At that time, one only had to think and it was so.  Spirit ruled the material.
There was no death at that time.
Let me reiterate something I said before.  Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.  You need to support it with evidence, or else nobody else has any obligation to consider it anything but your opinion (or, depending on the circumstances, your fantasy).  The scientists you played at decrying in your previous post actually had observational evidence to back up what they were saying.  You don't even have that.  You just have interpretations of an ancient story, where most of the events happened before anyone was alive to witness them.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2013, 04:10:20 PM
Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?
Of course light was possible before the sun existed.  The question wheels was actually asking was whether having a day-night cycle was possible before the sun existed.  I think you should answer that question.  Light could go on and off without even clapping.

Yes.  At that time, one only had to think and it was so.  Spirit ruled the material.
There was no death at that time.

Do you actually think that god poked holes in heaven to create the stars, and then magically hung a giant ball of gas in the sky after he put plants in the ground? And that all the plants are the same age? That is what the bible says. People back then did not know that the sun was a star, or that there were stars even bigger than the sun, or that plants with spores evolved way before plants with seeds.

And then god jiggered the solar system to look like it took billions of years instead of a week to form? :-\
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 04:17:53 PM
Science is very poor at discerning the past.  Very poor. 
It's not designed for that.
But let's say that it is for a moment.
Is light before the sun possible?
Of course light was possible before the sun existed.  The question wheels was actually asking was whether having a day-night cycle was possible before the sun existed.  I think you should answer that question.  Light could go on and off without even clapping.

Yes.  At that time, one only had to think and it was so.  Spirit ruled the material.
There was no death at that time.

Do you actually think that god poked holes in heaven to create the stars, and then magically hung a giant ball of gas in the sky after he put plants in the ground? And that all the plants are the same age? That is what the bible says. People back then did not know that the sun was a star, or that there were stars even bigger than the sun, or that plants with spores evolved way before plants with seeds.

And then god jiggered the solar system to look like it took billions of years instead of a week to form? :-\

I believe He jiggered the water to taste like aged wine. That is only a belief.
I can't figure out the point of the story if it's fiction.

So

given the assumption that the wine story is correct, then the Creation story fits the same pattern.  In those days, the story goes, God just thinks stuff up and it is.  There don't seem to be any Physical restraints on what happens.  My point is that the story is internally consistent.    What God wanted, became so.  Like Jean-Luc Picard but even more authority.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2013, 04:25:16 PM
So you do believe that god hung a big gas ball in the sky after he stuck the plants in the ground. Are you 6 years old? You type quite well.  &)

I'm done for now. Whew. This is like doing social work again. :P
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 08, 2013, 04:27:37 PM
So you do believe that god hung a big gas ball in the sky after he stuck the plants in the ground. Are you 6 years old? You type quite well.  &)

I'm done for now. Whew. This is like doing social work again. :P

There were no physical restrictions.  God could have grown the plants in darkness if He choose to.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2013, 08:20:40 PM
I believe He jiggered the water to taste like aged wine. That is only a belief.
I can't figure out the point of the story if it's fiction.
Are you serious?  You can't figure out the point of the story if it's fictional, so you're assuming it's true?  Tell me, have you ever heard these words at the end of a story?  "And the moral of the story is..."?  There are usually several reasons to tell a story like that; it doesn't have to be true or factual to fulfill its purpose.  Water into wine was almost certainly intended to show off the miraculous powers that were attributed to Jesus.

Quote from: SkyWriting
given the assumption that the wine story is correct, then the Creation story fits the same pattern.  In those days, the story goes, God just thinks stuff up and it is.  There don't seem to be any Physical restraints on what happens.  My point is that the story is internally consistent.    What God wanted, became so.  Like Jean-Luc Picard but even more authority.
You do realize Picard is a fictional character, right?  Not exactly the best example to choose.  In addition, there is nothing stopping fictional stories from being internally consistent.  Indeed, the best fiction is internally consistent - sometimes even more consistent than reality.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 09, 2013, 12:54:02 AM
So you do believe that god hung a big gas ball in the sky after he stuck the plants in the ground. Are you 6 years old? You type quite well.  &)

I'm done for now. Whew. This is like doing social work again. :P

There were no physical restrictions.  God could have grown the plants in darkness if He choose to.

What is your evidence that plants in some past era could grow magically, without light?

Just saying something does not make it true, no matter how many times you say it, or where you read it, or who you heard it from. I believe Adam, Eve, the serpent, god and Michael Jackson all smoked dope and then had nightly sex orgies with blue star fairies in the garden of Eden. I obviously just made that up. Just like you are making up stuff about plants growing without light. Neither of us has any evidence for those statements, so they are both fictional-- interesting stories, maybe, but worthless as facts.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 09, 2013, 02:38:52 AM
So you do believe that god hung a big gas ball in the sky after he stuck the plants in the ground. Are you 6 years old? You type quite well.  &)

I'm done for now. Whew. This is like doing social work again. :P

There were no physical restrictions.  God could have grown the plants in darkness if He choose to.

Plants growing in the dark eh? That sounds a good workable idea and gets round the problem of no sun. Oh, juts one thought though - if your god made the plants and they are more or less now as they were then, why did it make them with a photosynthesis based energy system that only works in the light?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 09, 2013, 03:08:09 AM
I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with.

Okay.  So what you are saying is that in the past you believed something, but gave up that belief because there was no hard evidence to support it.

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Now, of course, you have chosen a different theory with no hard data.

What is different between your position then, and your position now?  What makes your position now more reasonable than your position then?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 09, 2013, 08:05:55 AM
I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with.

Okay.  So what you are saying is that in the past you believed something, but gave up that belief because there was no hard evidence to support it.

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Now, of course, you have chosen a different theory with no hard data.

What is different between your position then, and your position now?  What makes your position now more reasonable than your position then?

Thanks for the analysis.  I think you've gotten the meat now.  The former was a scientific analysis of data and facts.  There can never be any proof, and the basis for all decisions can change by way of majority opinion, or general consensus of the week.

The Christian hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on Spiritual principals that have never changed from the first day I began exploring it.  My exploration can go 100's of directions, but it is always based on the same "WHY". 

And "WHY" is the basis of all reality.  All rational thought. So when you find the correct 'WHY" in your life then everything else falls into place.

Lets's say your "Why" is Meth.  All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY.  Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends.  Or other things happen because your WHY is not a healthy one. Science is interesting, but it's not a healthy 'WHY".   Just when you think you have a handle on it, the levels just go deeper down the rabbit hole.

I've learned to have Faith in the Scriptures became they are based on the correct WHY for humans to thrive.

 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 09, 2013, 09:30:40 AM
I was searching for an answer and visitation from alien life forms seemed a possibility better than natural evolution.  Some do follow that theory.  I gave it up as a scientific solution due to lack of hard data to work with.

Okay.  So what you are saying is that in the past you believed something, but gave up that belief because there was no hard evidence to support it.

God, being Spirit, offers no hard data at all.  Everything I read fit perfectly with what I see around me.

Now, of course, you have chosen a different theory with no hard data.

What is different between your position then, and your position now?  What makes your position now more reasonable than your position then?

Thanks for the analysis.  I think you've gotten the meat now.  The former was a scientific analysis of data and facts.  There can never be any proof, and the basis for all decisions can change by way of majority opinion, or general consensus of the week.

The Christian hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on Spiritual principals that have never changed from the first day I began exploring it.  My exploration can go 100's of directions, but it is always based on the same "WHY".  .....I've learned to have Faith in the Scriptures became they are based on the correct WHY for humans to thrive.

And?  So what?  Doesn't mean any of the myth behind the teachings are true.

More to the point though, WHY did you do a scientific analysis of CotG?  Why didn't you just accept THEM as true? 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 09, 2013, 10:38:33 AM
Thanks for the analysis.  I think you've gotten the meat now.  The former was a scientific analysis of data and facts.  There can never be any proof, and the basis for all decisions can change by way of majority opinion, or general consensus of the week.

The Christian hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on Spiritual principals that have never changed from the first day I began exploring it.  My exploration can go 100's of directions, but it is always based on the same "WHY". 

And "WHY" is the basis of all reality.  All rational thought. So when you find the correct 'WHY" in your life then everything else falls into place.

Let's say your "Why" is Meth.  All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY.  Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends.  Or other things happen because your WHY is not a healthy one. Science is interesting, but it's not a healthy 'WHY".   Just when you think you have a handle on it, the levels just go deeper down the rabbit hole.

I've learned to have Faith in the Scriptures became they are based on the correct WHY for humans to thrive.

Mmm... so you are more interested in answering 'why' than 'what'? You are keen for explanations about purpose so as to direct your life? Well, I suppose holy books are as good as anything for that. I'd love to know why you chose the pone you did though - there's lots to choose from, including the Qur'an, so why the one you picked. 

Of course knowledge changes as time goes by and we find out more. For example, if you could interview some of the disciples just after Jesus died and ask them about the Trinity them would be dumbfounded and have no idea what you were talking about because the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a couple of centuries or more of theological reflection. Theology changes as people look for new things. The idea that the bible is the literal, word for word, text god wanted would have no meaning or sense for people of the 18th century as the idea hadn't been born yet.

Yet theology had its won ideas that were shown to be plain wrong by those looking at the world and the universe. Never forget that the pope had to accept that the earth was not the centre of the universe when this was demonstrated to be the case though the careful use of telescopes. In fact, science has been a process of discovery in which more and more about our world and the universe are revealed as time goes by. People thought the moon was made of cheese but we went there are brought some rock back to prove it right. We learned what caused disease and how to cure it - praying has never managed that! That science has changed its views is a good not a bad thing whilst the fact that creation still only amounts to that drawing I posted earlier - a drawing that is contrary to what we have found out - shows how holy books really lose their value.

If you want to know 'why' then for many processes of nature you are probably going to have to invent the answer as their is no purpose in nature and if you want a purpose in life you are going to have to create one too.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 09, 2013, 11:38:09 AM
I think I get it.  What you want is for things not to change.  And when you discovered that science couldn't give that to you, you turned to religion instead.  Well, I can't blame you for wanting things not to change.

The thing you don't get is that change is not only inevitable, it's unavoidable.  We live in a world that is constantly changing, and we can't make it otherwise no matter how much we wish, or imagine, or pretend otherwise.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 09, 2013, 02:52:22 PM
I think I get it.  What you want is for things not to change.  And when you discovered that science couldn't give that to you, you turned to religion instead.  Well, I can't blame you for wanting things not to change.

The thing you don't get is that change is not only inevitable, it's unavoidable.  We live in a world that is constantly changing, and we can't make it otherwise no matter how much we wish, or imagine, or pretend otherwise.

Here is what I think, from reading through SW's posts.  He is an intelligent guy, but sometimes the unfairness and uncertainty of life is just too much. He has to know that he has some way to make things work out. Prayer clearly has no effect on who suffers, since the most religious, prayerful people in the world suffer the most. Who prays more sincerely and fervently than a family with starving children? And food never magically appears to save them.

Some families in Darfur starved to death during the civil war and other families got rich from it. Some workers in Bangladesh got crushed when a factory collapsed on them and others did not go to work that day. Some families in the US go bankrupt trying to pay for health care while folks a few miles away across the border in Canada don't have to worry about medical bills at all.

The godless people in the wealthy countries of Europe have the best lives overall. People who never pray even once, but have long, healthy, stable, happy lives.
 
So, he realizes at some level that he does not have control over everything, and that realization sucks. He has been through a lot of trials--a severely disabled wife, problems with kids, etc. He could either decide that, for no particular reason, his life is just harder than average and deal with that. Or he can try to find an explanation for it.

Well, rationally, there is no explanation. There really is no evil Satan or loving creator god. There is no ultimate answer to "why". But his brain can't tolerate that uncertainty. So he has created a fantasy world where, as long as he does what he thinks god wants, things will work out. Or at least not be a bad as they could be.  So, he has invented a god who puts a bubble of protection around him and his family, as long as he prays right, "gives up his will" or whatever.

If that is how he keeps getting up every morning and puts one foot in front of the other, more power to him. But he is still living in a fantasy world....That is why his arguments are full of contradictions, why he rejects science while depending on it every day, etc.

Still, he has really livened up this board! I give him a +1 for that.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 09, 2013, 04:17:42 PM
You know, it isn't the sense of powerlessness that many religious people have that bothers me.  Or even the fact that they use religion to cope with that powerlessness.  I could live with it if that were all it was.  No, the problem is that so many of them then act like the whole thing is reality-proof, as if what they believe overrides what actually is.

I went through something like that myself when I was younger, except that it involved fantasy and sci-fi.  I wanted so badly for those created worlds to be real, so I could go there and meet the characters I'd brought to life in my own mind.  I even imagined some worlds of my own that I wanted to exist.  But I slowly realized that wanting them to be real, of believing that they were real somewhere, wouldn't make them real.  Their existence was only in my own mind - other people who imagined the characters had their own versions of those characters that only existed in their minds - and no amount of belief, of desire, would make them real people.  Even though they felt real to me, they didn't have an existence independent of me.

But you know something?  Knowing that they'll never be real doesn't bother me the way I was afraid that it would.  Because for one thing, they're actually expressions of myself.  By creating them, I learn things about myself, good or bad.  For another, even knowing that they're not real doesn't make them meaningless, anymore than reading fiction is meaningless.  And for a third, everything artificial that humans have ever made once existed only as an imaginary idea inside someone's head.  Every idea that ever came to fruition only happened because someone imagined it first.  That's an awesome power and an even more awesome responsibility, not the least of which is that some of those ideas are far better than others.

You know, it's kind of funny.  SkyWriting said that God imagined things during the Creation week, and they came to be.  But in actual fact, everything that humans have ever made came about because we imagined them, and worked to make them.  To me, that's so much better than just having stuff pop into existence simply because we think of it, because having worked for it, we value it so much more.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 09, 2013, 05:23:00 PM
Good points. We humans are struggling to make gourmet meals from scratch, while god just has to nuke a hot pocket in the microwave. Maybe that is why god plays so fast and loose with his creation. He did not have to work very hard to make anything, so he does not appreciate it.

The sun will go supernova and we will be all "Ahhhhhh!" God will say, "So sorry, you weren't really using that solar system, were you? Most of it was just going to waste." And blows out the match.

Easy come, easy go. :P
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: alexreflex on July 09, 2013, 06:55:20 PM
Lets's say your "Why" is Meth.  All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY.  Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends. 
if meth is my "Why" and it's fucking up my life, i would readily accept criticism, look inward at my folly and i may still continue doing it.  that would be different than your ridiculous insistence that your god is the truth and all the bullshit that comes with it must be defended and rationalized at all costs.

I've learned to have Faith in the Scriptures became they are based on the correct WHY for humans to thrive.

bullshit.  you can have your faith, but don't try that "correct WHY" throat job.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 11, 2013, 04:04:59 PM
Lets's say your "Why" is Meth.  All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY.  Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends. 
if meth is my "Why" and it's fucking up my life, i would readily accept criticism, look inward at my folly and i may still continue doing it.

You can either test your theory on what you would do or find additional support
for your theory in the form of published data or create your own.
If you have a good "Why" for your actions, you'll be more likely to
succeed in your goal of finding the answer.   

No person lifts their pinky finger from the ground
without a good reason why, first.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 11, 2013, 04:12:26 PM
You know, it isn't the sense of powerlessness that many religious people have that bothers me.  Or even the fact that they use religion to cope with that powerlessness.  I could live with it if that were all it was.  No, the problem is that so many of them then act like the whole thing is reality-proof, as if what they believe overrides what actually is.

I went through something like that myself when I was younger, except that it involved fantasy and sci-fi.  I wanted so badly for those created worlds to be real, so I could go there and meet the characters I'd brought to life in my own mind.  I even imagined some worlds of my own that I wanted to exist.  But I slowly realized that wanting them to be real, of believing that they were real somewhere, wouldn't make them real.  Their existence was only in my own mind - other people who imagined the characters had their own versions of those characters that only existed in their minds - and no amount of belief, of desire, would make them real people.  Even though they felt real to me, they didn't have an existence independent of me.

But you know something?  Knowing that they'll never be real doesn't bother me the way I was afraid that it would.  Because for one thing, they're actually expressions of myself.  By creating them, I learn things about myself, good or bad.  For another, even knowing that they're not real doesn't make them meaningless, anymore than reading fiction is meaningless.  And for a third, everything artificial that humans have ever made once existed only as an imaginary idea inside someone's head.  Every idea that ever came to fruition only happened because someone imagined it first.  That's an awesome power and an even more awesome responsibility, not the least of which is that some of those ideas are far better than others.

You know, it's kind of funny.  SkyWriting said that God imagined things during the Creation week, and they came to be.  But in actual fact, everything that humans have ever made came about because we imagined them, and worked to make them.  To me, that's so much better than just having stuff pop into existence simply because we think of it, because having worked for it, we value it so much more.

We are made in God's image.  It's great to see how you appreciate the connection between how God made Creation and how man creates.  Your quite a thinker.  You even came up with a great explanation of why God has us laboring under the effects of Sin in the first place:

"To me, that's so much better than just having stuff pop into existence simply because we think of it, because having worked for it, we value it so much more."

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 11, 2013, 04:18:45 PM
Thanks for the analysis.  I think you've gotten the meat now.  The former was a scientific analysis of data and facts.  There can never be any proof, and the basis for all decisions can change by way of majority opinion, or general consensus of the week.

The Christian hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on Spiritual principals that have never changed from the first day I began exploring it.  My exploration can go 100's of directions, but it is always based on the same "WHY". 

And "WHY" is the basis of all reality.  All rational thought. So when you find the correct 'WHY" in your life then everything else falls into place.

Let's say your "Why" is Meth.  All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY.  Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends.  Or other things happen because your WHY is not a healthy one. Science is interesting, but it's not a healthy 'WHY".   Just when you think you have a handle on it, the levels just go deeper down the rabbit hole.

I've learned to have Faith in the Scriptures became they are based on the correct WHY for humans to thrive.

Mmm... so you are more interested in answering 'why' than 'what'? You are keen for explanations about purpose so as to direct your life? Well, I suppose holy books are as good as anything for that. I'd love to know why you chose the pone you did though - there's lots to choose from, including the Qur'an, so why the one you picked. 

Of course knowledge changes as time goes by and we find out more. For example, if you could interview some of the disciples just after Jesus died and ask them about the Trinity them would be dumbfounded and have no idea what you were talking about because the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a couple of centuries or more of theological reflection. Theology changes as people look for new things. The idea that the bible is the literal, word for word, text god wanted would have no meaning or sense for people of the 18th century as the idea hadn't been born yet.

Yet theology had its won ideas that were shown to be plain wrong by those looking at the world and the universe. Never forget that the pope had to accept that the earth was not the centre of the universe when this was demonstrated to be the case though the careful use of telescopes. In fact, science has been a process of discovery in which more and more about our world and the universe are revealed as time goes by. People thought the moon was made of cheese but we went there are brought some rock back to prove it right. We learned what caused disease and how to cure it - praying has never managed that! That science has changed its views is a good not a bad thing whilst the fact that creation still only amounts to that drawing I posted earlier - a drawing that is contrary to what we have found out - shows how holy books really lose their value.

If you want to know 'why' then for many processes of nature you are probably going to have to invent the answer as their is no purpose in nature and if you want a purpose in life you are going to have to create one too.

Nothing happens unless your "Why" is bigger than inertia.   I've noticed people with a lot of mass to them will not move much until their why gets big enough.   Why runs everything.  "How" come next.  Then "What".
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 11, 2013, 04:33:03 PM
We are made in God's image.  It's great to see how you appreciate the connection between how God made Creation and how man creates.  Your quite a thinker.  You even came up with a great explanation of why God has us laboring under the effects of Sin in the first place:
While I appreciate the compliment, I have to disagree.  I don't think humans ever possessed the magical ability to create things out of nothing in the Genesis story, and that means that there was never any need for this "sin" or its effects to begin with.  There was no reason to make a paradisaical garden for humans to live in, only to kick them out later on, and there was no reason to have "work for what you want" be a punishment to begin with.  There was no reason to threaten Adam and Eve with death if they ate that fruit, either (especially since they didn't actually die).

The second Genesis story is the kind made by people who are trying to explain the harsh life that they had to deal with, along with the yearning for an easier life (which has been something that humans have desired pretty much forever).  But that doesn't make it true, simply because it was passed down as true.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 11, 2013, 04:50:18 PM
What is the "why" for god?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 11, 2013, 04:52:25 PM
We are made in God's image.  It's great to see how you appreciate the connection between how God made Creation and how man creates.  Your quite a thinker.  You even came up with a great explanation of why God has us laboring under the effects of Sin in the first place:
While I appreciate the compliment, I have to disagree.  I don't think humans ever possessed the magical ability to create things out of nothing in the Genesis story, and that means that there was never any need for this "sin" or its effects to begin with.  There was no reason to make a paradisaical garden for humans to live in, only to kick them out later on, and there was no reason to have "work for what you want" be a punishment to begin with.  There was no reason to threaten Adam and Eve with death if they ate that fruit, either (especially since they didn't actually die).

If one is walking side by side with God, then humans would have no need to do any creating themselves.  There would be no "themselves".   So you make a good point.  Man did not "create things" from his imagination.  I stand corrected.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Traveler on July 11, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
...We are made in God's image...

(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b85/GreyhoundMama/invisiblegod_zps9a034139.jpg)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 11, 2013, 04:59:11 PM

Or stated another way, we are a reflection of God.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Traveler on July 11, 2013, 05:03:23 PM
You should fix your quote. It makes it look as if I said what you said.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme 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? :-\
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme 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. ;)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: magicmiles on July 11, 2013, 08:07:44 PM
But nobody forces us to be here--

Except lack of free will, of course.

"ducks"
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on July 11, 2013, 08:09:18 PM
How is the lack of free will a "somebody"?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: magicmiles 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.



Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme 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] ;)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: magicmiles on July 11, 2013, 09:00:45 PM
[stroking MM's lustrous Thor-like hair] ;)

(http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo79/penno73/thor_zps382de646.png)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: magicmiles on July 11, 2013, 09:09:10 PM
I tend towards the opposite. Gets me into strife.

FTR, you made a valid point.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.
 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.   
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 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.

[wiki]Abiogenesis[/wiki] 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting 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.

[wiki]Abiogenesis[/wiki] 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 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.

[wiki]Abiogenesis[/wiki] 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.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Truth OT 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median 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?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 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.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 12, 2013, 11:17:24 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?

The point of that post was to illustrate that any outside influence
if it were to occur, would not be reproducible or demonstrable.
There is no error in knowing the limitations of ones research.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 12, 2013, 11:26:58 AM
I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting.  Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God?  How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Bear in mind that you're claiming that God does things in the physical universe at the same time as you state that physical evidence doesn't apply to God.  This is a major contradiction; how do you resolve it?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 12, 2013, 11:55:09 AM
I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting.  Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God?  How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. 
I've not had any so far.


Quote
Bear in mind that you're claiming that God does things in the physical universe at the same time as you state that physical evidence doesn't apply to God.  This is a major contradiction; how do you resolve it?

According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Dante on July 12, 2013, 02:14:51 PM
I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting.  Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God?  How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. 
I've not had any so far.

You would know if you've had failed connnections? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 12, 2013, 03:57:56 PM
Bear in mind that you're claiming that God does things in the physical universe at the same time as you state that physical evidence doesn't apply to God.  This is a major contradiction; how do you resolve it?

According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.

Ah, but how does god manage to relate to the believers. Does he -

Oh, and where can we find this in the bible - chapter and verse please.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on July 12, 2013, 04:55:34 PM
According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.

So he used believers to completely flood the Earth, killing everyone.  Hazard a guess as to how those believers went about it?

Also, according to what you've said, he used Adam and Eve to remove the legs of the snake in the Garden of Eden, along with its ability to talk.

And Lot's wife was turned to salt by...believers.  Which ones?

Sorry, SkyWriting.  Your claim runs totally counter to scripture.

EDIT:  Looking more closely at your wording - are you saying that a few thousand years ago, God had direct control of matter, but lost it at some point in the interim?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 12, 2013, 05:01:13 PM
Lets's say your "Why" is Meth.  All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY.  Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends. 
if meth is my "Why" and it's fucking up my life, i would readily accept criticism, look inward at my folly and i may still continue doing it.

You can either test your theory on what you would do or find additional support
for your theory in the form of published data or create your own.
If you have a good "Why" for your actions, you'll be more likely to
succeed in your goal of finding the answer.   

No person lifts their pinky finger from the ground
without a good reason why, first.

A lot of times we don't know why we do things.

Who can say why we are attracted to certain people and not to others? Religions say it is all because of a powerful creator being. So there is no need to question further. Except we have to wonder why the creator being made some people gay and attracted to the same sex, some people asexual and attracted to nobody, and some people pedophiles attracted to children.

Science gives a better way to investigate these things, logically and systematically.  We may not get the answers quickly. We may get wrong answers sometimes. And we may not get the answers we want. But we will get answers with more support than any religion has.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on July 12, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting.  Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God?  How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. 
I've not had any so far.


So, every time you pray to god, you get exactly what you ask for? Without fail? Or do you get some result that you decide was what you wanted or needed all along? I think I already asked you why you don't ask god to end all child abuse, famine and warfare. Please. God will listen to you, or so you say.

(You copped out before, and told me that I should fix those things. I am not the all powerful creator. I can only do so much, because I have to work in the real world. But the creator god could rearrange reality to fix it instantly, right?)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Samothec on July 12, 2013, 05:37:15 PM
About the garden of eden
Yes.  At that time, one only had to think and it was so.  Spirit ruled the material.
There was no death at that time.
Not true according to scripture. God warns Adam he will die if he eats from the tree. The warning is meaningless gibberish if death does not already happen.

"Do not eat from the tree at the center of the garden or you will barglewop." G
"Um, barglewop? What does that mean?" A
"When you are barglewop, you no longer move and eat and breath." G
"So, sleep." A
"No, barglewop. With sleep you do breath and eventually wake up. When you are barglewop you never get up again." G
"Why would I never get up again?" A
"Because you would no longer live." G
"But I do live. How would I not live? Will I be happy not-living?" A
"No, you will be barglewop and your snitfong will go to Antpharm." G
"Where is Antpharm? Is it a nice place? What is my snitfong? Why would only part of me go to Antpharm?" pauses then asks, "Is my snitfong my penis when it is hard? And is Antpharm Eve's –" A
"SHUT UP AND DO NOT EAT FROM THE TREE!" G


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 can't be persuaded away from intelligent design because intelligence gets things done, and stupid produces nothing.
By your 'logic' that means plants are intelligent? They grow and reproduce but if they have no intelligence they couldn't do that? Or was that just very badly stated?

So no matter exists in a life form? What are we made of then?

Biological activity is at its basis chemical activity and matter does interact chemically. I thought they would have covered this at your school too. Oh, just so you know, chemistry at its basis is physics.


This relates to an issue that I think contributes to people like SW failing to grasp how the universe works. In our (American and wherever SW grew up) schools we teach the sciences as different subjects – biology, chemistry, physics, etc – but we never really teach how they are all interconnected. So a true understanding does not occur for many people. They don't see that you can't deny evolution without denying the rest of science upon which our technology works. Yes, a few have so they seek to corrupt the teaching of science in general – mainly the YEC who depend upon the lack of understanding to sell their crap product.



Expanding upon wheels5894 point about odds and coincidence. If there is a 1 in a billion chance how rare is that? A crucial unspoken aspect is the time frame. A 1 in a billion chance over how long a time? A century? A decade? A month? A day? If the event is 1:1,000,000,000 chance each day per person then it will happen on average 7 times today and every day. So what sounds rare isn't really. Now, 1:1,000,000,000 chance each decade per person means an average of 7 times in this decade. A rare event but happening close to once per year worldwide.

So, if abiogenesis has a 1:100 trillion chance to happen – per when? Per lightning strike (if that is how it happened)? Well there are many tens of thousands per year[1]. If I call it 100,000 per year then abiogenesis has a 1:1 billion chance of happening per year. So after 1 billion years abiogenesis is not guaranteed to happen but is extremely likely.

If it was instead a chemical reaction near underwater thermal vents called white smokers.
Quote
White smoker vents emit lighter-hued minerals, such as those containing barium, calcium, and silicon. These vents also tend to have lower temperature plumes. These alkaline hydrothermal vents also continuously generate acetyl thioesters, providing both the starting point for more complex organic molecules and the energy needed to produce them. Microscopic structures in such alkaline vents "show interconnected compartments that provide an ideal hatchery for the origin of life".
Chemical reactions happening every minute of every hour of every day in even only a few thousand well, some numbers:  5000 white smokers times every minute gives 2,628,000,000 chances per year. Meaning a 1:100 trillion chance becomes extremely likely in only 38,051.75 years. A 1:1 quintillion chance (1 with 18 zeroes after it) means 380,517,503.81 years. And it only takes that long if it happens on the last occurrence of 1 quintillion.

When you consider the facts, the idea of abiogenesis is quite reasonable.
 1. the Wiki article on lightning strikes had no info on how many strikes
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on July 12, 2013, 09:26:35 PM

The point of that post was to illustrate that any outside influence
if it were to occur, would not be reproducible or demonstrable.
There is no error in knowing the limitations of ones research.

A few points here:

1. As I said before you haven't demonstrated there is such as thing the "non-natural"

2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that the concept of "outside influence" makes any sense whatsoever

3. Even if such "influence" were possible, there is absolutely no reason for merely assuming what is or is not possible regarding it. Again you are making assumptions based in your own credulity.

Finally, yes, you should know the limitations of your research enough to admit when you are ignorant of things (including cosmology and what is or is not possible).
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 13, 2013, 09:10:51 AM

The point of that post was to illustrate that any outside influence
if it were to occur, would not be reproducible or demonstrable.
There is no error in knowing the limitations of ones research.

A few points here:

1. As I said before you haven't demonstrated there is such as thing the "non-natural"

2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that the concept of "outside influence" makes any sense whatsoever

3. Even if such "influence" were possible, there is absolutely no reason for merely assuming what is or is not possible regarding it. Again you are making assumptions based in your own credulity.

Finally, yes, you should know the limitations of your research enough to admit when you are ignorant of things (including cosmology and what is or is not possible).

1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.
2.  See 1.
3.  Such assumptions are required.  If I could test them, they would be under my control and natural.
 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: alexreflex on July 13, 2013, 05:23:22 PM
I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.
i know what you mean.  i have this teleporting ability that i'm trying to control.  just wait till you see it.  me and sky will unveil it any minute now.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on July 13, 2013, 07:53:25 PM

The point of that post was to illustrate that any outside influence
if it were to occur, would not be reproducible or demonstrable.
There is no error in knowing the limitations of ones research.

A few points here:

1. As I said before you haven't demonstrated there is such as thing the "non-natural"

2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that the concept of "outside influence" makes any sense whatsoever

3. Even if such "influence" were possible, there is absolutely no reason for merely assuming what is or is not possible regarding it. Again you are making assumptions based in your own credulity.

Finally, yes, you should know the limitations of your research enough to admit when you are ignorant of things (including cosmology and what is or is not possible).

1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.
2.  See 1.
3.  Such assumptions are required.  If I could test them, they would be under my control and natural.
 

1. Only using my natural senses huh? So you think you have senses that aren't natural? Again, please demonstrate how you know this. So far, all you keep doing is making empty claims that are indistinguishable from fairy tales.

2. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise, there is no reason to take what you say seriously (anymore than any other quack fundamentalist, astrologer, dumb dumb, propping up superstition).

3. NOPE! 100% wrong. Another arbitrary statement you haven't backed up. "Such assumptions" are NOT required for anything. That is the fallacy you keep telling yourself to continue believing the lie of your religion (which you assumed from the start of it), but it's a false assumption. This statement demonstrates quite clearly that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true. You just want to believe what makes you feel comfortable. Hey, if you don't really care about truth that much, no problem. Just say so - but then of course that makes you little more than a troll on these forums (someone who just came to be an ass and start shit with everyone instead of someone who truly cares to have an intellectually honest discussion about whether their beliefs stand up to sound critical thinking). 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 13, 2013, 08:46:18 PM
Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. 
I've not had any so far.
I find this completely unbelievable.  It is far, far, far more likely that you are applying [wiki]confirmation bias[/wiki] without realizing it[1].  Basically, you only remember the times when events conform to your beliefs; when they don't, you don't consider it a hit.  Since you're only remembering the hits and not the misses, you thus believe that you haven't actually had any misses.

Quote from: SkyWriting
According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.
It doesn't matter if God acts on his own or acts through believers - it's still him acting directly on things that exist in the universe.  If he's acting through believers, then he's still acting on those believers.  It's like when you have an electrical current flowing through a wire; the wire is affected by the presence of the current even though the current itself is just passing through.  Thus, the contradiction still exists - there should still be still physical evidence of God's actions, on the believers that he's presumably acting through.
 1. Especially note the part about how the effect of confirmation bias is stronger for emotional issues and entrenched beliefs.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 13, 2013, 11:05:55 PM
Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. 
I've not had any so far.
I find this completely unbelievable.  It is far, far, far more likely that you are applying [wiki]confirmation bias[/wiki] without realizing it[1].  Basically, you only remember the times when events conform to your beliefs; when they don't, you don't consider it a hit.  Since you're only remembering the hits and not the misses, you thus believe that you haven't actually had any misses.
 1. Especially note the part about how the effect of confirmation bias is stronger for emotional issues and entrenched beliefs.

That is a valid theory.   Except There have only been a hand full of requests for God
to immediately step in and handle a crisis.  And the response has been 100%.
So confirmation bias is ruled out.

There are PLENTY of times I've prayed for green traffic lights so I could get to an
appointment on time.  I've never taken those prayers seriously and would not count
any such frivolous requests, even thought the "results" seem to be on the high side. 
That I would attribute to confirmation bias.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 13, 2013, 11:15:07 PM
Thus, the contradiction still exists - there should still be still physical evidence of God's actions, on the believers that he's presumably acting through.

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.
I don't think that reaches the "physical" threshold you mentioned though. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 13, 2013, 11:29:11 PM
1. Only using my natural senses huh? So you think you have senses that aren't natural?

I have noted prayers being answered and having a "conversation" with another being who answers.  This is not considered "natural" by natural man or by spiritual people.

Quote
2. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise, there is no reason to take what you say seriously.

You are not even required to respond to a post of mine.
You have no responsibilities to me at all.

Quote
3.  This statement demonstrates quite clearly that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true.

I already have "tested" my faith and found it true.  The most interesting aspect of "Faith"
is that it clears a lot of cobwebs out of ones thinking that kept me from logically
believing in the Christian faith.  Things that only show up after one assumes that
it's not all rubbish.   For example, someone asked me about how Judas died because
the two descriptions were different.  I "knew" they were not.   By assuming they were not
I was able to easily see how the two descriptions were illustrating the same event. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 14, 2013, 06:15:33 AM
Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. 
I've not had any so far.
I find this completely unbelievable.  It is far, far, far more likely that you are applying [wiki]confirmation bias[/wiki] without realizing it[1].  Basically, you only remember the times when events conform to your beliefs; when they don't, you don't consider it a hit.  Since you're only remembering the hits and not the misses, you thus believe that you haven't actually had any misses.
 1. Especially note the part about how the effect of confirmation bias is stronger for emotional issues and entrenched beliefs.

Confirmation bias seems to affect a lot of Christians who come here. As far as claiming prayer to be effective, it is an essential tool since objective studies of prayer seem to point to there being no effect at all.
Quote
Quote from: SkyWriting
According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.
It doesn't matter if God acts on his own or acts through believers - it's still him acting directly on things that exist in the universe.  If he's acting through believers, then he's still acting on those believers.  It's like when you have an electrical current flowing through a wire; the wire is affected by the presence of the current even though the current itself is just passing through.  Thus, the contradiction still exists - there should still be still physical evidence of God's actions, on the believers that he's presumably acting through.

Of course the other possibility I mentioned might really be the answer here - that there is either no god or one away on extended leave and the 'believers' just act by following the simple rules in the holy book or rather the rules they like and adapt the rest to suit their own ideas. Thus they follow the 'loving god' bits and ignore quite a bit of 'loving enemies' and make up stuff like anti-abortion and anti-evolution.

Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 14, 2013, 08:05:21 AM
Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?

20 years of examination of the facts.  I do know when confirmation bias apply's and when It doesn't.  I've experienced both.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on July 14, 2013, 03:13:07 PM
The very definition of confirmation bias is that you don't know when it's happening.  If you knew when it was happening then you wouldn't be biased.

None of us are immune to falling for it.  Claiming you are is...funny.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on July 14, 2013, 03:17:19 PM
The very definition of confirmation bias is that you don't know when it's happening.  If you knew when it was happening then you wouldn't be biased.

None of us are immune to falling for it.  Claiming you are is...funny.

Just look at his posts and count the instances of the letter "I". Also, his internet footprint is a sad truth.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 14, 2013, 04:25:29 PM
The very definition of confirmation bias is that you don't know when it's happening.  If you knew when it was happening then you wouldn't be biased.

None of us are immune to falling for it.  Claiming you are is...funny.

I didn't say I was immune to it. I said it can be recognized in hindsight.
And I am aware of when it can happen.  You funny. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 14, 2013, 06:37:52 PM
That is a valid theory.   Except There have only been a hand full of requests for God
to immediately step in and handle a crisis.  And the response has been 100%.
So confirmation bias is ruled out.
No, it isn't.  Indeed, the fact that you can only think of a few times when you made these requests actually strengthens the likelihood that it's confirmation bias on your part rather than a legitimate actor working on your behalf.  For example, you could easily have rationalized something that seemed crisis-like down to something more manageable that you could (and did) handle on your own when your prayer wasn't granted without being aware that you were even doing it.  This is how the human mind operates.  Things that seemed far more critical and important to me when I was younger (or even a few weeks ago) dwindle in importance over time.  Eventually, they drop completely off the radar - matching my revised expectations of their importance, after the fact.  I'm not at all surprised that you don't remember them - as I said, this happens subconsciously unless you make a deliberate effort to get around it (say, by recording every event as it happens in a way that isn't subject to fallible human memory)

I was playing a tabletop RPG a few weeks ago, and I rolled a natural 20 (instant critical hit) - and then rolled another natural 20 to confirm it.  You can be sure I'll be remembering that one for a long time.  But I couldn't tell you the results of most of the other rolls, except a general feeling that I wasn't especially lucky.  Give me a few months, and the only thing I'll remember out of that session is that pair of 20s.

Quote from: SkyWriting
There are PLENTY of times I've prayed for green traffic lights so I could get to an
appointment on time.  I've never taken those prayers seriously and would not count
any such frivolous requests, even thought the "results" seem to be on the high side. 
That I would attribute to confirmation bias.
Did you actually read the page on confirmation bias?  Confirmation bias is when your subconscious adjusts your expectations of reality to match what you thought should have happened with what actually happened.  As you just said, you wouldn't expect such frivolous prayers to be answered in the first place, so there was no need for confirmation bias to wipe away the discrepancy when they didn't actually happen.

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.
I don't think that reaches the "physical" threshold you mentioned though.
But it does illustrate confirmation bias, since I seriously doubt those people remember all the other times they woke up in the middle of the night when nothing special was happening.  People remember the times that stand out and forget the ones that don't.

Anyway, to address the other point, it doesn't matter whether it's minor or major.  If God does something, it leaves behind traces that could be detected.  And that completely leaves aside the problem that comes as a result of picking examples like that - you're making God essentially powerless to do practically anything unless a believer does it for him (more to the point, does it with only their own abilities - so much for miracles such as divine healing, turning water to wine, and magically multiplying food to feed a giant crowd!), in order to avoid the thorny issue of explaining why he doesn't leave traces of himself behind that could be picked up.  And that flat-out ignores all the times that people attribute some event to God - not some believer doing it for him, but God actually doing something in the world.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on July 15, 2013, 12:24:55 AM
Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?

20 years of examination of the facts.  I do know when confirmation bias apply's and when It doesn't.  I've experienced both.

In case you hadn't noticed, what you just stated above is a contradiction. If you don't know when confirmation bias applies,  and when it doesn't, how you could know that you have "experienced both"? This is why I posted that quote earlier (irrationality and illogical arguments). However, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. For that, congrats. So now that you've acknowledged that you can't tell when you're practicing confirmation bias, don't you think it would be a good idea to do some research and find out when you are - so that you can stop doing it?

Furthermore, 20 years of "examination" isn't any good if you have been practicing confirmation bias and/or ignoring facts that would overturn your life investment in one interpretation of the bible.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on July 15, 2013, 01:14:25 AM
I have noted prayers being answered and having a "conversation" with another being who answers.  This is not considered "natural" by natural man or by spiritual people.

Nearly every religion on the planet makes similar claims to having a special god detector but it doesn't make them real. Claiming that you have had "answered prayer", or claiming you have conversation with some divine deity, doesn't mean that you actually do. You could just as easily (and far more likely) be misinterpreting your own self projections (which is very common around the world). This is why we have peer reviewed science (using logic, reason, and evidence) in order to separate fact from fiction.

You are not even required to respond to a post of mine.
You have no responsibilities to me at all.

Could you be anymore redundant?

You have made multiple extraordinary claims on this forum and have been asked to demonstrate how you know those claims refer to something actually real. You've also been asked whether you actually care if your beliefs are true or not - to which you avoided the question by making yet another mere claim to knowledge (more empty claims with no evidence).

So again, it seems you aren't really interested in having a real discussion about your belief system and whether or not it stands up to logical rigor. Most of us here are interested in rational interchange and intellectual honesty - not empty claim making and question avoidance. Can you handle that? If so, please demonstrate it.


I already have "tested" my faith and found it true.  The most interesting aspect of "Faith"
is that it clears a lot of cobwebs out of ones thinking that kept me from logically
believing in the Christian faith.  Things that only show up after one assumes that
it's not all rubbish.   For example, someone asked me about how Judas died because
the two descriptions were different.  I "knew" they were not.   By assuming they were not
I was able to easily see how the two descriptions were illustrating the same event.

What you have just described is called...CONFIRMATION BIAS. 

This thing that you call "faith" is the demonstration of believing things when you have no good reason to do so (as well as starting with your conclusion, which is backwards). This is why faith is not a pathway to truth. It is unreliable for separating fact from fiction (and it too you assumed was valid b/c you merely read the bible and ASSUMED IT was true). The sign of the absurdity of this "faith" is when you pretend to know things that you don't know. It is an excuse that you are making when you don't have good reason for believing these claims. It is unreliable when other religions do it and it is unreliable when you do it.

So this idea that you "tested" your faith is absurd. Once you have tested something it is no longer faith. And I completely understand why you would say that your faith "clears the cobwebs" - b/c it's easy just to believe something without having to do any critical examination or disinterested investigation (i.e. - any hard work to get rid of the cobwebs!). Believing first and then looking for confirmation is both lazy and backwards, and again, it's called Confirmation Bias. It's wrong for everyone including you.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 15, 2013, 11:34:33 AM
So again, it seems you aren't really interested in having a real discussion about your belief system and whether or not it stands up to logical rigor.

There are no claims of faith that stand up to logical rigor.
I'm amused that no one has figured that out and you
need a person of faith to tell you that.  The rules of this
forum do not allow people like myself to engage you in
conversation.  I'm not supposed to be here and am being
monitored so that I don't make any statements that are
contrary to your world view.   I'll be lucky if this is post
is approved because I am fully aware that Faith of any
kind is the opposite end of the spectrum from "logic".

But you folks are under the illusion that faith is logical.
It's not.  Faith is the opposite of logic.   It is accepting
the unseen.  Sorry.   Your rules only allow for liars.
So that who you get to talk to.

Faith defies logic.  Your rules only allow liars who pretend
that faith is logical.  They are sucking up to the lie that
faith is logical. It never is. That's the Truth.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 15, 2013, 11:40:06 AM
Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?

20 years of examination of the facts.  I do know when confirmation bias apply's and when It doesn't.  I've experienced both.

In case you hadn't noticed, what you just stated above is a contradiction. If you don't know when confirmation bias applies,  and when it doesn't, how you could know that you have "experienced both"? This is why I posted that quote earlier (irrationality and illogical arguments). However, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. For that, congrats. So now that you've acknowledged that you can't tell when you're practicing confirmation bias, don't you think it would be a good idea to do some research and find out when you are - so that you can stop doing it?

Furthermore, 20 years of "examination" isn't any good if you have been practicing confirmation bias and/or ignoring facts that would overturn your life investment in one interpretation of the bible.

You are free to read between the lines.  But it's good form to read the lines again a second time.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 15, 2013, 11:46:25 AM
That is a valid theory.   Except There have only been a hand full of requests for God
to immediately step in and handle a crisis.  And the response has been 100%.
So confirmation bias is ruled out.
No, it isn't.  Indeed, the fact that you can only think of a few times when you made these requests....<snip>

Right.   But it's only happened 4 times.  With 100% response rate.

The other times are like job interviews and getting good traffic lights. 
I remember those times as well.   And I have had amazing results
in those instances as well. That is likely due to bias.

But the crisis prayers are 100%.  No failures.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 15, 2013, 11:50:38 AM
Did you actually read the page on confirmation bias?

Yes.  It said the bias was small and predictable. 
It said it was measurable and could be analysed
and examined. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 15, 2013, 12:09:52 PM
I didn't say I was immune to it. I said it can be recognized in hindsight.
No, what you're talking about here is rationalization, similar to confirmation bias, but not the same thing.  If you rationalize some event after the fact, it can look like you're recognizing confirmation bias.  One difference between the two is that rationalization happens consciously, whereas confirmation bias happens subconsciously.  If you rationalize away, say, traffic lights not operating according to the way you think they should operate, it's different than when confirmation bias alters the way you expect traffic lights to operate.

To put it another way, when you ran across that farmer's field where he'd just made a driveway just when you needed it, you rationalized it to match your expectations that God had done it just for you (since you 'released' yourself to him) even though these things had been done weeks in advance of your arrival, when it was far more likely that chance just broke in your favor.  Confirmation bias is forgetting all those times when things didn't break in your favor, assuming that it just wasn't important enough for God to do something about it when you 'released' yourself, and so on.

Quote from: SkyWriting
And I am aware of when it can happen.  You funny.
First off, there's a difference between recognizing that you can fall prey to confirmation bias and recognizing it when it actually happens to you.  You can't rely on your memory, because your memory is subject to confirmation bias too.  You have to actually write it down or otherwise record it when it happens, along with any other pertinent information.  Only then can you make sure that you aren't forgetting things that didn't conform to your expectations, and only remembering things that did.

Second, lay off of the cheap taunts.  That just makes you look childish and immature - not the best things to be in this situation.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 15, 2013, 12:11:55 PM
Hey, congrats on #3000, jaimehlers.

You and I sure know how to waste time, don't we.  ;D
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 16, 2013, 03:03:02 AM
Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.

Can I ask: how do you determine the success rate of such stories?  Do the people posting them tell about the times when they believed their god was telling them something, and (when they got to the river) there was nobody there?

Do you think those people simply write it off in the same way as you do your trivial prayers?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 16, 2013, 03:03:53 AM
1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.

Interesting.  Please can you define "non-natural senses", and explain I can use or develop them?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on July 16, 2013, 04:18:46 AM
1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.

Interesting.  Please can you define "non-natural senses", and explain I can use or develop them?

This sounds like a 'get around' for the problem of communication with the non-material world people think is there. Whether it is the ghost of Aunt Pat of Jesus, some people claim to be able to communicate yet, clearly, there would need to be a place in the brain that can detect what these non-material entities are saying and this leaves open the possibility that the communication could be detected - either by detecting the 'signals' as they are received or by monitoring the brain of a person and detecting a change brought on by such 'communication'.

Of course, the problem with this for a believer is that nothing would be detected in the way of signals and the brain would show patterns of sub-conscious activity prior to the subject being away of a 'communication' making it quite likely that the whole is derived in the brain of the subject. This would account for the fact that any 'communication' a person receives always seem to match their own view of the world and their own view of what they might do.

Of course, another test suggests itself - has anyone, ever received a 'communication' from the non-material world which gave information that was not known at the time? If people who claim to talk to gods or whatever only ever hear things that are already known the source of everything would seem to be the subconscious whereas as genuinely new information has the possibility of showing the existence of a non-material world. I'm not expecting anything from this source, though!
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 16, 2013, 07:50:39 AM
1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.

Interesting.  Please can you define "non-natural senses", and explain I can use or develop them?

This sounds like a 'get around' for the problem of communication with the non-material world people think is there. Whether it is the ghost of Aunt Pat of Jesus, some people claim to be able to communicate....

I agree with everything you've said, but I think the crucial point for Sky to answer is not so much whether it can be detected, but to provide a concrete explanation of how those senses can be guaranteed to be developed.

His point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 17, 2013, 08:00:34 AM
This sounds like a 'get around' for the problem of communication with the non-material world people think is there. Whether it is the ghost of Aunt Pat of Jesus, some people claim to be able to communicate yet, clearly, there would need to be a place in the brain that can detect what these non-material entities are saying and this leaves open the possibility that the communication could be detected - either by detecting the 'signals' as they are received or by monitoring the brain of a person and detecting a change brought on by such 'communication'.

Of course, the problem with this for a believer is that nothing would be detected in the way of signals and the brain would show patterns of sub-conscious activity prior to the subject being away of a 'communication' making it quite likely that the whole is derived in the brain of the subject. This would account for the fact that any 'communication' a person receives always seem to match their own view of the world and their own view of what they might do.

Of course, another test suggests itself - has anyone, ever received a 'communication' from the non-material world which gave information that was not known at the time? If people who claim to talk to gods or whatever only ever hear things that are already known the source of everything would seem to be the subconscious whereas as genuinely new information has the possibility of showing the existence of a non-material world. I'm not expecting anything from this source, though!

I'm nor sure what you're saying but I'll try to address the topic because it fascinates me.   The only "communication" I've personally received is a "Peace" or "Assurance" that I've been heard.

This has been followed by a complete "solving" of the emergency I was concerned about.  This "communication" is one of "peace" followed by a very dramatic "solving" of my problem.   I use the term "conversation" for these two events.  The "conversation" is one sided at first, but by fully solving the crisis, and assuring me that it "has been" solved, it really feels like I have been listened to better than any human could possibly could have. 

It's a feeling that is impossible to dismiss.  I knew one person in my life that really listened.  As the cards go, she was married.  But wow, could she listen and hear.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 17, 2013, 08:12:06 AM
Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.

Can I ask: how do you determine the success rate of such stories?  Do the people posting them tell about the times when they believed their god was telling them something, and (when they got to the river) there was nobody there?

Do you think those people simply write it off in the same way as you do your trivial prayers?

There is more to the story.  In the snow storm, on the other side of the river was a man escorting people who were being persecuted for their faith.  They got to the river in the middle of the night and the boat was the only way across, during daylight hours of course.

The group prayed for help in this crisis situation and the boat-man arrived as they prayed.  During the crossing, he told them about being woken up an hour earlier by what he called the "Holy Spirit" to go to the river and help people waiting there.

Granted.  The whole supposedly true story could have been fiction.  I have no way to know.
But it was just like my own experiences, so I never forgot it. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 17, 2013, 08:16:37 AM
Nearly every religion on the planet makes similar claims to having a special god detector but it doesn't make them real.

I'm not aware of that.  I don't know of any such Christian claims either.
Most claim that God is a mystery and invisible.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 17, 2013, 08:19:11 AM
To put it another way, when you ran across that farmer's field where he'd just made a driveway just when you needed it, you rationalized it to match your expectations that God had done it just for you (since you 'released' yourself to him) even though these things had been done weeks in advance of your arrival, when it was far more likely that chance just broke in your favor.

Not likely at all.  The emergency was immediate, as was my conversation.
And it has worked like that each time so chance is ruled out.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on July 22, 2013, 09:54:56 PM

There are no claims of faith that stand up to logical rigor.
I'm amused that no one has figured that out and you
need a person of faith to tell you that.  The rules of this
forum do not allow people like myself to engage you in
conversation.  I'm not supposed to be here and am being
monitored so that I don't make any statements that are
contrary to your world view.

There you go again making more assumptions. What worldview? Have I stated my view? NOPE. This is (once again) your delusion , likely sold to you by other religious followers who got it from those before them. Atheism is NOT a worldview. How many times do we have to tell you people this? Atheism is the lack of belief is god or gods. That is all. Anything else is NOT atheism.

Secondly, stop crying about being moderated. The moderation you are now receiving is completely warranted given your actions here at WWGHAF - especially your childish refusal to answer questions directly and forthrightly.

Finally, thanks for admitting that faith fails. So why are you living by that which fails? Could it be b/c you ASSUMED the bible was "the word of God" and absolutely refuse to consider any interpretation of it other than the one you assumed? More confirmation bias! More importantly, it is quite a contradiction to claim that you care whether or not your beliefs are true only to base your life upon big assumptions which have their foundation in credulity and confirmation bias.

Can you see why many of us find you dishonest? 


But you folks are under the illusion that faith is logical.
It's not.  Faith is the opposite of logic.   It is accepting
the unseen.  Sorry.   Your rules only allow for liars.
So that who you get to talk to.

So you admit that you are deliberately lying to us in your conversations here? WOW. That is quite amusing for someone who claims to be a follower of Christ. However, you are quite wrong in your charge. I am not at all under some delusion that faith is logical. I know faith is irrational (aka - illogical which is the opposite of logical) - and that is why it is to be rejected. How comical it is that you rejected my quotation of House ("If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people.") only to then demonstrate exactly the point of the quote. Your belief system is irrational - and as such ought to be rejected. But like nearly every religious person on the planet, you hold onto it IN SPITE of the knowledge that it is absurd and irrational (just as I did for over a decade) - and you do so in hypocrisy b/c you don't live your life that way in consistency (aka the salesman at the door asking you to just have faith in his magic product).

Yes, faith is the opposite of logic. It is pretending to know things you don't know, believing things when you have no good reason to do so, and deliberately blinding yourself from contrary evidence. Again you have demonstrated, quite clearly, that you do not care whether or not your beliefs are actually true - otherwise you wouldn't be relying on faith (but rather logic, reason, and evidence). You just want to believe what you want to believe b/c it makes you feel comfortable.


Faith defies logic.  Your rules only allow liars who pretend
that faith is logical.  They are sucking up to the lie that
faith is logical. It never is. That's the Truth.

I appreciate your honesty, but it still doesn't give you a pass on separating fact from fiction. See how you've sacrificed your rational mind for credulity and superstition? Faith is absolutely useless in separating fact from fiction in any reliable sense. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. Your problem is that you merely read the bible and believed what it said BEFORE doing any critical disinterested investigation (like you would with other books or weird claims). You believed it "on faith" merely because IT SAID to do so. Yet you DO NOT do that with other claimed holy books, salesmen at your front door, or other supernatural claims. So, you are practicing intellectual hypocrisy.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on July 22, 2013, 11:10:09 PM
^Actually, his statement that faith is not logical/rational and thus he can't present evidence to support logic or rationality is fairly honest.  How many theists have ever come out and just admitted that?  I know there's been a few, but I think they're in the minority.

The problem is not that faith is illogical/irrational.  The problem is basing your entire worldview on something that you know is illogical/irrational, and moreover, acting like it's then supported by the evidence that actually exists - even though it is 'unseen' and thus doesn't produce any such evidence.  And moreover, claiming that it's then virtuous because you can't prove it, but believe it anyway.

Forget logic and rationality - that attitude doesn't even make sense.  It's like claiming that someone who falls for a con job is virtuous because they believed the con man.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on July 23, 2013, 02:49:44 AM
Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.

Can I ask: how do you determine the success rate of such stories?  Do the people posting them tell about the times when they believed their god was telling them something, and (when they got to the river) there was nobody there?

Do you think those people simply write it off in the same way as you do your trivial prayers?

There is more to the story.....

And, once again, Sky dodges the questions that were actually posed.   And is ignoring my questions about how to develop "non-natural senses". 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 25, 2013, 08:54:00 AM
The problem is basing your entire worldview on something that you know is illogical/irrational, and moreover, acting like it's then supported by the evidence that actually exists - even though it is 'unseen' and thus doesn't produce any such evidence.  And moreover, claiming that it's then virtuous because you can't prove it, but believe it anyway. Forget logic and rationality - that attitude doesn't even make sense.  It's like claiming that someone who falls for a con job is virtuous because they believed the con man.

I don't lord over others that my faith is virtuous.  I just believe that it is.  It's not "more" virtuous  than when I was not a believer, nor am I more now because of it. I understand now that I'm a much bigger problem than I thought.   I thought I could deal with my badness myself.   I am simply better informed about reality now as a believer than I was before.

Before, I had unanswerable questions about the most fundamental aspects of human experience.  Why are people bad, why are they good, why are we self aware, what caused humans to exist, why do we exist, ???

Now I understand better.  Not all, just much better. Now I have a "handle" on all those questions and more. I have "tools" useful for understanding, pride, murder, death, life, love, sex, and why man is so weird and confused about all those subjects.

It "happens" that the answer is not "natural".   As a result of not being "natural" it will not be rational or logical to the natural worldview.

My worldview is now based on a number of new-to-me assumptions about reality, and all of those questions listed above.  Because of my answers to all those questions,  my worldview has changed and I don't have to be able to justify everything or prove everything naturally.   Some of my "proofs" are now "constructs of thought" rather than facts and figures.
If I say something about someones worldview, I'm simply acknowledging than mine is different.  I'm not going to put somebody down because they are thinking just like I used to think.  I honor their journey wherever it leads.  They, or me, may be gone tomorrow.
   
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on July 25, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
There you go again making more assumptions. What worldview? Have I stated my view? NOPE. This is (once again) your delusion , likely sold to you by other religious followers who got it from those before them. Atheism is NOT a worldview. How many times do we have to tell you people this? Atheism is the lack of belief is god or gods. That is all.

That's a pretty big difference in worldview from mine.  Mine covers good, bad, right, wrong, life , death, love, marriage, where humans come from and where they are going, how long we live, and why.  My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 06, 2013, 03:49:05 PM
I would be willing to bet that in your day-to-day life, you act pretty much the same as any of us. Despite your worldview giving you a much greater understanding of life, the universe and everything, you can't really explain more. Strange, how knowing so much more does not seem to make much of a difference in the lives of religious people. They are not healthier, wealthier or wiser because of believing things they cannot prove. They expend so much time and energy fighting against reality.

I almost wish there was a heaven for them all to go to. Otherwise it is such a sad waste. :-\
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on August 07, 2013, 11:05:17 PM
My worldview is now based on a number of new-to-me assumptions about reality, and all of those questions listed above.  Because of my answers to all those questions,  my worldview has changed and I don't have to be able to justify everything or prove everything naturally.   Some of my "proofs" are now "constructs of thought" rather than facts and figures.
If I say something about someones worldview, I'm simply acknowledging than mine is different.  I'm not going to put somebody down because they are thinking just like I used to think.  I honor their journey wherever it leads.  They, or me, may be gone tomorrow.
This, I think, illustrates the problem with your worldview.  You're basing it on a number of assumptions.  And the problem with assumptions is that they tend to be based on bad information or simply wrong, especially when the person making them thinks they don't need to be validated.  There's a reason we have things like Occam's Razor, to remind us that assumptions should be kept to the absolute minimum.

You might be satisfied with those assumptions of yours.  So, too, are the millions of other people who make similar assumptions that they can't support.  But even at that, if it were only your own personal beliefs, there would be no problems.  However, you're acting as if you've discerned universal truths, rather than personal ones.  And that's a serious problem.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: William on August 07, 2013, 11:59:22 PM
My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity.

That is arrogant disdain for all the great theologians who have gone before you.
That is also an insult to your deity - because it implies that it would wait, through all the turmoil and suffering of religious history, for little you to turn up so that truth can finally find the light of day.

Sorry to pop your bubble  :-\
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on August 08, 2013, 02:49:57 AM
(Sky's) point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on August 08, 2013, 07:36:42 AM
Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

SkyWriting is bogarting god. 

SkyWriting, quit bogarting god.  Nobody likes a god hog.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 08, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
SkyWriting is bogarting god. 
SkyWriting, quit bogarting god.  Nobody likes a god hog.

I agree.
and

…10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

and
 
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ...
//bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 08, 2013, 08:05:34 PM
My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity.

That is arrogant disdain for all the great theologians who have gone before you.
That is also an insult to your deity - because it implies that it would wait, through all the turmoil and suffering of religious history, for little you to turn up so that truth can finally find the light of day.

You've logiced me into being a Catholic.   Rats.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 09, 2013, 06:04:21 PM
There you go again making more assumptions. What worldview? Have I stated my view? NOPE. This is (once again) your delusion , likely sold to you by other religious followers who got it from those before them. Atheism is NOT a worldview. How many times do we have to tell you people this? Atheism is the lack of belief is god or gods. That is all.

That's a pretty big difference in worldview from mine.  Mine covers good, bad, right, wrong, life , death, love, marriage, where humans come from and where they are going, how long we live, and why.  My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity.

You just missed my point a second time. Are you that dense? Atheism IS NOT a worldview. It deals with ONE question on ONE claim. That is all.

Secondly, just because your worldview covers the things you listed above (XYZ stuff), so what! It doesn't mean your beliefs (and/or interpretations) about those things are actually accurate or true.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 09, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Before, I had unanswerable questions about the most fundamental aspects of human experience. 

By what standard (exactly), or what method of evaluating evidence, did you use to determine that these questions are "unanswerable"??

You do know this is called the Argument from Incredulity fallacy, don't you?


Why are people bad, why are they good, why are we self aware, what caused humans to exist, why do we exist, ???

And even if we had no answers for these questions what makes you think we should just make your same assumptions? Why not just admit when you don't know things instead of jumping to conclusions just b/c you feel uncomfortable?


Now I understand better.  Not all, just much better. Now I have a "handle" on all those questions and more. I have "tools" useful for understanding, pride, murder, death, life, love, sex, and why man is so weird and confused about all those subjects.

Being confused about these things (when you claim you were) doesn't give you logical justification for assuming your interpretation of your bible (as an answer) - anymore than any other religion. Just because an answer tickles your ears doesn't make it true. For that you need actual sound evidence, and it is that which you do not have.


It "happens" that the answer is not "natural".   As a result of not being "natural" it will not be rational or logical to the natural worldview.

It just so 'happens' that Magical Unicorns are not natural. Does that convince you? Just CLAIMING there is something "not natural" doesn't mean there is. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

My worldview is now based on a number of new-to-me assumptions about reality, and all of those questions listed above.

Thank you for admitting that you have ASSUMED your position in advance instead of actually withholding judgment and investigating. We only wish you would have done this earlier. Now, why have you done this? Do you think it's A-OK to merely assume your worldview? I'd like to see you be a little bit more consistent with that line of assuming.

Because of my answers to all those questions,  my worldview has changed and I don't have to be able to justify everything or prove everything naturally.   Some of my "proofs" are now "constructs of thought" rather than facts and figures.
If I say something about someones worldview, I'm simply acknowledging than mine is different.  I'm not going to put somebody down because they are thinking just like I used to think.  I honor their journey wherever it leads.  They, or me, may be gone tomorrow.

Well now it just sounds like you're backing away from your own prior statements on this forum (where you, many times, have attempted - in one way or another - to either show others wrong or poke holes in their reasoning) - all the while failing to demonstrate there is anything such as the "non-natural".

Now, you think "constructs of thought" are not natural? How so? Because, so far as has been shown (in neuroscience and elsewhere) minds are products of physical substrates (brains). I'm sorry, but it really looks as if your alleged 30 years of studying wasn't as exhaustive as you would have some believe.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 09, 2013, 08:20:30 PM
Now SW says that there is a "natural" worldview and some "other" worldview, based on who knows what, which is the worldview that he holds.

Well, I would argue that every worldview is natural. Every worldview comes from the workings of someone's brain, and brains are natural. Brains are made up of biological and chemical reactions, as far as anyone can tell. So, until someone can demonstrate a non-biological, non-chemical brain process or function, we have to continue to assume that there are only natural worldviews. The difference is that some natural worldviews are based on concrete evidence, ie reality, and some are not.

And atheism is not by itself a worldview at all, only an observation about the world. Just look at the discussions we have about guns, education, health care, free will and so on to see that atheists don't all have the same worldview--we just don't think there are any gods.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on August 10, 2013, 02:47:24 AM
(Sky's) point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

<< rocks on heels, whistles tunelessly, glances at watch >>
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: William on August 10, 2013, 03:39:12 AM
You've logiced me into being a Catholic.   Rats.

 :laugh: You can thank your deity's cryptic and selective communication strategy for that.

I can understand, even sympathise, if you don't like the Pope's version of God's MO on earth, but I don't see that as a valid excuse for behaving like a mini-Pope in your own right.  Doing exactly what the Pope does by claiming to be God's only anointed representative on earth, but in your case only for your personal cocoon in space and time.

How can you expect anyone to share or even respect your little subset beliefs - unless you successfully assert mini-Pope-like authority?  You have to claim to have superior access to your deity's wavelengths.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on August 10, 2013, 07:11:33 AM
Obviously it isn't me that thinks that if there are so many versions of gods based on the same texts then, really, we know for certain that most are wrong. That's based on the premise that there is actually one version that describes an 'actually existing' god and that one of the various holy books was actually written with the truths about that god. Now given that there are quite a lot of holy books, with the bible being just one, then any one person's take on a god based on any of the books must be, entirely, a god concept generated by the person who then looks back to a holy book to justify that god concept.

Now various people seem to be claiming that they can know about a god or other by themselves with no books needed - a sort of god-sense. All we need to know about that is 'how can a person claiming this distinguish between the subconscious part of their brain telling them things as a god telling them things'. That answer would help enormously in understanding how people get beliefs and what they are.

Come on, Skywriting, tell us.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 11, 2013, 01:26:56 AM
^^^ Yes SW, please tell us how you distinguish between SPAG and an alleged deity.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 11, 2013, 08:40:23 PM
All we need to know about that is 'how can a person claiming this distinguish between the subconscious part of their brain telling them things as a god telling them things'.

Science says that the subconscious is the source of dreams.
If dream scientists say that dreams are the source of god,
then it must be true.   Is that what they say?
 


 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 11, 2013, 08:46:37 PM
Now SW says that there is a "natural" worldview and some "other" worldview, based on who knows what, which is the worldview that he holds.

Well, I would argue that every worldview is natural. Every worldview comes from the workings of someone's brain, and brains are natural. Brains are made up of biological and chemical reactions, as far as anyone can tell. So, until someone can demonstrate a non-biological, non-chemical brain process or function, we have to continue to assume that there are only natural worldviews. The difference is that some natural worldviews are based on concrete evidence, ie reality, and some are not.

And atheism is not by itself a worldview at all, only an observation about the world. Just look at the discussions we have about guns, education, health care, free will and so on to see that atheists don't all have the same worldview--we just don't think there are any gods.

If you were to read some background on the topic you are discussing, 
then you'd have more information.

http://biblez.com/searchtopical.php?q=%22natural+man%22
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 11, 2013, 08:49:15 PM
I'm sorry, but it really looks as if your alleged 30 years of studying wasn't as exhaustive as you would have some believe.

I made no claims about "exhaustive" -ness. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Graybeard on August 12, 2013, 06:36:19 AM

If you were to read some background on the topic you are discussing, 
then you'd have more information.

http://biblez.com/searchtopical.php?q=%22natural+man%22

Your claim to 1:Cor:2:14 being background is false

Quote
10these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

What you have in the above is pre-suppositionalism. First the reader has to accept there is a God and then they must accept that this god explains the difference between “reality” and “spiritual reality.”

This differs from a normal person’s view of the world in which first he establishes that the source is objectively present.

I am very surprised that you take 1:Cor as support of anything.

Even theologically, Paul, seems to be self-contradictory. As usual, Paul (or whoever wrote 1Cor) makes statements that seem to him to be logical, but upon analysis, are not.

Quote
16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

As “the Lord” and Christ are one, how would it be possible not to know the “mind of the Lord” yet “have the mind of Christ”?

Paul never defines “spirituality”. This is not unreasonable as there is no precise definition such that a reasonable person could understand the term and agree on it with others. However, it is this lack of the ability to provide a satisfactory definition that shows that it is the figment on one man’s imagination.

There is little doubt that Paul suffered from a mental illness, his conversion on the road to Damascus is a classic example of temporal lobe epilepsy[1] in which the patient sees visions that have no basis in reality.[2] This tends to indicate To the sufferer, the illusion is very real indeed, but to normal people, who experience nothing, it appears to be madness.

So to summarise:
1. The passage you claim as background is irrelevant, illogical, and misleading
2. The person alleged to have written it was given to seizures that created illusions that, to him, were indistinguishable from reality.
3. To accept that the testimony of Paul was accurate, we would have to accept that a mental aberration was the norm and that it is the rest of the entire population of the world who are at fault. I would liken this to the amputee with one leg saying that normality is having one leg.


edti - fixed end note, I hope.
 1.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/
 2. It is interesting to note that the two accounts of Paul’s conversion differ significantly.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 12, 2013, 10:48:50 AM
Now SW says that there is a "natural" worldview and some "other" worldview, based on who knows what, which is the worldview that he holds.

Well, I would argue that every worldview is natural. Every worldview comes from the workings of someone's brain, and brains are natural. Brains are made up of biological and chemical reactions, as far as anyone can tell. So, until someone can demonstrate a non-biological, non-chemical brain process or function, we have to continue to assume that there are only natural worldviews. The difference is that some natural worldviews are based on concrete evidence, ie reality, and some are not.

And atheism is not by itself a worldview at all, only an observation about the world. Just look at the discussions we have about guns, education, health care, free will and so on to see that atheists don't all have the same worldview--we just don't think there are any gods.

If you were to read some background on the topic you are discussing, 
then you'd have more information.

http://biblez.com/searchtopical.php?q=%22natural+man%22

How was my statement inaccurate? The brain is an organ of the body made of cells, molecules and atoms, the same as the heart and the spleen.  Like every other part of the body, the brain functions by biology and chemistry. And, like all the other parts of the body the brain's functions can be explained quite well by scientific investigation.  Your brain does not have any more supernatural connections to the universe than your kneecap.

Would you allow someone who had no medical knowledge or training, but who believed strongly in god and used bible verses as references, to operate on your kneecap? heart? brain? Or would you prefer to have someone who did not believe in any gods, and had never read the bible in their life, but was an expert in the medical science of how the human body functions?

I don't think the bible, written thousands of years ago by people ignorant of neuroscience, gives accurate information on how people's brains work. And when it comes right down to it, even you agree with that.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: wheels5894 on August 12, 2013, 11:50:37 AM
Nogodsfor me is quite right about the operation of the brain. We may have a lot to know about how the brain works but we are pretty clear as to basics and, especially, the fact that the seat of thoughts etc is the brain itself and the mind which is just the action of the brain.

We could not, I think, rule out the possibility that there are 'other dimensions' in which, for example, there might be a god and nor can we completely rule out the possibility that the brain could in some way we don't know manage to communicate with 'another dimension'. However, evidence that this can be done is going to have to some from people now and form demonstrations of this happening in a suitably controlled environment. Heck, scientists round the world would love to see such a demonstration as it would open up more research possibilities as well as, possibly, leaving much of our physics in disarray.

What is not going to happen is anyone taking any notice of an ancient book when trying to describe how the brain works. The ancient Greeks and Hebrews didn't even know the brain was where the emotions are situated - never mind how the brain might work. So quoting the bible is not going to help if you want to convince others about the possibility of communications with 'other worlds' or with gods.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: naemhni on August 12, 2013, 12:01:53 PM
Nogodsfor me is quite right about the operation of the brain. We may have a lot to know about how the brain works but we are pretty clear as to basics and, especially, the fact that the seat of thoughts etc is the brain itself and the mind which is just the action of the brain.

It really is surprising to me how many people still don't understand and/or accept this.  I can only assume that it's rooted in denial caused by fear of death, or something like that.

Quote from: Paul Churchland
If there really is a distinct entity in which reasoning, emotion, and consciousness take place, and if that entity is dependent on the brain for nothing more than sensory experiences as input and volitional executions as output, then one would expect reason, emotion, and consciousness to be relatively invulnerable to direct control or pathology by manipulation or damage to the brain. But in fact the exact opposite is true. Alcohol, narcotics, or senile degeneration of nerve tissue will impair, cripple, or even destroy one's capacity for rational thought.  Psychiatry knows of hundreds of emotion-controlling chemicals (lithium, chlorpromazine, amphetamine, cocaine, and so on) that do their work when vectored into the brain. And the vulnerability of consciousness to the anesthetics, to caffeine, and to something as simple as a sharp blow to the head, shows its very close dependence on neural activity in the brain. All of this makes perfect sense if reason, emotion, and consciousness are activities of the brain itself. But it makes very little sense if they are activities of something else entirely.

Source: Paul Churchland, "Matter and Consciousness"
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 12, 2013, 04:14:18 PM
You see, religious people know and accept all this brain research. But only as it applies to people in other religions. Other religious people are being tricked by their brains into thinking that a different god is talking to them. Because they don't know the true god.... &)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 12, 2013, 08:25:06 PM

If you were to read some background on the topic you are discussing, 
then you'd have more information.

http://biblez.com/searchtopical.php?q=%22natural+man%22

Your claim to 1:Cor:2:14 being background is false

Quote
10these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

What you have in the above is pre-suppositionalism. First the reader has to accept there is a God and then they must accept that this god...

These are both presuppositions provided by the url of this website:
" Why won't God heal Amputees."

The question presupposes both the existence of amputees and God. I use the website title
as the starting place for all my answers. Both exist for the purposes of this forum.

Presupposition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Presupposition (disambiguation).
In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Examples of presuppositions include:

Jane no longer writes fiction.
Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction.

Have you stopped eating meat?
Presupposition: you had once eaten meat.

Have you talked to Hans?
Presupposition: Hans exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition

So any complaints must be taken up with the website owner, not me.
That god exists is the premise for this website.
The question being: Why does God not replace legs. 
Because God is Spirit.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 12, 2013, 08:31:49 PM
Would you allow someone who had no medical knowledge or training, but who believed strongly in god and used bible verses as references, to operate on your kneecap?

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 12, 2013, 08:34:07 PM
You see, religious people know and accept all this brain research. But only as it applies to people in other religions. Other religious people are being tricked by their brains into thinking that a different god is talking to them. Because they don't know the true god.... &)

There is only one God. 
People have many descriptions....because God is only here in Spirit, not physical form.   
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 13, 2013, 02:26:12 AM
I'm sorry, but it really looks as if your alleged 30 years of studying wasn't as exhaustive as you would have some believe.

I made no claims about "exhaustive" -ness.

WOW. Are you really that much of a dismissive jerk? I put quite a bit of effort into my last response to your claims and instead of actually responding to them you simply copy and past the very last sentence of my entire post and provide some wimpy one liner backpedal for an answer?

Yay! Another "follower" of Jesus! NOT...
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 13, 2013, 02:42:24 AM

If you were to read some background on the topic you are discussing, 
then you'd have more information.

http://biblez.com/searchtopical.php?q=%22natural+man%22 (http://biblez.com/searchtopical.php?q=%22natural+man%22)

Yes, like every religion does, we know you can (and have) merely ASSUMED your bible is the authority. But I don't care what you can assume. Anyone can assume anything. I care what you can actually demonstrate to be true and accurate - and that's because I actually care whether or not my beliefs are true (which is why I practice skepticism quite equally, which apparently you do not - especially when it comes to the bible). So the question is, why have you assumed this alleged holy book is true? For the longest time now we have been waiting for you to provide demonstrable evidence - not just claims.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on August 13, 2013, 09:35:05 AM
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.
I refuse to believe that you thought about this statement.  Any entity capable of powering on a computer and typing words should immediately recognize the silliness and dangers of this kind of thinking.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on August 13, 2013, 10:08:46 AM
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.


I do not believe this for one moment.  While you play dumb on the internets, you are not actually that dumb.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 13, 2013, 10:40:15 AM
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.


I do not believe this for one moment.  While you play dumb on the internets, you are not actually that dumb.
Yeah-- now he's just making crap up to be annoying. He never responds, he just reacts.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on August 13, 2013, 10:42:16 AM
These are both presuppositions provided by the url of this website:
" Why won't God heal Amputees."

The question presupposes both the existence of amputees and God. I use the website title
as the starting place for all my answers. Both exist for the purposes of this forum.
You do realize that even imaginary things exist, right?  Harry Potter exists, within the pages of the Harry Potter books, within the brains of the people who have read the books, and within various and sundry fanfics written about him.  But that doesn't make him or his exploits real.  Therein lies the problem with your latest argument.  The statement (or presupposition) that God exists doesn't prove that God is real.

Quote from: SkyWriting
So any complaints must be taken up with the website owner, not me.
That god exists is the premise for this website.
The question being: Why does God not replace legs. 
Because God is Spirit.
Nope, because you are not making the same argument as the website owner (which I think we both know).  The presupposition that God exists is meaningless in and of itself, because something does not have to be real in order to exist.  See my Harry Potter example above.  What you have to prove is that God is real, not that God exists.

Furthermore, your attempt to answer the question posed by this website is pretty worthless.  Saying that God doesn't heal amputees because God is spirit has no inherent meaning.  You might as well have said, "God doesn't heal amputees because God is supernatural", or "God doesn't heal amputees because God is immaterial", but those don't actually answer the question.  They don't explain why God doesn't heal amputees, they simply assert something about God which has no actual relevance to the question asked.

So first off, define what you mean by 'spirit'.  You've said that you differ from 99% of Christianity, so we need to know what you mean by spirit.  It's clear that we shouldn't assume that some existing definition of the word 'spirit' will suffice.  Once you define it, we can go from there.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 13, 2013, 10:51:03 AM
Would you allow someone who had no medical knowledge or training, but who believed strongly in god and used bible verses as references, to operate on your kneecap?

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

You did not respond to my questions. No medical knowledge, only the bible, versus a medically trained expert with no bible. And you ignored the part about the brain being made up of cells, molecules and atoms just like the rest of the body's organs. Or does your brain have some special section with supernatural stuff in there that nobody else has?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 13, 2013, 01:40:23 PM

These are both presuppositions provided by the url of this website:
" Why won't God heal Amputees."

The question presupposes both the existence of amputees and God. I use the website title
as the starting place for all my answers. Both exist for the purposes of this forum.

Presupposition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Presupposition (disambiguation).
In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Examples of presuppositions include:

Jane no longer writes fiction.
Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction.

Have you stopped eating meat?
Presupposition: you had once eaten meat.

Have you talked to Hans?
Presupposition: Hans exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition)

So any complaints must be taken up with the website owner, not me.
That god exists is the premise for this website.
The question being: Why does God not replace legs. 
Because God is Spirit.


As with most religious apologists you once again demonstrate another equivocation in terms to suit your assumptions. If Jane was demonstrated as no longer writing fiction, then it was not a presupposition. If Hans was demonstrated as existing, then it was NOT a presupposition (stop the urge to equivocate on the term 'exist'!). You are deliberating attempting to change the meanings of words and that is dishonest. WWGHA Forum does NOT presuppose a God exists, and what you keep failing to do is consider the meaning of what is stated. The flaw is in your deliberate literalist misinterpretation of language, and not in the meaning of the language itself. 

Your presupposition (aka - implicit assumption about the world) is that the bible is accurate in it's claims to the miraculous. That is credulity.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 13, 2013, 01:43:35 PM

There is only one God. 
People have many descriptions....because God is only here in Spirit, not physical form.

Yet another faulty assumption based upon your mountain of faulty assumptions regarding the bible and your interpretation of it.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 13, 2013, 01:44:40 PM

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Care to demonstrate that?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 13, 2013, 09:08:41 PM

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Care to demonstrate that?

Not liking a doctors diagnosis of my condition I continued to seek additional council of anyone who would see me.  After 5 physicians I found one who recognized my problem.  I would gladly have accepted the advice of even the janitor if it had been offered.   Thanks to the delay I have scars across my face.  Similar to this situation:
http://livingwellwithabaddiagnosis.blogspot.com/2010/10/cellcept-shingles-and-boils-oh-my.html
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 13, 2013, 09:10:49 PM

There is only one God. 
People have many descriptions....because God is only here in Spirit, not physical form.

Yet another faulty assumption based upon your mountain of faulty assumptions regarding the bible and your interpretation of it.

The Bible is useful.   But not where I got my faith from.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 13, 2013, 11:22:29 PM
If Jane was demonstrated as no longer writing fiction, then it was not a presupposition. If Hans was demonstrated as existing, then it was NOT a presupposition. 

Sorry you disagree with the definitions and examples that normal society approves of.
I can see why it would disturb your logic. 



Definition of PRESUMPTIVE
1
: based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee>
2
: giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
3
: being an embryonic precursor with the potential for forming a particular structure or tissue in the normal course of development <presumptive retina>
— pre·sump·tive·ly adverb  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumptive



presumption

1 an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, especially at the start of a chain of argument or action:
the presumption of guilt has changed to a presumption of innocence
 an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain:
underlying presumptions about human nature
 chiefly Law an attitude adopted in law or as a matter of policy toward an action or proposal in the absence of acceptable reasons to the contrary:
the planning policy shows a general presumption in favor of development



 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 13, 2013, 11:26:01 PM
Quote from: nogodsforme link=topic=23188.msg566002#msg566002
You did not respond to my questions.

Anyone can see I answered your question completely.   
Anybody.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 13, 2013, 11:34:42 PM
  What you have to prove is that God is real, not that God exists.

I check all the rules.  Your claim is false.  Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.  I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.  Not as a mathematical proof. Science can't prove anything. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Graybeard on August 14, 2013, 04:39:32 PM

The Bible is useful.   But not where I got my faith from.

Yeah, making up reasons to believe in invisible friends as you go along saves all that time wasted by reading the ramblings of superstition, Iron-Age goatherders, doesn't it?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 14, 2013, 04:52:32 PM

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Care to demonstrate that?

Not liking a doctors diagnosis of my condition I continued to seek additional council of anyone who would see me.  After 5 physicians I found one who recognized my problem.  I would gladly have accepted the advice of even the janitor if it had been offered.   Thanks to the delay I have scars across my face.  Similar to this situation:
http://livingwellwithabaddiagnosis.blogspot.com/2010/10/cellcept-shingles-and-boils-oh-my.html
But you did not seek the advice of a janitor or an airline pilot or a shoe clerk or a minister of the bible. You continued to seek help from medically trained doctors. Until one figured out what was wrong. And you blame medical science, that solved your problem, for your problem.

I am sorry you had health problems. But do you really think a person with zero medical information, ie the janitor, would have helped you figure out what treatment you needed? If so, why go to doctors for help at all? Just go to the janitor. It would be much cheaper.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 14, 2013, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: nogodsforme link=topic=23188.msg566002#msg566002
You did not respond to my questions.

Anyone can see I answered your question completely.   
Anybody.

No. Bible alone vs medical science alone. Which one solves health problems better?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Graybeard on August 14, 2013, 05:01:30 PM
Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.
Constructs can be hypothetical, can't they? I think we all agree that the idea of deities is a valid construct, as are fairies, gnomes and unicorns.

Quote
I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.

If I may paraphrase: "I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement." = "I say He is real because I say so." Hmmm...

Quote
Science can't prove anything.

Come on! I assume you are saying that ultimately, everything is a probability. Now, at a quantum level, that is true but in the world we inhabit, it is irrelevant. All around you are objects based upon science. Science will tell you why they work, how they work and, if they fail, why they failed. The drugs you took to cure your illness worked. They were the result of science. You personally may think that science is just some sort of magic spell worked by those in league with Satan, but I see that you are only too willing to take advantage of it, whilst at the same time using carefully constructed phrases to denigrate the world's logical acceptance of science.

It could be that, or it could be that your thought processes, particularly your critical thinking, is mired in the 17th century. (Just out of interest, how much science that has been revealed since 1800 do you accept?)

Of course, I see your problems
(i) if science is correct, then your god is a delusion and what you say you know of him is all garbage.
(ii) If you don't understand much about science, it is much easier to believe in some deity that looks after you and did absolutely everything. At the same time, you can agree that other deities look after other people and those other deities also created everything.
(iii) your god is one you created yourself to agree with all you say and do - effectively, you are worshipping yourself - this may or may not be beneficial for some people.
(iv) admitting (iii) breaks the spell, doesn't it?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 14, 2013, 06:01:09 PM
  What you have to prove is that God is real, not that God exists.

I check all the rules.  Your claim is false.  Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.  I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.  Not as a mathematical proof. Science can't prove anything.

(my emphasis)

Science can't prove anything.

Yet you drive a car with a fire inside it, that somehow does not blow up and kill you when you turn the key; you drink water from your faucet rather than from your toilet even though you cannot see any difference; you have a toilet and a sewer system instead of a hole in the ground that leaks into your water supply; you can put food in the fridge instead of leaving it out all night to spoil; you talk on the phone not knowing how your voice is carried to the other person; you even use a computer based on so much [unproveable] physics it would fill several textbooks.

You could live without the science you dislike so much right now-- in a 3rd world village lacking well-lit, well-paved roads, access to medical care, electricity, sewers, or running water. Where babies and kids die from things that we have school-kid vaccinations for here in the US. Where almost nobody makes it past 65 or 70. I've done it. I've seen babies die of typhoid in front of me. I've had malaria and parasites.

But you know you don't want to do that, because you have already passed the life expectancy of many poor countries. You did not die as a child from parasites, diarrhea, smallpox or malaria. Despite many stresses and problems, you live far better than you would 100 years ago, 500 years ago or 1500 years ago. Because of science.

Know what? I love science. Science can't prove anything and can't fix everything. Except it has made possible everything that makes you better off than people in the 3rd world, or your great-great-great grandparents.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on August 14, 2013, 09:32:27 PM
I check all the rules.  Your claim is false.  Besides, I only claim to argue any and all cases from the basis that God exists as a construct as written in the scriptures.  I also claim to believe He is real as a personal statement.  Not as a mathematical proof. Science can't prove anything.
This is such an inane statement that I'm surprised you felt the need to make it.

First off, no, my claim is not false.  If you want to convince anyone else that your god is real, you have to provide things other than your personal opinion and ancient stories.  Otherwise, you're taking the position of relativism - that the only thing that matters is that you believe and can find things to support your belief.  That makes you the same as someone who believes in Harry Potter, or Darth Vader, or whoever.  And furthermore, you're unable to then contradict their beliefs without also contradicting your own, because none of them are based on anything but a personal, subjective opinion and apocryphal works (or, in the case of modern fiction, fictional works).

Sure, it's true that science can't 'prove' anything beyond any possible doubt.  But that's a meaningless statement, because every other method we've come up with to discover things is inferior - usually far inferior - to the scientific method.  Your personal belief, supported by stories from the Bible, doesn't even come close.  It's like claiming that a 99% chance of success isn't worth undertaking because it isn't perfect, and then trying to suggest that your 20% is worth it because you believe in it.  Not that numbers are the best way to put this, but I think you catch my drift.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 15, 2013, 08:07:12 AM
I am sorry you had health problems. But do you really think a person with zero medical information, ie the janitor, would have helped you figure out what treatment you needed? If so, why go to doctors for help at all? Just go to the janitor. It would be much cheaper.

Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.


Look.  I personally know this lady. We had supper together and
she slept at my house.   Here eye was bulging out so far that her
eyelashes were hitting her glasses.  She thought that was odd.
She was lying on her pillow one morning and looking at her husband
she saw him in black and white.  She lifted her head and the other eye
saw him in color.  She put the one eye back in the pillow and he was
in black and white again.

So this plum sized tumor was behind her eye socket pushing her eye out.
After reconstructive surgery about 25% of her skull was replaced with
titanium plate.    She is able to go back to work on a reduced schedule
at the clinic where she works...as a family practice M.D.

Doctors and scientists are just normal everyday people.  They are no better
at what they do than anybody is that the job they do.  I admire my cousin.
She got good grades in school.  But she is no more amazing than anybody else.

My mom has worked in a medical lab her whole career.  My aunt was an RN.
Her daughter, an MD.  My sister, an RN.  My friends dad, our family physician
for 20 years.  His daugher, a Physician.   Just normal people.  They each have
some more knowledge in many areas.  But anybody can be smarter than
any doctor on any particular subject in about 6 weeks.  Sometimes, one afternoon.









Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on August 15, 2013, 10:05:29 AM
Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.
Really?  You'd trust someone simply because they said they could do a better job?  Actually, I can believe that - people are pretty gullible when it comes to believing what someone says without checking on it.

I do some work as an independent computer technician - I fix computers for individuals for pay, and if you'll excuse my saying so, I'm pretty good at it.  I once had someone who needed computer work done tell me that they were going to let someone else who said they could do a good job for free do the work instead of me.  So I shrugged and said okay.  I wasn't worried about it.  And sure enough, they came back to me a week or two later after the other person had failed to fix their problem.  It turned out the other person thought they were much better at fixing computers than they actually were.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Look.  I personally know this lady. We had supper together and
she slept at my house.   Here eye was bulging out so far that her
eyelashes were hitting her glasses.  She thought that was odd.
She was lying on her pillow one morning and looking at her husband
she saw him in black and white.  She lifted her head and the other eye
saw him in color.  She put the one eye back in the pillow and he was
in black and white again.

So this plum sized tumor was behind her eye socket pushing her eye out.
After reconstructive surgery about 25% of her skull was replaced with
titanium plate.    She is able to go back to work on a reduced schedule
at the clinic where she works...as a family practice M.D.
First off, she's the one who figured out that there was something wrong - as you said, she's a M.D.  Second, she went to another doctor to have her tumor removed.  Not to someone who claimed they could do the job just as well.  This anecdote of yours doesn't show that a candy striper - or someone else who claimed to be able to do the job - could actually do it.  It shows that someone trained as a doctor noticed a serious problem with her eye and went to another doctor to have it treated.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Doctors and scientists are just normal everyday people.  They are no better
at what they do than anybody is that the job they do.  I admire my cousin.
She got good grades in school.  But she is no more amazing than anybody else.
It may be true that a doctor is no better at being a doctor than, say, a plumber is at being a plumber.  But that doesn't mean that a doctor can do a plumber's job, or a plumber can do a doctor's job.  It takes both training and experience to do a job; training to learn how to do it, and experience to learn how to deal with the inevitable hang-ups.

Quote from: SkyWriting
My mom has worked in a medical lab her whole career.  My aunt was an RN.
Her daughter, an MD.  My sister, an RN.  My friends dad, our family physician
for 20 years.  His daugher, a Physician.   Just normal people.  They each have
some more knowledge in many areas.
It's certainly true that being a doctor is something that anyone can learn how to do.  But if anyone could do the work that a doctor could do with only a few weeks of reading medical texts, why do people still pay doctors and other professionals to do their work?  It's because it takes more than a few weeks of book-learning to be able to do something well.  You're not paying a doctor, or a plumber, or any other professional just because of their education.  You're paying them because of their qualifications (which includes education, but training and experience are far more important).

Sure, maybe this candy striper of yours is taking classes in medicine.  Stranger things can and have happened.  But that doesn't mean that she's qualified to give medical advice, to dispense drugs, or to operate on a person.  Certainly not just because she says she is.

Quote from: SkyWriting
But anybody can be smarter than
any doctor on any particular subject in about 6 weeks.  Sometimes, one afternoon.
More like, they can think they're more knowledgeable in a few weeks.  But knowledge isn't training, and it isn't experience.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jdawg70 on August 15, 2013, 10:35:31 AM
I am sorry you had health problems. But do you really think a person with zero medical information, ie the janitor, would have helped you figure out what treatment you needed? If so, why go to doctors for help at all? Just go to the janitor. It would be much cheaper.

Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

So this lady in this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921

believed that she could help restore a painting.

Take it as you will.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on August 15, 2013, 10:50:30 AM
Alright, SW, put up or shut up. Who is this candy striper with all this medical and surgical expertise? Where can I find her? I need knee replacement surgery-- do you think I can get her to do it for me? I'll pay her 100 bucks. Per knee. :o &)

And you still have not addressed the main point: medical expertise alone vs the bible alone. Which one do you think is better at taking care of health problems? And don't cop out with "god secretly heals everyone who goes to the doctor" because god does not secretly heal everyone who is sick and does not get medical treatment. Or else there would not be high infant mortality rates in places with bibles but no doctors.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on August 15, 2013, 11:03:55 AM

Keep trying if you want. I'll just repeat myself. 

I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.


Look.  I personally know this lady. We had supper together and
she slept at my house.   Here eye was bulging out so far that her
eyelashes were hitting her glasses.  She thought that was odd.
She was lying on her pillow one morning and looking at her husband
she saw him in black and white.  She lifted her head and the other eye
saw him in color.  She put the one eye back in the pillow and he was
in black and white again.

So this plum sized tumor was behind her eye socket pushing her eye out.
After reconstructive surgery about 25% of her skull was replaced with
titanium plate.    She is able to go back to work on a reduced schedule
at the clinic where she works...as a family practice M.D.

Doctors and scientists are just normal everyday people.  They are no better
at what they do than anybody is that the job they do.  I admire my cousin.
She got good grades in school.  But she is no more amazing than anybody else.

My mom has worked in a medical lab her whole career.  My aunt was an RN.
Her daughter, an MD.  My sister, an RN.  My friends dad, our family physician
for 20 years.  His daugher, a Physician.   Just normal people.  They each have
some more knowledge in many areas.  But anybody can be smarter than
any doctor on any particular subject in about 6 weeks.  Sometimes, one afternoon.


So, at first you don't tell us the whole story about this lady (that she's a doctor) and then you attempt to change the subject by remarking that anyone can be a doctor. So what! You weren't asked whether you would allow a doctor to operate on you. You were asked if you would allow a NON-DOCTOR to you operate on you - someone who has no education or experience in medical science. Your dishonesty is astounding for someone who claims to follow 'Christ'.

Ass...
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on August 21, 2013, 10:27:59 PM
I like SkyWriting, the stories he tells are so fanciful. I mean, one minute they are quite dull, non-specific but when pressed they become stories you read in fiction: grand and nonsensical, to a point.

There's really no reason to respond to any of them, they stand on their own.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on August 23, 2013, 05:49:15 AM
(Sky's) point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

<< rocks on heels, whistles tunelessly, glances at watch >>

Tum-te-tum-te-tum.....

Seems SkyWriting is either unwilling, or unable, to explain to us how to develop our god-detection senses. 

If he is unwilling, then SkyWriting himself is denying us an avenue to god.  I presume his god will judge his actions appropriately.

If he is unable, then first of all his input on this site is uselss.  Like a man writing on a notepad to a deaf person "oh man, you should HEAR this music!!!" he is at best thoughtless - at worst, deliberately enjoying taunting us with what he cannot help us have.  Again, I'm sure his god will judge him appropriately.

SkyWriting also has deigned not to answer the crucial part of my post - that he worships a god who requires that we seek and accept him (or suffer the consequences), yet who makes as difficult as possible the process of finding him - so difficult, it seems, that even devoted adherents like SkyWriting are unable to clearly explain what we need to do.  Hey ho.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on August 23, 2013, 05:51:56 AM
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Does that apply in all fields?  You value "assertion that someone knows what to do" over "greater training and experience in the field"?

I assure you that I can invest your money WAY better than any trained financial advisor, and look forward to receiving your business.


Not liking a doctors diagnosis of my condition I continued to seek additional council of anyone who would see me.  After 5 physicians I found one who recognized my problem.  I would gladly have accepted the advice of even the janitor if it had been offered.   Thanks to the delay I have scars across my face. 

Don't complain, Sky - it was God's Will you ended up with the scars. 
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: SkyWriting on August 23, 2013, 03:12:21 PM
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Does that apply in all fields?

Sure.  All my answers apply to everything you can dream up.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 09, 2013, 10:25:32 AM
Some people don't understand YEC because of its proponents that go out of their way to post things on websites like this try to say louder and louder things that go further and further off topic and into tom-foolery. I myself am a proponent of YEC and yet I fail to understand people like that, unless they are gluttons for the mockery they receive from everyone. I'm told in some people there is some cross wiring between pain and pleasure centers in the brain?
Here's something that almost every atheist understands, and yet no old earth creationist understands - evolution is the antithesis of the bible. They are just plain incompatible. It should be easier to understand YEC than OEC, because right or wrong, at least it is self-consistent, where OEC cherry picks from mainstream science and the bible, making sure to be wrong in both areas.
Personally I have many reasons for supporting YEC other than the obvious necessity of being consistent in my beliefs (trying to anyway). I am not a (paid) scientist, but I find it is usually necessary to, whenever possible, examine data before taking to heart the conclusions drawn from it by others. There have been several stories of misconduct in research scientists, which is a growing problem. While I wouldn't say that by itself throws out a large amount of research, when that is coupled with the possibility of misinterpretation because of incorrect assumptions (I would say evolution, obviously), the stigma or outright loss of tenure because of dissent (I bet Ben Stein isn't very popular around here; sad how soon people have forgotten Win Ben Steins Money), as well as the secular scientist movement away from Neo-Darwinism to... well for them, anything other than creation (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/), there is a valid case for grave suspicion, I would say rejection. The fact is, a PhD does not deprive anyone of their hideous human nature and tendency to cheat and lie, if anything it only grants them hubris. That of course doesn't even begin to address what I think in most cases is a more straight-forward interpretation of data, flood geology/creation.
Keep in mind, I'm trying to honestly express my opposing point of view here, partly because these forums have a conspicuous lack of people who do so. I've been the recipient of plenty of ad hominem, which doesn't make me upset so much as bore me, but if it's your wish that these forums are solely the arena of atheists and masochists feel free to use them.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 09, 2013, 10:47:18 AM
Paragraphs, please.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that YEC should be easier to understand because it is internally consistent with itself.  You're correct in one way, at least - YEC is a straightforward package deal.

Indeed, that is its biggest flaw by far.  YEC is not capable of accounting for the way science actually works in the universe except with convoluted rationalizations that undercut the meaning and the value of the actual sciences, specifically because it tries to account for everything via the Biblical narrative.  But that narrative has no way of accounting for what we've discovered since.  In order to be a proponent of YEC, you have to simply accept it.  If we discover something via science that contradicts it (of which evolution is merely one thing), then either the science is wrong or the YEC belief is wrong.  Yet, YEC has no basis except "the Bible is true".  It has no way to determine whether that basis is true or false.  Whereas scientific methodology is at least capable of determining if something is false, once we have enough information.

That's the problem that simply can't be overcome in order to believe in YEC.  You have to believe in it, true or false.  The moment you start questioning it, you undercut the foundation of your own beliefs.  The problem comes when those beliefs are shown to be incompatible with the way the world actually works, which is why there aren't just YEC believers and agnostic atheist scientists.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on September 09, 2013, 11:09:01 AM
Here's something that almost every atheist understands, and yet no old earth creationist understands - evolution is the antithesis of the bible. They are just plain incompatible.

This is just plain false (aka - completely untrue). Ken Miller from Brown University is a biologist and Christian who accepts evolution and sees no conflict with his faith - and there are numerous other Christians who do likewise. I think what you mean to say is that evolution (i.e. - common decent) is incompatible with your version of Christianity. Your particular interpretation of the bible doesn't agree with the science, but that doesn't at all effect other Christians who disagree with your interpretation.


It should be easier to understand YEC than OEC, because right or wrong, at least it is self-consistent, where OEC cherry picks from mainstream science and the bible, making sure to be wrong in both areas.

We could certainly get into a debate about cherry picking bible verses if you'd like. How about slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, and rape. All of these things are endorsed by the Yahweh God in your bible and I'm sure you have some way of attempted to SPIN them to make them sound "ok", right? But this is a far cry from what how science approaches questions in the natural world (such as that of dating). Multiple independent studies are done (and have been done) globally and they converge on the same answers. How is this cherry picking? It sounds like you may have been listening to too much ICR, CRI, or Kent Hovind. Btw, Hugh Ross!



Personally I have many reasons for supporting YEC other than the obvious necessity of being consistent in my beliefs (trying to anyway).

This is called Confirmation Bias. The "necessity" of molding the evidence in order to support your presupposition is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. It is also called "leading the evidence" (instead of following it) and it is the opposite of good science which aims to weed out such bias. Thank you for admitting that you have this problem though. Now you can take steps to changing it so you can actually follow the evidence where it leads, in a more disinterested fashion :)



I personally am not a (paid) scientist, but I find it is usually necessary to, whenever possible, examine data before taking to heart the conclusions drawn from it by others.

Including those by the Christians you are reading? I find it too often the case (b/c I used to do it myself) that Christians will be critical of those they disagree with but completely supportive (and tuned into) those with whom they share a worldview (bias). This is unscientific and intellectually dishonest as well.


There have been several stories of misconduct in research scientists, which is a growing problem. While I wouldn't say that by itself throws out a large amount of research, when that is coupled with the possibility of misinterpretation because of incorrect assumptions (I would say evolution, obviously), the stigma or outright loss of tenure because of dissent (I bet Ben Stein isn't very popular around here; sad how soon people have forgotten Win Ben Steins Money), as well as the secular scientist movement away from Neo-Darwinism to... well for them, anything other than creation (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/)), there is a valid case for grave suspicion, I would say rejection.

As with most YEC Christians you seem to have been fed lots of line of BS. Sorry to have to put it that way but this is how it sounds to me from what you have written. First, if you're going to charge "misconduct" then be prepared to back it up. Otherwise don't even bring up the false charge. It's absurd. I see Christians trying this nonsense all the time (b/c they are practicing confirmation bias and would be devastated if they found out their view was false). You just can't afford to be wrong, and that is a very bad place from which to be doing any research in these fields b/c it pushes you toward (again) confirmation bias. 

Secondly, your charge that scientists have interpreted the multiple convergent evidence for an old earth wrongly b/c of their "evolution bias" is completely illogical. Have you taken any science courses? If so, please list them. The study of the age of the earth is an entirely different field than the study of biology and biological anthropology. So this "atheist conspiracy theory" jargon is nonsense. Lots of Christians (http://www.reasons.org/articles/notable-christians-open-to-an-old-universe-old-earth-perspective) accept the evidence for an old earth, as do countless others. Again, what you are facing is your personal interpretation of the bible that conflicts with science. But this has been happening for centuries. Christians have continually had to 'evolve' their beliefs about the world (flat earth, earth the center of the universe, germs from demons, racism, etc) because science has shown their views false. Changing ones views when the evidence goes the opposite direction is called being honest.


The fact is, a PhD does not deprive anyone of their hideous human nature and tendency to cheat and lie, if anything it only grants them hubris. That of course doesn't even begin to address what I think in most cases is a more straight-forward interpretation of data, flood geology/creation.

I will wait to see you provide evidence of a PhD holder who has a "tendency to cheat and lie" in matters of geology or biology. So far as I'm concerned, these statements just make you sound highly ignorant of the sciences about which you are charging "fraud!" and your charge of "hideous human nature" just stands to prove your bias toward your literal interpretation of the bible.


Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 09, 2013, 11:55:41 AM
Quote
This is just plain false (aka - completely untrue). Ken Miller from Brown University is a biologist and Christian who accepts evolution and sees no conflict with his faith - and there are numerous other Christians who do likewise. I think what you mean to say is that evolution (i.e. - common decent) is incompatible with your version of Christianity. Your particular interpretation of the bible doesn't agree with the science, but that doesn't at all effect other Christians who disagree with your interpretation.

The fact that this man is unable to see the conflict is the point I made to begin with, proving it further. There are not an unlimited amount of possible ways to interpret a history book, as you seem to be implying. When a man adds 2+2 and gets three, this does not overturn mathematics.

Quote
We could certainly get into a debate about cherry picking bible verses if you'd like. How about slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, and rape. All of these things are endorsed by the Yahweh God in your bible and I'm sure you have some way of attempted to SPIN them to make them sound "ok", right? But this is a far cry from what how science approaches questions in the natural world (such as that of dating). Multiple independent studies are done (and have been done) globally and they converge on the same answers. How is this cherry picking? It sounds like you may have been listening to too much ICR, CRI, or Kent Hovind. Btw, Hugh Ross!

This was in reply to the consistency of the YEC view, and goes completely off topic, onto things I wasn't discussing. However, bravo on your sound defeat of somebody other than me.

Quote
This is called Confirmation Bias. The "necessity" of molding the evidence in order to support your presupposition is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. It is also called "leading the evidence" (instead of following it) and it is the opposite of good science which aims to weed out such bias. Thank you for admitting that you have this problem though. Now you can take steps to changing it so you can actually follow the evidence where it leads, in a more disinterested fashion

Being consistent in ones beliefs is necessary, no matter what your beliefs, else they contradict each other, making you a fool. You should learn the basic tenet of axioms. You can learn nothing without a priori assumptions, and data does not and can not lead anywhere by itself. This is a common fallacy.

Quote
Including those by the Christians you are reading? I find it too often the case (b/c I used to do it myself) that Christians will be critical of those they disagree with but completely supportive (and tuned into) those with whom they share a worldview (bias). This is unscientific and intellectually dishonest as well.

Yes. Obviously. I'm glad you're aware.

Quote
As with most YEC Christians you seem to have been fed lots of line of BS. Sorry to have to put it that way but this is how it sounds to me from what you have written. First, if you're going to charge "misconduct" then be prepared to back it up. Otherwise don't even bring up the false charge. It's absurd. I see Christians trying this nonsense all the time (b/c they are practicing confirmation bias and would be devastated if they found out their view was false). You just can't afford to be wrong, and that is a very bad place from which to be doing any research in these fields b/c it pushes you toward (again) confirmation bias.

Secondly, your charge that scientists have interpreted the multiple convergent evidence for an old earth wrongly b/c of their "evolution bias" is completely illogical. Have you taken any science courses? If so, please list them. The study of the age of the earth is an entirely different field than the study of biology and biological anthropology. So this "atheist conspiracy theory" jargon is nonsense. Lots of Christians accept the evidence for an old earth, as do countless others. Again, what you are facing is your personal interpretation of the bible that conflicts with science. But this has been happening for centuries. Christians have continually had to 'evolve' their beliefs about the world (flat earth, earth the center of the universe, germs from demons, racism, etc) because science has shown their views false. Changing ones views when the evidence goes the opposite direction is called being honest.

Here's a source about bias from the Creationism website PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109
Again, axioms are necessary tenets of science, as well as the beginning of the scientific method, you should not be sweeping science from under your own feet.

Thank you for your history lesson/rant that is totally irrelevant, I feel much more enlightened about my own faith which I probably know less about than you. You're making quite a few fact-free assertions about me and my beliefs, ad hominem, which I mentioned and you failed to quote, when obviously you should have.

Quote
I will wait to see you provide evidence of a PhD holder who has a "tendency to cheat and lie" in matters of geology or biology. So far as I'm concerned, these statements just make you sound highly ignorant of the sciences about which you are charging "fraud!" and your charge of "hideous human nature" just stands to prove your bias toward your literal interpretation of the bible.

Gosh you're right, I wonder if there's anybody who I might be able to find in five seconds online... Marc Hauser. Oh, that was six seconds, dang.

Unfortunately you appear to be using attacks aimed at people other than me. Please reread what I wrote, without the a priori assumption that I'm a complete moron who makes things up, then reply accordingly.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 09, 2013, 12:07:57 PM
Quote
Indeed, that is its biggest flaw by far.  YEC is not capable of accounting for the way science actually works in the universe except with convoluted rationalizations that undercut the meaning and the value of the actual sciences, specifically because it tries to account for everything via the Biblical narrative.

You have to be more specific, otherwise you're making a general claim that can't be argued with.

Quote
But that narrative has no way of accounting for what we've discovered since.  In order to be a proponent of YEC, you have to simply accept it.  If we discover something via science that contradicts it (of which evolution is merely one thing)

My main point was that it is NOT a correct discovery of science

Quote
, then either the science is wrong or the YEC belief is wrong.  Yet, YEC has no basis except "the Bible is true".  It has no way to determine whether that basis is true or false.  Whereas scientific methodology is at least capable of determining if something is false, once we have enough information.

This is a false dichotomy. My whole point is that without evolution, science and the bible harmonize. Also, the bible is in fact able to be proved false, which I'm kind of surprised you didn't say.

Quote
That's the problem that simply can't be overcome in order to believe in YEC.  You have to believe in it, true or false.  The moment you start questioning it, you undercut the foundation of your own beliefs.  The problem comes when those beliefs are shown to be incompatible with the way the world actually works,

Everybody throughout history has questioned the bible. Nowhere inside does it say you should not, that is only the rant of people who don't like to learn. Just because I have questioned it, does not imply that I have found it wanting.

Quote
which is why there aren't just YEC believers and agnostic atheist scientists.

Not sure what this means. There are lots of YEC scientists tho, and plenty of atheistic morons, so it's not strictly the other way around.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on September 09, 2013, 03:09:04 PM
Oh another person who is arguing against science using a computer..... &)

CC, you use the science that is based on evolution every day. If you have never gotten smallpox or polio, if you have eaten corn, if you believe that police CSI units can find suspects, if you wash your hands after using the toilet, then you are unwittingly using applications of the theory of evolution.

How do scientists know that evolution is true? Because when you apply it to real life situations, it works. Science that does not work gets disproven (by other scientists, not religious authorities) and thrown out. That's why police generally use DNA to locate suspects instead of psychics, and researchers develop flu vaccines for new strains of the disease each year instead of relying on faith to prevent the disease. That's why you don't drink the water from your toilet, even though you can't see the germs. You know they are there, because science.

And the very same science that supports evolution also developed your fridge, car, cell phone, microwave and computer. You can only be consistent in your beliefs if you live the way people did in the year 1800. You know, before the theory of evolution.  Drinking contaminated water, living without electricity, being ignorant of much of the world, believing in witchcraft, approving of slavery, and dying before age 60-- all biblical, baby.  Throw out evolution and you throw out all modern science and technology.

Luckily, unlike religion, science works for everyone, whether they believe in it or not. :D
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Anfauglir on September 10, 2013, 05:51:08 AM
I'd let anybody who believed they could help.
If a candy striper said she could do a better job,
I'd trust her judgment over a surgeon.

Does that apply in all fields?

Sure.  All my answers apply to everything you can dream up.

Hello Sky.  I see that you decided to cut the rest of my post:

You value "assertion that someone knows what to do" over "greater training and experience in the field"?

I assure you that I can invest your money WAY better than any trained financial advisor, and look forward to receiving your business.

Can you let me know when you will be sending me your money to invest?  Since you've confirmed that "if X said they could do a better job, I would trust their judgement", and I've told you I could do a better job investing than "financial professionals", I can't see any reason you wouldn't let me invest your money.

Unless, of course, there IS some other criteria you use in these decisions?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 01:14:36 PM
Oh another person who is arguing against science using a computer..... &)

CC, you use the science that is based on evolution every day. If you have never gotten smallpox or polio, if you have eaten corn, if you believe that police CSI units can find suspects, if you wash your hands after using the toilet, then you are unwittingly using applications of the theory of evolution.

How do scientists know that evolution is true? Because when you apply it to real life situations, it works. Science that does not work gets disproven (by other scientists, not religious authorities) and thrown out. That's why police generally use DNA to locate suspects instead of psychics, and researchers develop flu vaccines for new strains of the disease each year instead of relying on faith to prevent the disease. That's why you don't drink the water from your toilet, even though you can't see the germs. You know they are there, because science.

And the very same science that supports evolution also developed your fridge, car, cell phone, microwave and computer. You can only be consistent in your beliefs if you live the way people did in the year 1800. You know, before the theory of evolution.  Drinking contaminated water, living without electricity, being ignorant of much of the world, believing in witchcraft, approving of slavery, and dying before age 60-- all biblical, baby.  Throw out evolution and you throw out all modern science and technology.

Luckily, unlike religion, science works for everyone, whether they believe in it or not. :D

Very cute. Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.

IF, possibly, you are referring to survival of the fittest and speciation, those are in fact concepts that creationists agree with. So please, in advance, don't use them as a straw man.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on September 10, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
Very cute.

I suggest you not do that. 

Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.

Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?



edit - man, I'm good.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
Quote
Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?

Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way. Would you, I wonder, read articles I posted from creation.com?

It's technically used to differentiate between things that are provable and unprovable. For example, we know that the Roman Empire existed, but it is technically impossible to prove that conclusively, because it cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and it cannot be shown any other way.

In other words, the distinction is "testable" and "untestable", it's just easier to call it historical and operational. Evolution in the grand sense is not testable i.e there is no way to test and prove conclusively that man came from non-man, it has to be assumed based on data. However, it can just as easily be assumed that man has always been man based on the same data.

But, it is not possible to assume that things like the electromagnetic force don't exist, based on the data, because that can be repeated in the lab, and your home, etc. It could be shown false if it were repeated and found different or whatever.

So - Repeatable, falsifiable = operational      Not repeatable, falsifiable = Historical.     You can ask any scientist and they will agree with my assessment. Perhaps you're right and it was defined by malevolent Christians of doom, but that's ultimately irrelevant, and it probably commits the fallacy fallacy.

I was hoping not to have to define it, because arguments like that are very uninformed, and I don't like to waste my time except to say that you should learn more.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on September 10, 2013, 03:46:15 PM
Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way. Would you, I wonder, read articles I posted from creation.com?

That's why I posted a second source, which you either ignored or did not see.

It's technically used to differentiate between things that are provable and unprovable.  For example...

It's funny.  You try to imply that Rational Wiki is somehow inaccurate and then you just go right ahead and prove it to be completely accurate on every point.

I was hoping not to have to define it, because arguments like that are very uninformed, and I don't like to waste my time except to say that you should learn more.

Yes, I should learn more.  Absolutely.  We should all learn more.  And you should probably learn when to shut your big, fat yap and not be such an arrogant dick.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 04:17:36 PM
First off, I understand that you might not be very familiar with the way that the forum software works yet, but please at least make sure that you address the person you're responding to by name.  Otherwise it can be difficult to notice that you've responded.

You have to be more specific, otherwise you're making a general claim that can't be argued with.
Let me put it a different way, then.  YEC tries to understand the world (and by extension, the universe) in terms of the Biblical narrative.  Therefore, anything that contradicts that narrative has to be rationalized so that it can fit.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
My main point was that it is NOT a correct discovery of science
What, specifically, is not a "correct discovery of science"?  If you are referring to evolution, then I would like to point out the decades of research pertaining to it that has amply demonstrated that it is indeed a valid branch of science. 

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
This is a false dichotomy. My whole point is that without evolution, science and the bible harmonize. Also, the bible is in fact able to be proved false, which I'm kind of surprised you didn't say.
It is not a false dichotomy, bur rather a true one.  It is impossible to have a YECist who also believes in evolutionary theory.  Given that evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of scientists, especially biological scientists, you cannot simply separate evolution from science, treating the one as totally wrong and the rest as totally correct.  For that matter, no scientist worth their salt considers any science to be 'correct' the way you seem to.  Therefore your contention that "without evolution, science and the bible harmonize" is wrong.

And I'm glad you brought up whether the Bible could be proved wrong.  In fact, it has been proved wrong; there has been no global worldwide flood (as the Bible asserts), and Earth was created significantly more than 6,500 years ago (as YECists assert according to the Biblical lineages).  To claim this is otherwise was requires you to ignore more than just evolutionary science - for example, c-14 dating (never mind other forms of radiometric dating) has been shown to be reliable to nearly 50,000 years - and this demonstrates that your contention about science and the Bible cannot be correct.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Everybody throughout history has questioned the bible. Nowhere inside does it say you should not, that is only the rant of people who don't like to learn. Just because I have questioned it, does not imply that I have found it wanting.
Perhaps you should avoid such blanket ad hominem attacks as "only the rant of people who don't like to learn" in the future, since you asked that others not engage in ad hominems against you.

My point is that you have to believe that the Bible is true, and that sciences which contradict the Bible must be false, to hold a belief in YECism.  If you start to believe that parts of the Bible are false, or that sciences that contradict the Bible are true, then it erodes your belief in YECism.

Also, I could not help but notice that when you said that you questioned the Bible, you did not mention whether that questioning was related to whether any of it was false.  It is indeed possible to question the Bible without questioning whether it is false.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Not sure what this means. There are lots of YEC scientists tho, and plenty of atheistic morons, so it's not strictly the other way around.
Remember what I said about ad hominem attacks?  Yes, there are YEC scientists - but almost none of them are in fields which would require the sciences they have to deny in order to hold their YEC belief.

----

Very cute. Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.
This is false; there is no such thing as "operational science".  The correct term is experimental science, a science that uses direct experimental evidence as data, as opposed to historical science, which gets its data from past events.  You should also note that there is not a clear delineating line between the two, and mainstream scientists do not consider either to be superior over the other.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
IF, possibly, you are referring to survival of the fittest and speciation, those are in fact concepts that creationists agree with. So please, in advance, don't use them as a straw man.
If YECists agree with speciation, why then do they have a problem with evolution?  Speciation is evolution - it's the splitting of lineages which ultimately forms new species.  This isn't even the false macro/micro distinction that many YECists make[1].  Please explain this, because it makes no sense.
 1. specifically, they say that little changes within a species happen, but that all those little changes can't add up to cause speciation
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on September 10, 2013, 04:21:20 PM
The fact that this man is unable to see the conflict is the point I made to begin with, proving it further. There are not an unlimited amount of possible ways to interpret a history book, as you seem to be implying. When a man adds 2+2 and gets three, this does not overturn mathematics.

Comparing the demonstrable facts of mathematics to the variance in your personal interpretation of the bible is called a False Analogy. There is no "one way" to correctly interpret the bible and even the "founding fathers" of Christendom couldn't agree on doctrines - doctrines as 'essential' as Christs alleged 'divinity' etc. So it is simply false to argue that the two are anything alike. They are not. The kind of interpretation and subjective disagreement amongst bible believers is nothing like basic mathematical truths.

Quote
We could certainly get into a debate about cherry picking bible verses if you'd like. How about slavery, genocide, infanticide, human sacrifice, and rape. All of these things are endorsed by the Yahweh God in your bible and I'm sure you have some way of attempted to SPIN them to make them sound "ok", right? But this is a far cry from what how science approaches questions in the natural world (such as that of dating). Multiple independent studies are done (and have been done) globally and they converge on the same answers. How is this cherry picking? It sounds like you may have been listening to too much ICR, CRI, or Kent Hovind. Btw, Hugh Ross!

This was in reply to the consistency of the YEC view, and goes completely off topic, onto things I wasn't discussing. However, bravo on your sound defeat of somebody other than me.

I asked you specific questions pertaining to your charge that scientists who disagree with your personal belief about the age of the earth are "cherry picking" and I drew an analogy regarding Christian cherry picking of bible passages. I also asked you a direct question regarding your charge of cherry picking toward those scientists. Was this answer ignoring that question? I can understand if it was but if you're going to accuse scientists of something please provide a link or some specific evidence for that assertion.

Btw, do you believe the bible is the inspired Word of God? You're the one who brought up cherry picking from the bible in the first place.


Being consistent in ones beliefs is necessary, no matter what your beliefs, else they contradict each other, making you a fool. You should learn the basic tenet of axioms. You can learn nothing without a priori assumptions, and data does not and can not lead anywhere by itself. This is a common fallacy.

Consistency of belief doesn't tell us anything as to whether or not that belief corresponds to reality. All sorts of false (yet logically consistent) syllogisms could be (and have been) created and acted upon - and instead of saying "you should learn" (sounding like a dick) why not post a link to what you are pertaining to? Most of us here will in fact read/study posted links. Second, nowhere did I say data leads places "by itself". So that is a misrepresentation of what I stated. The statement you made regarding consistency sounded very much like a provision for an open door to confirmation bias, and that is what I was responding to.

Quote
Including those by the Christians you are reading? I find it too often the case (b/c I used to do it myself) that Christians will be critical of those they disagree with but completely supportive (and tuned into) those with whom they share a worldview (bias). This is unscientific and intellectually dishonest as well.

Yes. Obviously. I'm glad you're aware.

And yet you didn't answer my question...a second time.



Here's a source about bias from the Creationism website PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109)
Again, axioms are necessary tenets of science, as well as the beginning of the scientific method, you should not be sweeping science from under your own feet.

It sounds as if you are using the term "axiom" in place of the term presumption (or presupposition). Is this correct? If so, what presuppositions (axioms) are you holding pertaining to this subject? Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc). Please provide specific evidence for this alleged fraud, not just statistical generalizations which do nothing to demonstrate the charge of fraud you are proposing. Details and specifics - citation please.

Thank you for your history lesson/rant that is totally irrelevant, I feel much more enlightened about my own faith which I probably know less about than you. You're making quite a few fact-free assertions about me and my beliefs, ad hominem, which I mentioned and you failed to quote, when obviously you should have.

For someone who talks a lot about "you should learn the basic tenants" it doesn't seem you know how to apply logical fallacies very well. My observation was not ad hominem, sorry.

Quote
I will wait to see you provide evidence of a PhD holder who has a "tendency to cheat and lie" in matters of geology or biology. So far as I'm concerned, these statements just make you sound highly ignorant of the sciences about which you are charging "fraud!" and your charge of "hideous human nature" just stands to prove your bias toward your literal interpretation of the bible.

Gosh you're right, I wonder if there's anybody who I might be able to find in five seconds online... Marc Hauser. Oh, that was six seconds, dang.

Unfortunately you appear to be using attacks aimed at people other than me. Please reread what I wrote, without the a priori assumption that I'm a complete moron who makes things up, then reply accordingly.

No I'm not leveling attacks at anyone other than you in this discussion. You have made multiple claims/charges against scientists and I've asked for some evidence for these claims (not broad statistical assertions but specifics). Are you just going to avoid the call for evidence to these claims of yours? "Yes, that will certainly change our minds about the subject." If you're going to make these charges and then refuse to back them up, why should anyone take you seriously on anything you say here? It seems to me that your charge is baseless. It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible. Please 'enlighten' us as to your knowledge of these evil scientists of which you speak.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 05:41:26 PM
Really Screwtape? Did you come here just to take out your anger?

When I said that the argument was very misinformed I was referring to "nogodsforme". And everything that you said has no bearing on my original argument, so it's curious as to why you said it at all.


Jaimehlers
Quote
YEC tries to understand the world (and by extension, the universe) in terms of the Biblical narrative.  Therefore, anything that contradicts that narrative has to be rationalized so that it can fit

Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data. I realise it's not a specific narrative, but still it must be adhered to by any scientist in the mainstream.

Quote
I would like to point out the decades of research pertaining to it that has amply demonstrated that it is indeed a valid branch of science.

"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.

Quote
It is not a false dichotomy, bur rather a true one.  It is impossible to have a YECist who also believes in evolutionary theory.  Given that evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of scientists, especially biological scientists, you cannot simply separate evolution from science, treating the one as totally wrong and the rest as totally correct.  For that matter, no scientist worth their salt considers any science to be 'correct' the way you seem to.  Therefore your contention that "without evolution, science and the bible harmonize" is wrong.

And I'm glad you brought up whether the Bible could be proved wrong.  In fact, it has been proved wrong; there has been no global worldwide flood (as the Bible asserts), and Earth was created significantly more than 6,500 years ago (as YECists assert according to the Biblical lineages).  To claim this is otherwise was requires you to ignore more than just evolutionary science - for example, c-14 dating (never mind other forms of radiometric dating) has been shown to be reliable to nearly 50,000 years - and this demonstrates that your contention about science and the Bible cannot be correct.

"The majority of scientists" are not the ones who define truth, just like the majority used to believe creation. "No scientist worth their salt" sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of PhDs who would agree that evolution is incorrect, what makes you say they are not worth their salt?

There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.

Quote
Perhaps you should avoid such blanket ad hominem attacks

It's not ad hominem if it's not an attempt to disprove an argument. And to be fair, going around not questioning things is, well, stupid. It fits the definition of ignorance.

Quote
My point is that you have to believe that the Bible is true, and that sciences which contradict the Bible must be false, to hold a belief in YECism.  If you start to believe that parts of the Bible are false, or that sciences that contradict the Bible are true, then it erodes your belief in YECism.

Also, I could not help but notice that when you said that you questioned the Bible, you did not mention whether that questioning was related to whether any of it was false.  It is indeed possible to question the Bible without questioning whether it is false.

I would call evolution a pseudoscience, indeed. And yes I have questioned whether the bible is false, tho I'm not sure how you differentiate between other questions about it. I suppose I should ask, have you questioned whether evolution is false?

Quote
Yes, there are YEC scientists - but almost none of them are in fields which would require the sciences they have to deny in order to hold their YEC belief

Are you referring to evolutionary biology? I have heard of at least one. But you're right, the fact is there aren't many in any fields. On the other hand, this doesn't make them wrong.

Quote
If YECists agree with speciation, why then do they have a problem with evolution?  Speciation is evolution

Maybe this is the biggest issue. There is a limit to speciation, as any breeder will tell you. All cats came from the same ancestors, all dogs came from the same ancestors, all horses and zebras came from the same ancestors, but they are all the same type of animal, really. They are a different species by name, but none of them come any closer to being something other than what they are i.e. from dog to cat, from horse to tiger. Sometimes they change enough so that they cannot mate, but they stay the same type of animal.



Median
Quote
Comparing the demonstrable facts of mathematics to the variance in your personal interpretation of the bible is called a False Analogy. There is no "one way" to correctly interpret the bible and even the "founding fathers" of Christendom couldn't agree on doctrines - doctrines as 'essential' as Christs alleged 'divinity' etc. So it is simply false to argue that the two are anything alike. They are not. The kind of interpretation and subjective disagreement amongst bible believers is nothing like basic mathematical truths

Fair enough, the math analogy was false, but the one about a history book stands. I was referring to Genesis, which is a history book. The Nicene Creed is what has been agreed on are solid doctrines of faith in the bible. People deny it, of course, but it can be shown in the bible conclusively why they are incorrect.

Quote
I asked you specific questions pertaining to your charge that scientists who disagree with your personal belief about the age of the earth are "cherry picking" and I drew an analogy regarding Christian cherry picking of bible passages. I also asked you a direct question regarding your charge of cherry picking toward those scientists. Was this answer ignoring that question? I can understand if it was but if you're going to accuse scientists of something please provide a link or some specific evidence for that assertion.

Exodus, which is also a history book, says 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them". Verses like that are numerous, of course, and one has to reject them in order to accept evolution. You asking me about my cherry picking is really off the subject. For all you know I may enjoy rape, etc, so you don't have proof that I cherry pick, that would be a whole other conversation.

Quote
Btw, do you believe the bible is the inspired Word of God?

Yes. I can't help but think this might go off topic but: why do you ask?

Quote
Consistency of belief doesn't tell us anything as to whether or not that belief corresponds to reality

No, but inconsistency may be the only proof that it does not correspond to reality.

Quote
why not post a link to what you are pertaining to?

Ok I'll go simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom Generally I mean

Quote
"axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably

And they must be, before any science can be done.

Quote
The statement you made regarding consistency sounded very much like a provision for an open door to confirmation bias, and that is what I was responding to

This charge can go the opposite way. In other words, scientists who want to keep consistent with the view of evolution may indeed do this. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer

Quote
And yet you didn't answer my question...a second time

The answer was "Yes." As in, I am aware of that possibility.

Quote
It sounds as if you are using the term "axiom" in place of the term presumption (or presupposition). Is this correct? If so, what presuppositions are you holding pertaining to this subject?

Indeed I am. My presupposition is that the bible is correct, although that's not to say that I can't inspect the possibility that it isn't.

Quote
Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc).

I have, and it would be similar to the charge that I may be false because of my bias.

Quote
My observation was not ad hominem

I've noticed that this can be quite murky to prove. I could proceed now to go on a tangent about how you evolutionists probably soil yourselves when in a real debate with a creationist, but if I did that, could you ultimately show that it was in order to prove you wrong, or that it was merely an observation?

Quote
No I'm not leveling attacks at anyone other than you in this discussion. You have made multiple claims/charges against scientists and I've asked for some evidence for these claims (not broad statistical assertions but specifics). Are you just going to avoid the call for evidence to these claims of yours?

Which claims? I told you about Marc Hauser and Paul Kammerer, I'm not sure if there's some number of people you need? If some other claim, be specific.

Quote
It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible

The point of mentioning axioms was so that I could show everybody has a bias. You keep mentioning personal interpretation: Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Christ also had the idea that the earth is not billions of years old, and why should I call myself a Christian if I don't believe him?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data.

Can you give a specific example of this?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 10, 2013, 06:01:02 PM
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data.

Can you give a specific example of this?

Hold on a tick -- I believe CC is onto something.

First you observe something and collect data, and then you sit down and analyze it until you have a theory that explains the data.  Let's call it... the scientific method.   ;)
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 06:14:27 PM
Yeah, that's kind of what science is:  Changing our theories and models to fit with real-world data.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 06:29:20 PM
Quote
Can you give a specific example of this?

Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2013, 06:48:27 PM
Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

What's your source here? And what does Neo-Darwinism mean to you? From the Biology courses I took during my undergrad I never once heard the term Neo-Darwinism, so I don't believe it's an accurate representation of the modern view on biological evolution.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 07:12:14 PM
Quote
What's your source here? And what does Neo-Darwinism mean to you? From the Biology courses I took during my undergrad I never once heard the term Neo-Darwinism, so I don't believe it's an accurate representation of the modern view on biological evolution.

I don't have a list of sources, but I'll look for what I mean: http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evolution/grad+punct/evolution_grad+punct.html

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=neo-darwinism    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 07:23:18 PM
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data. I realise it's not a specific narrative, but still it must be adhered to by any scientist in the mainstream.
That's exactly the problem.  Evolutionary theory is rationalized to fit the data, whereas YECism rationalizes the data to fit the Biblical narrative.  Scientific methodology itself is the process of rationalizing explanations to fit the available observational data.  I will leave it to you to explain how a field that attempts to fit the data to an existing narrative is scientific.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.
Granted, the sheer amount of research performed is not meaningful in and of itself.  It's the quality of the research that matters, as well as the goal to which it's applied.  Concerning that, YECism, to the best of my knowledge, has as its goal to show that the Biblical narrative is an accurate description of the creation of the world, whereas the various fields of science have as their goal to understand the universe on its own terms.  I will leave it to you to explain how the former is a more worthwhile goal than the latter.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"The majority of scientists" are not the ones who define truth, just like the majority used to believe creation. "No scientist worth their salt" sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of PhDs who would agree that evolution is incorrect, what makes you say they are not worth their salt?
Are these other PhDs biologists who have studied evolutionary theory as part of their field?  If they are not, then their PhDs do not qualify them to have an expert opinion on the subject.

In any case,, scientific methodology is not about proving things correct in the first place.  You can't prove that something is correct via science, you prove that it fits the available data.  If a scientist claims that science is about proving things correct, then yes, I do question whether they are worth their salt, because to get such a basic tenet of scientific methodology wrong suggests that they do not have a good grasp on the subject.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.
If you actually had evidence that showed that these things were not constant in the past, then you would have a point.  But barring evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that biomass has been constant, the rate of decay has not changed significantly, etc.  But without that evidence, such statements are only speculative and thus useless.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It's not ad hominem if it's not an attempt to disprove an argument. And to be fair, going around not questioning things is, well, stupid. It fits the definition of ignorance.
Please do not waste my time by trying to play games with semantics.  Making insulting comments about a person or a group as part of an argument is by definition ad hominem, because you are making the focus on the people you are attacking as part of your point.  You can make the point about an attitude without attacking people in the process; please do so in the future.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I would call evolution a pseudoscience, indeed. And yes I have questioned whether the bible is false, tho I'm not sure how you differentiate between other questions about it. I suppose I should ask, have you questioned whether evolution is false?
Yes, I have.  However, evolution explains the way things work too well to be a made-up pseudoscience, and it does not require that other branches of science be made to fit it or else they must be false.  This is not the case with YECism, as your first post in this thread indicated.  It is simply incompatible with certain aspects of science (evolution for one, but there are others).  In order to be a YECist, you have to consider those things false; if you do not, you cannot by definition be a YECist, because they are incompatible with the Biblical narrative that YECism holds as true.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Are you referring to evolutionary biology? I have heard of at least one. But you're right, the fact is there aren't many in any fields. On the other hand, this doesn't make them wrong.
It isn't just evolutionary biology, but yes, the key point is that there are not many YECists in science.  And while that does not make them wrong, it certainly does not help prove them right - which is more important.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Maybe this is the biggest issue. There is a limit to speciation, as any breeder will tell you. All cats came from the same ancestors, all dogs came from the same ancestors, all horses and zebras came from the same ancestors, but they are all the same type of animal, really. They are a different species by name, but none of them come any closer to being something other than what they are i.e. from dog to cat, from horse to tiger. Sometimes they change enough so that they cannot mate, but they stay the same type of animal.
But this argument does not contradict the idea that there could have been a parent organism that had traits of both cats and dogs (for example), and ultimately diverged into cats and dogs (and so on).  Certainly, there is not such an organism now, but that does not mean anything.That is the problem here - YEC asserts that this cannot have been the case, without actual evidence as far as I can tell.  But other things, such as the similarity between DNA of similar types of animals compared to the similarity of traits between those same animals, strongly suggest otherwise.

Well, here's an example.  Let's say I asked you to give me a list of animals that you would consider reptilian.  Would you include birds on it?  Probably not.  Yet birds do share traits with reptiles (for example, they both have scales, and bird feathers are made by the same tissues that produce scales in reptiles), they both lay shelled eggs, and their organ and bone structures are similar to each other.  They have diverged far more than the minor differences between breeds of dogs, but they've had much longer to do it in.  The point being that if you can have organisms that have diverged that much, there's no reason to think that it's impossible that cats and dogs didn't originally share a similar ancestry, given that the similarities between them (generally speaking) are far greater than the similarities between reptiles and birds.

(source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html))
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 10, 2013, 07:39:37 PM
Quote
Can you give a specific example of this?

Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

You're getting your good ideas mixed up. Neo-Darwinism, the term , was coined by a friend of Darwin's, indeed because of new findings by Lamarck and stuff. You seem shocked that anyone would try to update scientific information. Something that, in this century, is done daily.

But the punctuated evolution thing, as you tried to explain it, is all wrong. When a biologist says that evolution happened quickly, he isn't talking Internet-fast, he is talking biology-fast.  And so slow we cant observe it? thats cute. Did you make that up ourself or read it in a comic book?

In biological term, a newly evolved species changing trait that shows up in merely 25,000 years is considered lickity split. And indeed such changes can and do leave fossil evidence.

And if it is so slow we can't observe it, then it hasn't happened.

People who feel a need to cram all of reality into 6,000 years have a hard time appreciating the actual timeframe of both the universe and of life. So when they see terms like "punctuated equilibrium" they get all excited and redefine it to mean what they want it to mean instead of what science says it means. And then they try to argue about it.

Wanting everyone else to go along with your pretend reality is asking a bit much.

Edit: spelling errors and clarification
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2013, 08:04:46 PM
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=neo-darwinism    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Thanks for the links, I checked them out.

I still have a problem with the term Neo-Darwinism, but it isn't because it "may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin". The theory of evolution has come a long way: 1859-2013. The patterns and processes and mechanisms of evolution have been rigorously tested over the past 154 years. Using a term coined in the 18th century to describe the modern theory of evolution as a whole seems...misleading. I can't help but think when people use the word Darwinism they want to portray the image of one dead man's dated theory that was shunned two centuries ago.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 08:08:59 PM
When I read CC's comments, it's almost like I'm reading him plagiarize an encyclopedia but, mixing up the words so it's not direct plagiarism.

I mean, take the "Neo-Darwinism" comment, seems as if he's just spouting what wiki says, almost word-for-word.

 I could be wrong.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:10:18 PM
Quote
That's exactly the problem.  Evolutionary theory is rationalized to fit the data, whereas YECism rationalizes the data to fit the Biblical narrative.  Scientific methodology itself is the process of rationalizing explanations to fit the available observational data.  I will leave it to you to explain how a field that attempts to fit the data to an existing narrative is scientific.

Ok, I misunderstood what you said the first time. Evolution scientists fit evolution to match data AND creation scientists fit creation to match data. The biblical narrative doesn't tell you everything, but science fills the gaps, and the theories of how creation happened exactly have changed, tho obviously not so much as to contradict the narrative. The fact that evolution scientists have the wide scope of "evolution" doesn't make it large enough so that there can be data that contradicts it. In either case ALL data MUST be in the realm of the model according to its scientists, and I would say that all data fits current creation theory, thus making it a science.

Quote
Concerning that, YECism, to the best of my knowledge, has as its goal to show that the Biblical narrative is an accurate description of the creation of the world, whereas the various fields of science have as their goal to understand the universe on its own terms.  I will leave it to you to explain how the former is a more worthwhile goal than the latter.

All science has a purpose. If it is to show how the world began or how your car runs is irrelevant. I never made a claim that it is somehow more important than other sciences.

Quote
If you actually had evidence that showed that these things were not constant in the past, then you would have a point.  But barring evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that biomass has been constant, the rate of decay has not changed significantly, etc.  But without that evidence, such statements are only speculative and thus useless.

I could make the same argument you are making. There is no evidence to support the assumptions, so why should it be believed?

Quote
Yes, I have.  However, evolution explains the way things work too well to be a made-up pseudoscience, and it does not require that other branches of science be made to fit it or else they must be false.

It certainly does require that all sciences fit it, see quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

Quote
(Evolution) general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a curve that all lines must follow

Quote
But this argument does not contradict the idea that there could have been a parent organism that had traits of both cats and dogs (for example), and ultimately diverged into cats and dogs (and so on).  Certainly, there is not such an organism now, but that does not mean anything.That is the problem here - YEC asserts that this cannot have been the case, without actual evidence as far as I can tell.  But other things, such as the similarity between DNA of similar types of animals compared to the similarity of traits between those same animals, strongly suggest otherwise.

Well, here's an example.  Let's say I asked you to give me a list of animals that you would consider reptilian.  Would you include birds on it?  Probably not.  Yet birds do share traits with reptiles (for example, they both have scales, and bird feathers are made by the same tissues that produce scales in reptiles), they both lay shelled eggs, and their organ and bone structures are similar to each other.  They have diverged far more than the minor differences between breeds of dogs, but they've had much longer to do it in.  The point being that if you can have organisms that have diverged that much, there's no reason to think that it's impossible that cats and dogs didn't originally share a similar ancestry, given that the similarities between them (generally speaking) are far greater than the similarities between reptiles and birds

Right. The main difference between evolutionism and creation is that in one, it is assumed that an ancestor of cats and dogs existed, and in the other it is assumed they did not. Neither one has conclusive proof. There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dna-fossil-suggests-dogs-were-domesticated-33-000-years-ago-1C8737029

different genetic codes, which have no way to change into another http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

Widely varying amount of polyploidy and chromosomes in the plant and animal kingdoms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

Similarities don't necessarily imply common ancestry, as is commonly assumed. It could just as easily be for common purpose, or because of a common designer.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:11:35 PM
When I read CC's comments, it's almost like I'm reading him plagiarize an encyclopedia but, mixing up the words so it's not direct plagiarism.

I mean, take the "Neo-Darwinism" comment, seems as if he's just spouting what wiki says, almost word-for-word.

 I could be wrong.

-Nam

Plagiarize an encyclopedia? That's possible? Besides what if I am?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:18:00 PM
Quote
Using a term coined in the 18th century to describe the modern theory of evolution as a whole seems...misleading. I can't help but think when people use the word Darwinism they want to portray the image of one dead man's dated theory that was shunned two centuries ago.

That's probably true of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism both, which is why they may be unpopular, but they both are used to describe today's evolution, occasionally.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dynamic-darwinism
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 08:23:39 PM
CC,

Yeah, it's possible.

Because then you're presenting yourself as more intellectual than you actually are. I suck at science, I also suck at math but I don't go around to websites and "copy" what they say, and regurgitate it here as if I already know about it to support my position.

Other Christians do the same thing but about their individual viewpoints of their religion that inline with others like them.

The difference between them and you is that they usually source it before-the-fact rather than after-the-fact, like you.

You speak about Neo-Darwinism like it's a subject you know a lot about but reads more like you copied it from somewhere--which is also fine, if you source it.

Talking smart doesn't make you smart. And those here who are smart will rip you a part on such subjects.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:29:15 PM
CC,

Yeah, it's possible.

Because then you're presenting yourself as more intellectual than you actually are. I suck at science, I also suck at math but I don't go around to websites and "copy" what they say, and regurgitate it here as if I already know about it to support my position.

Other Christians do the same thing but about their individual viewpoints of their religion that inline with others like them.

The difference between them and you is that they usually source it before-the-fact rather than after-the-fact, like you.

You speak about Neo-Darwinism like it's a subject you know a lot about but reads more like you copied it from somewhere--which is also fine, if you source it.

Talking smart doesn't make you smart. And those here who are smart will rip you a part on such subjects.

-Nam

Fair enough.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2013, 08:31:31 PM
There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are [...]

Miacid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae).
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:38:05 PM
There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are [...]

Miacid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae).

OK, I'll take that. I mean, obviously I don't think it really is ancestral but I wasn't aware of it's existence.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 08:40:26 PM
What evidence can you bring forth that contradicts it being ancestral?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:48:50 PM
What evidence can you bring forth that contradicts it being ancestral?

Nothing comes to mind, especially since like I said I just learned about it. But as I said earlier, similarity does not necessarily imply ancestry.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 08:50:03 PM
Well the "obviously" implied to me that you had something other than default rejection behind your...well, rejection.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 08:52:22 PM
Well the "obviously" implied to me that you had something other than default rejection behind your...well, rejection.

Yes. Obviously my belief in creation was not overturned in the couple of minutes it took to reply
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 09:14:49 PM
Ok, I misunderstood what you said the first time. Evolution scientists fit evolution to match data AND creation scientists fit creation to match data. The biblical narrative doesn't tell you everything, but science fills the gaps, and the theories of how creation happened exactly have changed, tho obviously not so much as to contradict the narrative. The fact that evolution scientists have the wide scope of "evolution" doesn't make it large enough so that there can be data that contradicts it. In either case ALL data MUST be in the realm of the model according to its scientists, and I would say that all data fits current creation theory, thus making it a science.
Actually, no, creation scientists fit the data into their existing beliefs about creation.  As you say, they are just trying to fill the gaps between what they already 'know' from the Biblical narrative - but if a part of science conflicts with that narrative, then they consider it false.  As you do, with evolutionary theory.  You simply can't accept it as true, because it contradicts the Biblical narrative.  It doesn't matter that it isn't actually contradicted by anything else we've actually discovered through science - it matters that it contradicts the YEC Biblical narrative.

That, by the way, gives the lie to your words that "all data fits current creation theory".  All data that YEC scientists are willing to accept as valid fits current creation theory, but that is not all data.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
All science has a purpose. If it is to show how the world began or how your car runs is irrelevant. I never made a claim that it is somehow more important than other sciences.
Yes, all science has a purpose.  But the purpose of YECism is not truly scientific, because it seeks not to fit itself to the data no matter where they lead, but to fit what data it can into itself, disregarding the rest and claiming that any science that uses that data is flawed or false.  As you do with evolutionary theory, radiometric dating, and other branches of established science that don't work with the YEC narrative.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I could make the same argument you are making. There is no evidence to support the assumptions, so why should it be believed?
Because we have never once found anything that shows the degree of variations that would be necessary to call radiometric dating into question.  If the Earth were only 6,000 years old, and thus such variations existed, then it is extremely unlikely that we would have found no signs of them whatsoever.  Yet...we have found no such signs.  It doesn't prove it, certainly, but the lack of such proof is much more damaging to your claims than it is to the basic scientific assumptions you criticize.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It certainly does require that all sciences fit it, see quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
This is false, and arguably a lie.  The wiki article you linked is actually about a 1973 paper written by a theistic biologist who criticized the sort of anti-evolution creationism you espouse.  His argument is not that evolution requires that biology fits it, but that evolution fits into the established science of biology so well that dismissing it (as you do) makes biology largely nonsensical.

By the way, the statement you quoted was written by a Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.  As such, it is his opinion rather than mainstream science.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Right. The main difference between evolutionism and creation is that in one, it is assumed that an ancestor of cats and dogs existed, and in the other it is assumed they did not. Neither one has conclusive proof. There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dna-fossil-suggests-dogs-were-domesticated-33-000-years-ago-1C8737029
This is disingenuous and very probably dishonest of you.  YECism does not simply 'assume' that there is no common ancestor of cats and dogs, it assumes that they were created by YHWH somewhat in excess of 6,000 years ago.  The very article you linked shatters that assumption into pieces, and I have very little doubt that you would not even hesitate to cast as much doubt as you could on the "33,000 year" figure...yet you are willing to use that same article to support your contention that there are fossils of cats and of dogs but not of some organism that had traits of both.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
different genetic codes, which have no way to change into another http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
Nobody is arguing that a cat's genetic codes would transform into a dog's, or anything else along those lines.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Widely varying amount of polyploidy and chromosomes in the plant and animal kingdoms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid
So what?  This doesn't really advance your argument any.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Similarities don't necessarily imply common ancestry, as is commonly assumed. It could just as easily be for common purpose, or because of a common designer.
No, it doesn't imply common ancestry by itself.  But when you have physical similarities that are roughly matched by DNA similarities, it is much more probable that they do have a common ancestor.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 09:50:27 PM
Quote
Actually, no, creation scientists fit the data into their existing beliefs about creation.  As you say, they are just trying to fill the gaps between what they already 'know' from the Biblical narrative - but if a part of science conflicts with that narrative, then they consider it false.  As you do, with evolutionary theory.  You simply can't accept it as true, because it contradicts the Biblical narrative.  It doesn't matter that it isn't actually contradicted by anything else we've actually discovered through science - it matters that it contradicts the YEC Biblical narrative.

Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". "Discovered through science" is begging the question, because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Quote
That, by the way, gives the lie to your words that "all data fits current creation theory".  All data that YEC scientists are willing to accept as valid fits current creation theory, but that is not all data.

Point me some data, and I will point you some creation.

Quote
Because we have never once found anything that shows the degree of variations that would be necessary to call radiometric dating into question.  If the Earth were only 6,000 years old, and thus such variations existed, then it is extremely unlikely that we would have found no signs of them whatsoever.  Yet...we have found no such signs.  It doesn't prove it, certainly, but the lack of such proof is much more damaging to your claims than it is to the basic scientific assumptions you criticize.

What kind of variations are you looking for? "If fossil x has y amount of c-14, it is z years old", is the assumption that is used, and ANYthing that is dated with c-14 will be recorded as a certain age, but that will never take into account the problems I suggested, and therefore there cannot be any signs of error.

Quote
This is false, and arguably a lie.  The wiki article you linked is actually about a 1973 paper written by a theistic biologist who criticized the sort of anti-evolution creationism you espouse.  His argument is not that evolution requires that biology fits it, but that evolution fits into the established science of biology so well that dismissing it (as you do) makes biology largely nonsensical.

By the way, the statement you quoted was written by a Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.  As such, it is his opinion rather than mainstream science.

Why are you calling me on using theistic evolutionists? Atheism much more clearly demands evolution. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist

Quote
This is disingenuous and very probably dishonest of you.  YECism does not simply 'assume' that there is no common ancestor of cats and dogs, it assumes that they were created by YHWH somewhat in excess of 6,000 years ago.  The very article you linked shatters that assumption into pieces, and I have very little doubt that you would not even hesitate to cast as much doubt as you could on the "33,000 year" figure...yet you are willing to use that same article to support your contention that there are fossils of cats and of dogs but not of some organism that had traits of both.

The article I quoted presumably uses carbon dating, which I already discussed. Would you rather I quote creationist sources? Because you seem to be upset about anything else.

Quote
Nobody is arguing that a cat's genetic codes would transform into a dog's, or anything else along those lines.

Different Genetic codes are a much more difficult hurdle to overcome than you seem to think. Yes, dogs and cats have the same genetic code, but this was used as a more general argument against evolution.

Quote
Quote
Widely varying amount of polyploidy and chromosomes in the plant and animal kingdoms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid
So what?  This doesn't really advance your argument any.

It's another hurdle for evolution to overcome.

Quote
No, it doesn't imply common ancestry by itself.  But when you have physical similarities that are roughly matched by DNA similarities, it is much more probable that they do have a common ancestor.

Thats certainly not always the case http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 10, 2013, 10:15:24 PM
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?

No, it's a bad distinction because it lumps together a testable and useful theory (Mendelian inheritance) with a debunked flight of fancy (Lamarckism) as if they were compatible.  They're not.

From the Mendelian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_genetics) theory we get the idea of genetic dominance or recessiveness, whereby a blue-eyed parent and a brown-eyed one will tend to have brown-eyed offspring unless the brown-eyed parent is carrying an eye colour gene with one brown element and one (suppressed) blue element, and even so each child has only a 50/50 chance of getting the blue eyes.  It is the basis of modern medical genetics, allowing us to treat many inheritable disorders.

From Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) comes the dubious idea that offspring can inherit traits that the parent acquired in its lifetime.   As ova and sperm are generally already developed before the event that changed the parent, it's highly unlikely that the child would be affected unless the change also identically altered the sperm or ovum.  It's really only useful in explaining behaviours passed from parent to child, not anything at the biochemical level.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 10:16:51 PM
Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". ...

Not everyone is that dishonest.  You've been hanging out in the wrong crowds.  There are those of us who are trained to change what we know in light of new information.  Have you ever tried that?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 10, 2013, 10:18:14 PM
Plagiarize an encyclopedia? That's possible? Besides what if I am?

Then you need to clearly cite your references whenever you insert them into a post, or you're in violation of the WWGHA rules.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 10:33:45 PM
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?

No, it's a bad distinction because it lumps together a testable and useful theory (Mendelian inheritance) with a debunked flight of fancy (Lamarckism) as if they were compatible.  They're not.

From the Mendelian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_genetics) theory we get the idea of genetic dominance or recessiveness, whereby a blue-eyed parent and a brown-eyed one will tend to have brown-eyed offspring unless the brown-eyed parent is carrying an eye colour gene with one brown element and one (suppressed) blue element, and even so each child has only a 50/50 chance of getting the blue eyes.  It is the basis of modern medical genetics, allowing us to treat many inheritable disorders.

From Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) comes the dubious idea that offspring can inherit traits that the parent acquired in its lifetime.   As ova and sperm are generally already developed before the event that changed the parent, it's highly unlikely that the child would be affected unless the change also identically altered the sperm or ovum.  It's really only useful in explaining behaviours passed from parent to child, not anything at the biochemical level.

I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect. The fact that Lamarckism was debunked is the purpose of the "Neo" part
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 10:37:19 PM
Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". ...

Not everyone is that dishonest.  You've been hanging out in the wrong crowds.  There are those of us who are trained to change what we know in light of new information.  Have you ever tried that?

Nope!

But, there are several scientists who are former evolutionists because there was the light of new information like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 10:44:39 PM
Back up, bro.  You said that everyone fits the data to their belief.  Then you cited someone who supposedly changed his mind in light of new data.

So which is it?  Were you lying before, or are you wrong now?  It's one or the other.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 10, 2013, 10:47:08 PM
I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect. The fact that Lamarckism was debunked is the purpose of the "Neo" part

CC, Darwin's theory did not spring into existence complete and perfect, like Athena from Zeus's head.  Science is like the calculus of a curve:  You rough out a theory based on your initial data, mapping rectangles that don't quite match the curve.  A new generation corrects errors, makes new measurements on better equipment, and smooths out the curve some more.  This process continues until someone comes up with a new theory that is a better explanation of known facts.

And sometimes there are elements of the older theory that are useful enough to keep around for everyday use.  That's why it's still important to know Newtonian physics even after Einstein formulated his theories and took physics to a new level.



Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 10:47:42 PM
Back up, bro.  You said that everyone fits the data to their belief.  Then you cited someone who supposedly changed his mind in light of new data.

So which is it?  Were you lying before, or are you wrong now?  It's one or the other.

Yah got me. People fit the data to the view until they realize that their view is convoluted so much that it must change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2013, 10:51:17 PM
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 10:52:52 PM
Quote from: CC
REPLY #396
because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Untrue. As I told you: I'm not good at science. So, why would a person not good at understanding a topic, such as science, and in addition, a topic within said topic, automatically believe it's true without the evidence to back it up?

In addition: why would a person good at science automatically take it at face value without finding other collaborating evidence to back it up?

I wouldn't, why would they?

With religion it tells you you have to. With Christianity[1] it not only tells you you have to it threatens you with torture.

See the difference?

-Nam
 1. Catholicism and protestantism combined since with the former Biblegod created everything including the Evolutionary process, and with the latter Biblegod  did it.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 10:55:35 PM
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.

I'm aware of this, but they aren't under any sort of pressure to keep their worldviews in that situation. You seem to be responding to me in two different areas, but not really bringing up new arguments. You just don't like me or what?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 10, 2013, 10:56:57 PM
CC

Unless you're afraid, you might want to read this article, about a fundy who, as an engineer, came to realize hat evolution was indeed real.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/)

If truth bothers ou, I'd advise reading a chick pamphlet instead.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 10:58:26 PM
Quote from: CC
REPLY #396
because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Untrue. As I told you: I'm not good at science. So, why would a person not good at understanding a topic, such as science, and in addition, a topic within said topic, automatically believe it's true without the evidence to back it up?

In addition: why would a person good at science automatically take it at face value without finding other collaborating evidence to back it up?

I wouldn't, why would they?

With religion it tells you you have to. With Christianity[1] it not only tells you you have to it threatens you with torture.

See the difference?

-Nam
 1. Catholicism and protestantism combined since with the former Biblegod created everything including the Evolutionary process, and with the latter Biblegod  did it.

Because they are aware of axioms, which I mentioned earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

I don't recall threatening you with violence if you disagree, but if it would help?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2013, 10:58:43 PM
I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect.

Careful! You'll make Darwin roll over in his grave!

Any case where Darwin failed to make a prediction, didn't understand something, or was incorrect about something, doesn't debunk or go against the theory or evolution. Acquiring new knowledge and modifying existing theories, laws, and hypotheses rocks! It's what makes science, science! The theory of evolution is built in the same way every other proper theory is built. The only difference is that most theories don't conflict with peoples religious beliefs. That's why you don't read or hear about people wanting to teach the controversy surrounding circuit theory.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 10, 2013, 10:59:48 PM
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.

That's a very good point.  Judging from some of the indignant, defensive statements that regularly come out of the YEC camp (e.g. "I didn't come from no monkey!") there appears to be a lot of emotional attachment to the idea.  For a Biblical literalist in particular, evolution, geology and physical cosmology could be seen as a 3-pronged attack on the entire book of Genesis:  Humans sharing their ancestry with apes, rather than being created by a god; a planet 3+ billion years old, not a mere 6,000 years; and the universe created in a mindless expansion of matter/energy, without the need for a god at all.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:01:20 PM
CC

Unless you're afraid, you might want to read this article, about a fundy who, as an engineer, came to realize hat evolution was indeed real.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/)

If truth bothers ou, I'd advise reading a chick pamphlet instead.

Yeah, I'm too fearful, sorry.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:01:28 PM
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.

I'm aware of this, but they aren't under any sort of pressure to keep their worldviews in that situation. You seem to be responding to me in two different areas, but not really bringing up new arguments. You just don't like me or what?

Now you're placing blame and becoming defensive. I call it The Christian Maneuver™ -- when you don't get your way you act like you're being attacked.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 11:03:24 PM
Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". "Discovered through science" is begging the question, because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is how scientists think?  Evolution is not something you believe or don't believe in, the way you believe or don't believe in creation, making your statement here a false equivocation.  Evolution is a theory which fits the observed data, the same as all other scientific theories.  It is not something you have to 'assume' is true in order to make discoveries about it (the same as other sciences), and thus your statement that discovering something is "begging the question" is false.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Point me some data, and I will point you some creation.
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline.  You know, from the link you posted a bit ago.  Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
What kind of variations are you looking for? "If fossil x has y amount of c-14, it is z years old", is the assumption that is used, and ANYthing that is dated with c-14 will be recorded as a certain age, but that will never take into account the problems I suggested, and therefore there cannot be any signs of error.
The reason it doesn't take those so-called problems into account is because we have never found any evidence to suggest that they existed to begin with.  Science is about working with the way things actually are, rather than the way we think they should be.  In other words, find evidence to support the assertions[1][2][3] you made a few hours ago.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Why are you calling me on using theistic evolutionists? Atheism much more clearly demands evolution. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist
I'm calling you on using theistic evolutionists because you do not believe in theistic evolution, or evolution at all for that matter.  By your own words, you are a young-earth creationist who considers the whole concept of evolution to be false.  Furthermore, it is obvious you picked that particular wiki page because the quote supported what you wanted to assert - but you clearly were only interested in the quote, without checking its context or to see if other scientists agreed with him or not.

By the way, there are at least six major fallacies associated with the statement you linked, which are noted on that very page.  Indeed, this page is listed under the category "Creationist claims".  You might want to check your sources out a bit more carefully, so as to avoid picking out something like this which harms your case far more than it helps.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
The article I quoted presumably uses carbon dating, which I already discussed. Would you rather I quote creationist sources? Because you seem to be upset about anything else.
The problem is, by using these sources, you are effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too - you pick out things that purportedly support one point you're trying to make, but try to ignore or disregard the inherent problems they cause for your position as a whole.  I mean, you disagree that carbon-dating is reliable, which pretty much negates the conclusion of the article - yet you try to use part of that very same conclusion to support your own argument.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Different Genetic codes are a much more difficult hurdle to overcome than you seem to think. Yes, dogs and cats have the same genetic code, but this was used as a more general argument against evolution.
Not really.  Genetic codes are not nearly as constant as you seem to think they are.  Yes, there are mechanisms to conserve a genome, but that isn't as meaningful as you seem to think it is, especially when you're talking about genome recombination in descendants (and by extension, what must have happened in their parents)

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It's another hurdle for evolution to overcome.
Why is it a hurdle?

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Thats certainly not always the case http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
Actually, this doesn't counter my argument at all.  All I was saying is that physical similarities paired with DNA similarities make it more probable that there was a common ancestor, not that you had to have both for there to be a common ancestor.

EDIT:  Let me add something that's not directly related to the post.  I do appreciate your willingness to take criticism into account.  You started using paragraphs after I pointed it out, and you stopped using stuff that came across as ad hominems as well.  I do appreciate that - there are more than a few people who would not care what someone who opposed them has to say about things not directly related to it.

I don't have any particular vested interest in trying to make you change your mind about evolution.  As long as you spend time thinking about it and take what I say into account, instead of simply posting knee-jerk responses, that's good enough for me.  And if you help me to think or to improve my arguments, even better.
 1. that the level of Earth's biomass has not been constant enough to ensure that the levels stay constant in living tissue
 2. that the rate of c-14 decay changes
 3. that the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere has changed significantly
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: CC
REPLY #396
because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Untrue. As I told you: I'm not good at science. So, why would a person not good at understanding a topic, such as science, and in addition, a topic within said topic, automatically believe it's true without the evidence to back it up?

In addition: why would a person good at science automatically take it at face value without finding other collaborating evidence to back it up?

I wouldn't, why would they?

With religion it tells you you have to. With Christianity[1] it not only tells you you have to it threatens you with torture.

See the difference?

-Nam
 1. Catholicism and protestantism combined since with the former Biblegod created everything including the Evolutionary process, and with the latter Biblegod  did it.

Because they are aware of axioms, which I mentioned earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

I don't recall threatening you with violence if you disagree, but if it would help?

How does the "axiom" apply to me? Is it your contention that after I left my former religion I went straight to the Evolution process? You assume a lot knowing next to nothing about me. Actually, you seem to be doing this for everyone.

To your second point: your religion does, it does it for you.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:06:57 PM
I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect.

Careful! You'll make Darwin roll over in his grave!

Any case where Darwin failed to make a prediction, didn't understand something, or was incorrect about something, doesn't debunk or go against the theory or evolution. Acquiring new knowledge and modifying existing theories, laws, and hypotheses rocks! It's what makes science, science! The theory of evolution is built in the same way every other proper theory is built. The only difference is that most theories don't conflict with peoples religious beliefs. That's why you don't read or hear about people wanting to teach the controversy surrounding circuit theory.

See Reply #369 You're right in that many religions that are incapable of passing the test of operational science have died out, but dang that stubborn Christianity
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 10, 2013, 11:13:09 PM
To your second point: your religion does {threaten people with torture}, it does it for you.

That's been My experience as well.  Not once in My 56 years has an evolutionary biologist threatened Me with an eternity of hurt.[1]
 1. Although the biohazard warning sticker on My brother's fridge at university (with the caption "Hazard identity:  Last night's stew") did give Me pause.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:14:32 PM
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2013, 11:23:07 PM
See Reply #369 You're right in that many religions that are incapable of passing the test of operational science have died out, but dang that stubborn Christianity

Christianity != Young Earth Creationism.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:30:00 PM
Quote
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline.  You know, from the link you posted a bit ago.  Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.

You're saying I'm supposed to accept a date based on c-14, and then argue that it's wrong, thereby proving myself wrong?

Quote
The reason it doesn't take those so-called problems into account is because we have never found any evidence to suggest that they existed to begin with.  Science is about working with the way things actually are, rather than the way we think they should be.  In other words, find evidence to support the assertions[1][2][3] you made a few hours ago.
 1. that the level of Earth's biomass has not been constant enough to ensure that the levels stay constant in living tissue
 2. that the rate of c-14 decay changes
 3. that the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere has changed significantly

Burden of proof is on the people who accept it is accurate, not the people who dispute. It must be shown to be reliable before it is in the field of science.

Quote
I'm calling you on using theistic evolutionists because you do not believe in theistic evolution, or evolution at all for that matter.  By your own words, you are a young-earth creationist who considers the whole concept of evolution to be false.  Furthermore, it is obvious you picked that particular wiki page because the quote supported what you wanted to assert - but you clearly were only interested in the quote, without checking its context or to see if other scientists agreed with him or not.

What you're saying is, I'm only allowed to use creationist sources, right? Since you brought it up, which evolutionist scientist did you have in mind that DOESN'T think evolution is necessary for other sciences?

Quote
By the way, there are at least six major fallacies associated with the statement you linked, which are noted on that very page.  Indeed, this page is listed under the category "Creationist claims".  You might want to check your sources out a bit more carefully, so as to avoid picking out something like this which harms your case far more than it helps.

I fail to see how the fact I claim it, and other creationists do to, makes it wrong.

Quote
The problem is, by using these sources, you are effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too - you pick out things that purportedly support one point you're trying to make, but try to ignore or disregard the inherent problems they cause for your position as a whole.  I mean, you disagree that carbon-dating is reliable, which pretty much negates the conclusion of the article - yet you try to use part of that very same conclusion to support your own argument.

The article about dogs was to show that dog fossils have been found. You can't suggest that I use ONLY sources that strictly support me, otherwise I would be only using creationist sites, and I'm still not convinced that's what you want.

Quote
Not really.  Genetic codes are not nearly as constant as you seem to think they are.  Yes, there are mechanisms to conserve a genome, but that isn't as meaningful as you seem to think it is, especially when you're talking about genome recombination in descendants (and by extension, what must have happened in their parents)

Take a look at the website again. The different genetic codes are unable to cross over to each other.

Quote
Why is it a hurdle?

Because slight variations in those things tend to cause severe damage to the species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Quote
Actually, this doesn't counter my argument at all.  All I was saying is that physical similarities paired with DNA similarities make it more probable that there was a common ancestor, not that you had to have both for there to be a common ancestor.

More probable? This is what I'm getting at, it's an unprovable assumption.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:36:05 PM
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam

Yes! Dang them too! BTW, Catholics technically adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you're right they aren't the one true Christians, so I suppose they'll be in purgatory until they figure that out.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:41:22 PM
Yeah.  You being ridiculed here is just like Jesus suffering and dying on the cross.

Have you considered that sometimes people who get ridiculed, are actually being ridiculous?

Never crossed my mind. Is this forum done now?

Are you?

-Nam

No
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:42:34 PM
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam

Yes! Dang them too! BTW, Catholics technically adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you're right they aren't the one true Christians, so I suppose they'll be in purgatory until they figure that out.

Then what I said is true: Christianity is puny and fading.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:43:31 PM
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam

Yes! Dang them too! BTW, Catholics technically adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you're right they aren't the one true Christians, so I suppose they'll be in purgatory until they figure that out.

Then what I said is true: Christianity is puny and fading.

-Nam

Yeah. I'm actually the only one left. Pleased ta meet yah.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:45:19 PM
Now you're just being asinine. I can play that game.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 10, 2013, 11:48:04 PM
Now you're just being asinine. I can play that game.

-Nam

I'm just trying to be funny. YEC's can do that too. Anyway http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I wouldn't call a third of the world puny
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 11:54:13 PM
I don't have the time to respond to the rest of it, since I need to be getting to bed, but I felt it necessary to explain this first part, since you apparently misunderstood what I was trying to get at.

Quote
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline.  You know, from the link you posted a bit ago.  Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.

You're saying I'm supposed to accept a date based on c-14, and then argue that it's wrong, thereby proving myself wrong?
No, I'm saying that you have to explain how you account for data (such as the 33,000 year old canine remains) that contradicts your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth, without simply dismissing it based on the problems you have with carbon dating that are not based on actual evidence showing that your problems are valid.

In other words, don't just say that the biomass levels might have been different, or that c-14 might have decayed at a different rate, or that c-14 might have been at different levels in the atmosphere, because without evidence to support them, those are only speculative.  You can't prove or disprove a thing with speculation.  If you have evidence to support your assertions, then please present it.  If you don't, then please explain how you resolve the contradiction without relying on speculative reasoning.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:56:13 PM
Now you're just being asinine. I can play that game.

-Nam

I'm just trying to be funny. YEC's can do that too. Anyway http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I wouldn't call a third of the world puny

If you agree that Catholics aren't Christian, or any other sect that adheres to Evolution, then you can't count them. Therefore, you're in a puny and fading religion.

Christians like you only count other Christians such as Catholics for debates like this. Otherwise you believe they are Christian just as much as you believe Muslims and Christians worship the same god.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 10, 2013, 11:59:50 PM
CC

Unless you're afraid, you might want to read this article, about a fundy who, as an engineer, came to realize hat evolution was indeed real.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/ (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/)

If truth bothers ou, I'd advise reading a chick pamphlet instead.

Yeah, I'm too fearful, sorry.

Okay, try this one.

http://machineslikeus.com/evolution-1-the-power-of-natural-selection.html (http://machineslikeus.com/evolution-1-the-power-of-natural-selection.html)

It isn't about evolution so much as the principles of evolution. How using the concept allowed engineers to make a better soap -powder making nozzle. If evolution sucks, how come humans can put the principles to work and make better tools?

Oops, forget I asked that. Wouldn't want to burden you with information.

By the way, are you keeping track of all the converts you're making with your lies and misinformation?  So far, by my count, and correct me with lies if you have to, but so far, none.

Sadly, we can't pray for you. It ain't in our tool set.

Edit. Link problem: iPads haven't evolved enough to make adding them easy

Edit: went to bed then realized I'd used the wrong spelling of principle. I know he difference, I was tired. Fixed it.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Quote
I don't have the time to respond to the rest of it, since I need to be getting to bed, but I felt it necessary to explain this first part, since you apparently misunderstood what I was trying to get at.

I win! I mean, goodbye and thank you for the discussion without being rude. I came on here really in the hopes that I would have a good discussion, because really there aren't that many atheists that I talk to on a regular basis.

Quote
No, I'm saying that you have to explain how you account for data (such as the 33,000 year old canine remains) that contradicts your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth, without simply dismissing it based on the problems you have with carbon dating that are not based on actual evidence showing that your problems are valid.

In other words, don't just say that the biomass levels might have been different, or that c-14 might have decayed at a different rate, or that c-14 might have been at different levels in the atmosphere, because without evidence to support them, those are only speculative.  You can't prove or disprove a thing with speculation.  If you have evidence to support your assertions, then please present it.  If you don't, then please explain how you resolve the contradiction without relying on speculative reasoning.

It is equally speculative to say that those things are true, which is why I mentioned it later in my reply, and the burden of proof is on the ones who call it science. You're right that I can't think of any evidence, per se, that would disqualify current radiocarbon dating methods as being possible, and I even I agree that within the last couple thousand years they are reasonably accurate, in fact. But, something like a catastrophic flood or the creation of earth, for example, might change the amount of c-14 around. Indeed, a creationist would say that past a certain point radiocarbon dating would be totally unreliable.

Come to think of it, and I realize you may not accept this, but the RATE project did find c-14 in diamonds, which should not be there. http://www.icr.org/rate/

They are the only ones who have looked for c-14 in diamonds, as far as I know, but if anyone wanted to prove that wasn't the case I imagine they would get a team of researchers on it straight away
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 12:23:56 AM
You win?

What: getting your ass handed to you? Yeah, you won.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 11, 2013, 12:27:57 AM
Come to think of it, and I realize you may not accept this, but the RATE project did find c-14 in diamonds, which should not be there.

Uh... Diamonds are made out of carbon, you know.  The only problem is that diamonds are formed by ancient processes that are far beyond the approximately 60,000-year time frame in which C-14 dating is considered reliable.

It is also far past the time when the original materials for diamond formation could actually be identified and dated, regardless of what method is used.  Perhaps 1.5 billion years ago, lightning hit a tree that fell over into a swamp.  Or perhaps it's from a large reptile-bird transitional flyer that fell into a volcano, asphyxiated by the fumes, and this happened only 75 million years ago.  We may never know.

The diamonds would have to be dated by some other methodology, but I have little doubt that they would contain some C-14.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 12:29:10 AM
Quote
Okay, try this one.

http://machineslikeus.com/evolution-1-the-power-of-natural-selection.html (http://machineslikeus.com/evolution-1-the-power-of-natural-selection.html)

It isn't about evolution so much as the principals of evolution. How using the concept allowed engineers to make a better soap -powder making nozzle. If evolution sucks, how come humans can put the principals to work and make better tools?

Creationists agree with the concepts of speciation and survival of the fittest, which I mentioned earlier. To be fair, I couldn't find it after a quick look either.

Quote
Oops, forget I asked that. Wouldn't want to burden you with information.

Good, thanks.

Quote
By the way, are you keeping track of all the converts you're making with your lies and misinformation?  So far, by my count, and correct me with lies if you have to, but so far, none.

100 billion.

Quote
Sadly, we can't pray for you. It ain't in our tool set.

But it could be? Please?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 12:33:36 AM
Quote
Uh... Diamonds are made out of carbon, you know.  The only problem is that diamonds are formed by ancient processes that are far beyond the approximately 60,000-year time frame in which C-14 dating is considered reliable.

It is also far past the time when the original materials for diamond formation could actually be identified and dated, regardless of what method is used.  Perhaps 1.5 billion years ago, lightning hit a tree that fell over into a swamp.  Or perhaps it's from a large reptile-bird transitional flyer that fell into a volcano, asphyxiated by the fumes, and this happened only 75 million years ago.  We may never know.

The diamonds would have to be dated by some other methodology, but I have little doubt that they would contain some C-14.

I'm not an expert here, which is why I was reluctant to post it. The RATE book is in my list of reading tho, I've only gotten part of the way through the Helium in Zircons thing.

It is my understanding tho that there would be c-14 in it, but it should not be at the level that exists. i.e. it should probably be undetectable by current methods
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 12:42:59 AM
You win?

What: getting your ass handed to you? Yeah, you won.

-Nam

I was, solemnly, trying to be funny. If that makes any sense. Why are you trolling me?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 12:50:06 AM
You win?

What: getting your ass handed to you? Yeah, you won.

-Nam

I was, solemnly, trying to be funny. If that makes any sense. Why are you trolling me?

I'm not "trolling" you. Stop feeling persecuted.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Astreja on September 11, 2013, 01:41:38 AM
It is my understanding tho that there would be c-14 in {diamonds}, but it should not be at the level that exists. i.e. it should probably be undetectable by current methods

Well, My understanding is that current methods are extraordinarily good.  U of California (Berkeley) can now do actual photographs of molecules in a chemical reaction (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/05/30/scientists-capture-first-images-of-molecules-before-and-after-reaction/), so quantifying C-14 should be comparatively easy now.

I see a more serious problem here if one takes a YEC approach to diamonds, 'tho.  How are they getting formed, if not by pressure on carbon deposits over millions of years?  Either what we know about diamond formation is wrong, or some enormous force crushed that carbon into shape in a much shorter period of time.  A cataclysmic event would have done a lot more disruption to the earth than just squishing carbon atoms together to make hard shiny things, and so far I haven't seen that nice Kryptonian boy Kal-El wandering about, randomly squishing barbecue briquettes in his hands.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 11, 2013, 10:16:36 AM
I win! I mean, goodbye and thank you for the discussion without being rude. I came on here really in the hopes that I would have a good discussion, because really there aren't that many atheists that I talk to on a regular basis.
One thing about humor on the Internet is that it's really easy to take in the wrong way.  Just something to keep in mind.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It is equally speculative to say that those things are true, which is why I mentioned it later in my reply, and the burden of proof is on the ones who call it science. You're right that I can't think of any evidence, per se, that would disqualify current radiocarbon dating methods as being possible, and I even I agree that within the last couple thousand years they are reasonably accurate, in fact. But, something like a catastrophic flood or the creation of earth, for example, might change the amount of c-14 around. Indeed, a creationist would say that past a certain point radiocarbon dating would be totally unreliable.
It is no more speculative than to say that the gravitational constant is the same here as on some galaxy halfway across the universe.  Because the rate of radioactive nuclear decay is governed by the weak nuclear force, which is one of the four fundamental forces, along with gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force (which holds protons together).  To point to extremely dubious myths in the Bible (such as the creation story and the flood story) and claim that those things would make carbon dating unreliable is not reasonable.  Both of those myths contain elements from other myths, such as the reference to a snake tempting Eve (snakes were considered sacred to matristic[1] Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures, which the patriarchial Jewish culture would have detested, thus the "snake tempting woman" part of the myth) and the clear similarities between the Genesis flood myth and the epic of Gilgamesh.

Here's another point for consideration.  Yes, the rate of c14 production does vary somewhat.  But we can check it against other dating methods (such as counting tree rings in bristlecone pines, which have been reliably dated to at least 6200 BCE).  Doing that, we've found that the rate of c14 decay has fluctuated over time - it's being produced faster than it decays today, but more than about 3,000 years ago, it was decaying faster than it was being produced.  In other words, this points to a natural cycle of fluctuation which can be accounted for, not the kind of massive variations that would be needed to cast doubt on carbon dating.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Come to think of it, and I realize you may not accept this, but the RATE project did find c-14 in diamonds, which should not be there. http://www.icr.org/rate/
The amount of c-14 that the RATE project 'found' in diamonds was probably less than the measurement error of the machines they used to measure it.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
They are the only ones who have looked for c-14 in diamonds, as far as I know, but if anyone wanted to prove that wasn't the case I imagine they would get a team of researchers on it straight away
As this journal (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating) illustrates, c14 dating is known to be unreliable on things that are older than 50,000 years, because the residual beta radiation from c14 decay in a sample that old would be swamped by other sources of beta radiation (such as cosmic rays).

----

Burden of proof is on the people who accept it is accurate, not the people who dispute. It must be shown to be reliable before it is in the field of science.
And radiometric dating has been shown to be reliable, though scientists still check any anomalies they discover in them, such as in this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915171534.htm).  Nobody has ever been able to do anything that affects the rate of radioactive decay, and until we find something that does, it is not reasonable to assume otherwise.  Therefore, it has been shown to be reliable, and thus if you want to disprove it, you need to find something that actually shows that it's wrong, not simply assert that there are things that would make it wrong if they actually existed.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
What you're saying is, I'm only allowed to use creationist sources, right? Since you brought it up, which evolutionist scientist did you have in mind that DOESN'T think evolution is necessary for other sciences?
Not at all.  But if you use sources that include information that you dispute, then you really should explain why the rest of the information in them is reliable when you question something that is fundamental to that information.  It makes no sense to use an article that talks about dogs having been domesticated before 33,000 BC (by radiometric dating) as evidence that dogs have always been a 'type' when you do not accept the date of the remains in the first place.  In other words, if you don't accept the date of the remains, how does this prove anything about dogs always having been a 'type'?

As for your other question, this is disingenuous on your part.  You are the one trying to prove that scientists think evolution is necessary for other sciences to make sense, so why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to find scientists who do not think this?  I don't think even the most rampant supporter of evolutionary theory would try to claim that evolution was necessary for every other science to begin with.  At most, they might claim that it was necessary to understand biology, as Dobzhansky (who you quoted before) said.  I can agree with that, but it is not because biology has been made to fit evolutionary theory, but because evolutionary theory works so well to explain things within biology.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I fail to see how the fact I claim it, and other creationists do to, makes it wrong.
Did you even go back and look at the page to see what fallacies I was talking about?  I thought you would have done that much, at least.  But since you apparently did not, let me cite those fallacies for you.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist)

The claim is that evolution promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of biological origins.  However, this is nonsensical.  It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather, or that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work.  In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one.

Now, for the actual fallacies:

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
The article about dogs was to show that dog fossils have been found. You can't suggest that I use ONLY sources that strictly support me, otherwise I would be only using creationist sites, and I'm still not convinced that's what you want.
I want you to be consistent - if you use a source that contains information that you disagree with, I want you to explain how that does not affect the other conclusions in the article.  By the way, the mere fact that dog fossils have been found doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.  We've found wolf fossils that are much older than that.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Take a look at the website again. The different genetic codes are unable to cross over to each other.
Which is irrelevant, unless you're talking about how the genetic codes for eyes can't change to suddenly start coding for giant fingers.  But that has nothing to do with your point.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Because slight variations in those things tend to cause severe damage to the species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Except that we aren't talking about the consequences of polyploidy in diploid organisms in the first place.  My question, "how is this a hurdle", was about what this had to do with evolution, which you haven't yet explained.  Also, having extra copies or sets of chromosomes is not what I would call a 'slight' variation.  Slight variations are changes within a chromosome.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
More probable? This is what I'm getting at, it's an unprovable assumption.
Except that it is neither unprovable nor an assumption, your assertion notwithstanding.  Your argument is basically that even though we can observe speciation within a 'type' of animal, there is a point at which those 'types' would have had a "first type", and that there wouldn't have been any organisms that combined the traits of different 'types'.  Whereas my argument is that you can trace that further back - that there are no insurmountable differences between 'types'.  However, your argument flies in the face of what we already know about speciation.  It is essentially saying that that there is a point at which you simply can't go further back in tracing lines of descent, even though you can trace lines of descent to that point.  Yet that flies in the face of evidence we've already discovered.

For example, all carnivores, whether feline, canine, weasel, bear, or something else, share traits with each other, just as all species of insects share traits with each other.  And these are not traits that they generally share with animals outside of that grouping.  For example, all insects share physiological traits such as having segmented bodies (head, thorax, and abdomen), three pairs of limbs, a single pair of antennae, compound eyes, and exoskeletons.  Since insects all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.  Similarly, mammals also share characteristics, such as hair, mammary glands, a single jawbone, dyphodonty (tooth replacement), the three middle ear bones, endothermy (body temperature regulation), and many others.  Since mammals all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.

Not only that, but when you compare the DNA between two insects (or two mammals), it is much closer than you would get from comparing an insect and a mammal (which are pretty far apart as classes go), further strengthening the common ancestor argument.

So, how does your argument explain these similarities?
 1. matrilineal but not matriarchial
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: screwtape on September 11, 2013, 12:08:21 PM
So, how does your argument explain these similarities?

More importantly, what does his explanation predict and how would it be falsified?  If a god made everything then that would mean...what? 

He forgets (ignores? never knew in the first place?) that evolution made a lot of predictions without knowing the answers beforehand.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 11, 2013, 01:47:42 PM
More importantly, what does his explanation predict and how would it be falsified?  If a god made everything then that would mean...what? 

And that's the crux of the problem when debating against Creationism, isn't it? There are no predictions. There is nothing to be falsified. There will never be a new discovery. Instead of making predictions and testing hypotheses, Young Earth Creationism only offers one biblical interpretation. One. The entire worldview of a YEC rests on adding up dates from the genealogies in Genesis:

Adam was created on the 6th day.
Abraham was born about 2,000 years after Adam.
It's been about 4,000 years since Abraham.
Bam. 6,000 years. There's our answer.
The earth is 6,000 years old.


Ridiculous. Yet what? 40% or so of the U.S. population accepts this as truth based on an elementary addition problem from a middle eastern creation myth? It's embarrassing. The only reason these people don't accept the theory of evolution is because it conflicts with their religious views.

Food for thought: The only thing separating flat-earthers and geocentrists from YECs is interpretation. That's poor company if you ask me.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 02:06:10 PM
So, how does your argument explain these similarities?

More importantly, what does his explanation predict and how would it be falsified?  If a god made everything then that would mean...what? 

He forgets (ignores? never knew in the first place?) that evolution made a lot of predictions without knowing the answers beforehand.

What I'd like to know, if the NT is the only book of importance, and YEC follow the guidelines of Genesis, and Genesis isn't in the NT, then how come he's a YEC?[1]

-Nam
 1. based on the things he said earlier this morning
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 06:07:32 PM
Quote
It is no more speculative than to say that the gravitational constant is the same here as on some galaxy halfway across the universe.  Because the rate of radioactive nuclear decay is governed by the weak nuclear force, which is one of the four fundamental forces, along with gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force (which holds protons together).  To point to extremely dubious myths in the Bible (such as the creation story and the flood story) and claim that those things would make carbon dating unreliable is not reasonable.  Both of those myths contain elements from other myths, such as the reference to a snake tempting Eve (snakes were considered sacred to matristic[1] Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures, which the patriarchial Jewish culture would have detested, thus the "snake tempting woman" part of the myth) and the clear similarities between the Genesis flood myth and the epic of Gilgamesh.
 1. matrilineal but not matriarchial

You're going extremely far off-topic. It is irrelevant how speculative it is, because c-14 assumptions are still speculative, and therefore not in the realm of science.

Quote
Here's another point for consideration.  Yes, the rate of c14 production does vary somewhat.  But we can check it against other dating methods (such as counting tree rings in bristlecone pines, which have been reliably dated to at least 6200 BCE).  Doing that, we've found that the rate of c14 decay has fluctuated over time - it's being produced faster than it decays today, but more than about 3,000 years ago, it was decaying faster than it was being produced.  In other words, this points to a natural cycle of fluctuation which can be accounted for, not the kind of massive variations that would be needed to cast doubt on carbon dating.

Tree rings are not always reliable http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
I realise that may not be an easy read, but note the part about "missing and intra-annual rings"

You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation

Quote
The amount of c-14 that the RATE project 'found' in diamonds was probably less than the measurement error of the machines they used to measure it.

I think, being PhDs, they thought of that possibility. Perhaps you should ask them if you feel like this is the case.

Quote
residual beta radiation from c14 decay in a sample that old would be swamped by other sources of beta radiation (such as cosmic rays).

Only using older methods of dating. Learn about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope-ratio_mass_spectrometry

Quote
And radiometric dating has been shown to be reliable, though scientists still check any anomalies they discover in them, such as in this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915171534.htm).  Nobody has ever been able to do anything that affects the rate of radioactive decay, and until we find something that does, it is not reasonable to assume otherwise.  Therefore, it has been shown to be reliable, and thus if you want to disprove it, you need to find something that actually shows that it's wrong, not simply assert that there are things that would make it wrong if they actually existed.

I mentioned it as a possibility for you to consider, not that I was unaware, but I'm glad you researched it. Like I said, I generally agree with dates in the last few thousand years, using c-14. HOWEVER there is evidence of accelerated decay in other radioisotopes, but it may take a long time to debate this with you.

Quote
Not at all.  But if you use sources that include information that you dispute, then you really should explain why the rest of the information in them is reliable when you question something that is fundamental to that information.  It makes no sense to use an article that talks about dogs having been domesticated before 33,000 BC (by radiometric dating) as evidence that dogs have always been a 'type' when you do not accept the date of the remains in the first place.  In other words, if you don't accept the date of the remains, how does this prove anything about dogs always having been a 'type'?

Because the dogs are still dogs, regardless of how old the findings are.

Quote
As for your other question, this is disingenuous on your part.  You are the one trying to prove that scientists think evolution is necessary for other sciences to make sense, so why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to find scientists who do not think this?  I don't think even the most rampant supporter of evolutionary theory would try to claim that evolution was necessary for every other science to begin with.  At most, they might claim that it was necessary to understand biology, as Dobzhansky (who you quoted before) said.  I can agree with that, but it is not because biology has been made to fit evolutionary theory, but because evolutionary theory works so well to explain things within biology.

I don't want to be mean, but this is a bit muddled. I'd prefer you make a clear sentence or two statement about what you're saying. Really tho, I don't think my original point is very vital to this whole argument anyway.

Quote
Did you even go back and look at the page to see what fallacies I was talking about?  I thought you would have done that much, at least.  But since you apparently did not, let me cite those fallacies for you.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist)

The claim is that evolution promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of biological origins.  However, this is nonsensical.  It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather, or that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work.  In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one.

Now, for the actual fallacies:
  • Irrelevant conclusion - the statement has no bearing on whether evolution is actually true.
  • Appeal to consequences - by accepting evolution, one becomes an atheist.
  • Appeal to motive - the scientific method isn't about feeling fulfilled, intellectually or otherwise.
  • Strawman - evolution has nothing to do with atheism in the first place.
  • False dilemma - the statement inflates the supposed 'consequences' and implications of evolutionary theory.

"It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather"
is a false analogy, because no religion claims that weather is not a natural phenomenon.

"that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work"
is also a false analogy, at least for Christianity, but possibly not for some witchdoctors, who presumably ignore germ theory.

"In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one"
Unless, of course, it is 1 Tim 6:20 "...science falsely so called" which I'm trying to show, and which this article and you are ipse dixit-ing that it is not.

1. Irrelevant irrelevance, I wasn't suggesting it was true or untrue.
2. Also irrelevant, we already discussed theistic evolution
3. The whole point of this argument is to show how evolution is not a necessary outcome of the scientific method.
4. That could be easily argued with Darwin's book, not that this "fallacy" is relevant to the quote at all
5. Something that could be even more easily argued

Quote
I want you to be consistent - if you use a source that contains information that you disagree with, I want you to explain how that does not affect the other conclusions in the article.  By the way, the mere fact that dog fossils have been found doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.  We've found wolf fossils that are much older than that.

I did that already. C-14 is bogus, the dog fossils are not. Also, dogs descended from wolves.

Quote
Which is irrelevant, unless you're talking about how the genetic codes for eyes can't change to suddenly start coding for giant fingers.  But that has nothing to do with your point.

I told you twice to actually read it. If you are not going to, don't pretend to know what I'm talking about. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

Quote
Except that we aren't talking about the consequences of polyploidy in diploid organisms in the first place.  My question, "how is this a hurdle", was about what this had to do with evolution, which you haven't yet explained.  Also, having extra copies or sets of chromosomes is not what I would call a 'slight' variation.  Slight variations are changes within a chromosome.

It has to do with evolution because the supposed ancestors of certain animals have different amounts of polyploidy and chromosomes, whereas the variations within a kind (which is slight changes within a chromosome) generally do not, the exceptions generally being sterile or stillborn.

Quote
Except that it is neither unprovable nor an assumption, your assertion notwithstanding.  Your argument is basically that even though we can observe speciation within a 'type' of animal, there is a point at which those 'types' would have had a "first type", and that there wouldn't have been any organisms that combined the traits of different 'types'.  Whereas my argument is that you can trace that further back - that there are no insurmountable differences between 'types'.  However, your argument flies in the face of what we already know about speciation.  It is essentially saying that that there is a point at which you simply can't go further back in tracing lines of descent, even though you can trace lines of descent to that point.  Yet that flies in the face of evidence we've already discovered.

See previous argument

Quote
For example, all carnivores, whether feline, canine, weasel, bear, or something else, share traits with each other, just as all species of insects share traits with each other.  And these are not traits that they generally share with animals outside of that grouping.  For example, all insects share physiological traits such as having segmented bodies (head, thorax, and abdomen), three pairs of limbs, a single pair of antennae, compound eyes, and exoskeletons.  Since insects all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.  Similarly, mammals also share characteristics, such as hair, mammary glands, a single jawbone, dyphodonty (tooth replacement), the three middle ear bones, endothermy (body temperature regulation), and many others.  Since mammals all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.

You could just as easily say that the differences in all those animals suggests they did not have a common ancestor. Also to my previous point, similarity does not imply relationship.

Quote
Not only that, but when you compare the DNA between two insects (or two mammals), it is much closer than you would get from comparing an insect and a mammal (which are pretty far apart as classes go), further strengthening the common ancestor argument.

So, how does your argument explain these similarities?

Is this another ipse dixit? I already showed you a case of DNA dissimilarities, did you need a certain number of them?

You may be right that it is difficult to tell motives and attitude online, but I assure you I'm not attempting to be mean to you in any way. I encourage you to do more research if you don't know what I'm referring to, and I will do the same for you, with a mutual understanding that it doesn't mean the other is somehow inferior.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 06:22:25 PM
I'm getting increasingly bored from the amount of people bashing my faith, and I will not longer respond to anyone other than jaimehlers.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 11, 2013, 06:40:27 PM
I'm getting increasingly bored from the amount of people bashing my faith, and I will not longer respond to anyone other than jaimehlers.

I didn't mean to strike a nerve with my last post. I do hold the opinion that Young Earth Creationism is ridiculous though. Most likely in the same way some YECs have the opinion that belief in a flat earth is ridiculous. Don't let it get to you.

I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: mrbiscoop on September 11, 2013, 06:45:05 PM
Pigeon shitting on a chessboard anybody?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 07:04:16 PM
Except for this one individual Astreja, since it's a good question, and it doesn't involve insult.

Quote
Well, My understanding is that current methods are extraordinarily good.  U of California (Berkeley) can now do actual photographs of molecules in a chemical reaction (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/05/30/scientists-capture-first-images-of-molecules-before-and-after-reaction/), so quantifying C-14 should be comparatively easy now.

Indeed it is. The age of diamonds, at least on earths surface based on uniformitarian assumption, is higher than the roughly 100,000 years that should be the upper limit detectable through IRMS. There should not be any detectable amounts in them given their supposed age, but it is there.

Quote
I see a more serious problem here if one takes a YEC approach to diamonds, 'tho.  How are they getting formed, if not by pressure on carbon deposits over millions of years?  Either what we know about diamond formation is wrong, or some enormous force crushed that carbon into shape in a much shorter period of time.  A cataclysmic event would have done a lot more disruption to the earth than just squishing carbon atoms together to make hard shiny things, and so far I haven't seen that nice Kryptonian boy Kal-El wandering about, randomly squishing barbecue briquettes in his hands.

Well, taking a YEC approach, God could easily create the earth with diamonds in it, or they may have been produced by the creation process itself (note that the bible does not say explicitly how God created everything). Here is an article more about diamonds from a YEC view http://creation.com/diamonds-evidence-of-explosive-geological-processes

Edit: Scratch that idea that I had, I just realised what I said would be a fallacy of sorts. I had thought that might be true but it probably isn't. I hadn't given it much thought, but the article seems to have thought it through more than me.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 07:08:16 PM
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case. Plus, they can interbreed to make fertile offspring which is a dead giveaway they are from the same ancestors. Huskies I think?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on September 11, 2013, 07:27:52 PM
Oh another person who is arguing against science using a computer..... &)

CC, you use the science that is based on evolution every day. If you have never gotten smallpox or polio, if you have eaten corn, if you believe that police CSI units can find suspects, if you wash your hands after using the toilet, then you are unwittingly using applications of the theory of evolution.

How do scientists know that evolution is true? Because when you apply it to real life situations, it works. Science that does not work gets disproven (by other scientists, not religious authorities) and thrown out. That's why police generally use DNA to locate suspects instead of psychics, and researchers develop flu vaccines for new strains of the disease each year instead of relying on faith to prevent the disease. That's why you don't drink the water from your toilet, even though you can't see the germs. You know they are there, because science.

And the very same science that supports evolution also developed your fridge, car, cell phone, microwave and computer. You can only be consistent in your beliefs if you live the way people did in the year 1800. You know, before the theory of evolution.  Drinking contaminated water, living without electricity, being ignorant of much of the world, believing in witchcraft, approving of slavery, and dying before age 60-- all biblical, baby.  Throw out evolution and you throw out all modern science and technology.

Luckily, unlike religion, science works for everyone, whether they believe in it or not. :D

Very cute. Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.

IF, possibly, you are referring to survival of the fittest and speciation, those are in fact concepts that creationists agree with. So please, in advance, don't use them as a straw man.

I am not sure what you are talking about, since "historical science" and "survival of the fittest" are not testable concepts, AFAIK.

And you have not addressed by basic point, which is that evolutionary theory works when it is applied to various real life situations. That is very obvious--wrong theories don't work in application, because they are wrong! This, more than anything in a research lab, supports the validity of the theory.

When Darwin and his colleagues developed the ideas that form the basis of the theory, there was no field called genetics, there was no such thing as DNA evidence, there were no vaccines for diseases. All of these discoveries were made based on the theory of evolution. None of that stuff would exist if not for the theory of evolution. Unless the discoveries that led to all of these things are just well-timed coincidences? If the theory was wrong none of the science based on it would work.

Scientists mapped the human genome and predicted where humans and chimpanzees diverged in terms of DNA-- and later evidence showed them to be correct. How are we able to get vaccines and to work if the underlying biology is not sound? Why is it that police can use DNA to locate suspects if the underlying biology is not sound?

I am truly curious. Do you think that these scientists are lying or making up data that is not true? This would be a world wide conspiracy of untold proportions--the majority of scientists in hundreds of fields would have to be involved. The researchers, universities, governments, police, and public health departments in every country from China to Brazil to South Africa to Canada to Israel to France to Ethiopia would also have to be in on the scheme.

In reality, scientists fight and compete to get their ideas out there-- they do not all agree and collude with stuff they all know is wrong. Why would people who don't agree on much of anything else all do this? Even if that was somehow the case, how would they get all the fake vaccines to prevent disease in people everywhere? How would the police departments find criminals if DNA evidence is not real? I really want to know how a YEC deals with these facts.

ps CC, Do you believe that Noah and the flood story actually happened as described in the OT?

pps If, as you said, god could easily create the earth with diamonds already in it (I presume with magical forces) why even bother trying to explain such things with science?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 07:54:37 PM
Quote
I am not sure what you are talking about, since "historical science" and "survival of the fittest" are not testable concepts, AFAIK

You disagree with natural selection?

Quote
And you have not addressed by basic point, which is that evolutionary theory works when it is applied to various real life situations. That is very obvious--wrong theories don't work in application, because they are wrong! This, more than anything in a research lab, supports the validity of the theory.

which parts?

Quote
When Darwin and his colleagues developed the ideas that form the basis of the theory, there was no field called genetics, there was no such thing as DNA evidence, there were no vaccines for diseases. All of these discoveries were made based on the theory of evolution. None of that stuff would exist if not for the theory of evolution. Unless the discoveries that led to all of these things are just well-timed coincidences? If the theory was wrong none of the science based on it would work.

Creationist Gregor Mendel is the father of genetics. Christian Edward Jenner is the father of vaccination.

Quote
Scientists mapped the human genome and predicted where humans and chimpanzees diverged in terms of DNA-- and later evidence showed them to be correct. How are we able to get vaccines and to work if the underlying biology is not sound? Why is it that police can use DNA to locate suspects if the underlying biology is not sound?

"Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences" http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000085

Show me an example of police using evolution to solve crimes

Quote
I am truly curious. Do you think that these scientists are lying or making up data that is not true? This would be a world wide conspiracy of untold proportions--the majority of scientists in hundreds of fields would have to be involved. The researchers, universities, governments, police, and public health departments in every country from China to Brazil to South Africa to Canada to Israel to France to Ethiopia would also have to be in on the scheme.

In reality, scientists fight and compete to get their ideas out there-- they do not all agree and collude with stuff they all know is wrong. Why would people who don't agree on much of anything else all do this? Even if that was somehow the case, how would they get all the fake vaccines to prevent disease in people everywhere? How would the police departments find criminals if DNA evidence is not real? I really want to know how a YEC deals with these facts.

Is this a conspiracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

Edit: See also www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Quote
ps CC, Do you believe that Noah and the flood story actually happened as described in the OT?

Yes

Quote
pps If, as you said, god could easily create the earth with diamonds already in it (I presume with magical forces) why even bother trying to explain such things with science?

See my edit, dated before your response
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 08:35:24 PM
I'm getting increasingly bored from the amount of people bashing my faith, and I will not longer respond to anyone other than jaimehlers.

Awe...poor little Creationist got his poor little feelings hurt and now won't reply to everyone.

Poor persecuted baby. Maybe you need to go back to the kiddie table and talk to those your own age, that way you can be as high and mighty as you please.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: mrbiscoop on September 11, 2013, 08:43:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest " are not the same thing. More YEC bullshit.
Discussing YEC is a non-starter for me. Its tenets are so over the top absurd and insane that for me to argue its legitimacy is akin to arguing Mother Goose.
You can consider this as bashing your "faith", which the possession of by the way is not a virtue.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 08:46:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest " are not the same thing. More YEC bullshit.



Now he's not going to reply to you, you big meanie!!!

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 08:54:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest " are not the same thing. More YEC bullshit.
Discussing YEC is a non-starter for me. Its tenets are so over the top absurd and insane that for me to argue its legitimacy is akin to arguing Mother Goose.
You can consider this as more bashing of your "faith". Oh yeah by the way having faith is not a virtue.

I notice you like to cherry pick and heckle. Why don't you do jaimehlers a favor and explain how different genetic codes can be overcome in the process of evolution?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: mrbiscoop on September 11, 2013, 09:01:17 PM
 What do you mean by "overcome"?
 What am I cherry picking? You equated natural selection and survival of the fittest. I provided a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest which explains the difference.
 Your statements show a profound ignorance of how evolution works.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 09:05:04 PM
Quote
What do you mean by "overcome"?

Evolve from one to the other

Quote
What am I cherry picking?

Tiny little parts of my entire argument that don't make any difference to the argument as a whole

Quote
You equated natural selection and survival of the fittest. I provided a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest which explains the difference. Your statements show a profound ignorance of how evolution works.

Prove my ignorance then, I gave you a shot.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 09:08:41 PM
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 09:14:45 PM
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them

If this is toward me: what questions have I not answered?

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them

If this is toward me: what questions have I not answered?

-Nam

Actually mrbiscoop, I should say ALSO left me one, on the last comment. I don't remember what yours was for, was it yesterday? You already told me you aren't big on science so I wouldn't expect you to answer the question I gave him. Feel free to ask me any science questions about YEC tho, if you'd like.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: mrbiscoop on September 11, 2013, 09:22:21 PM
  Your definition of cherry picking is correct but you failed to show how and what I was cherry-picking.
  Wikipedia is a good  start if you want to learn the basics of evolution. There are also plenty of very good books and websites on the subject. As I have been reminded by other posters here the internet is your friend.
  Equating "overcome" with evolving from one to the other is a bizarre way to refer to the process of speciation. Once again I would suggest learning more about evolution up and above what your pastor has to say about it.
    Good Luck.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Zankuu on September 11, 2013, 09:24:50 PM
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case.

What is the YEC timeline for the domestication of the dog?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 11, 2013, 09:33:21 PM
You're going extremely far off-topic. It is irrelevant how speculative it is, because c-14 assumptions are still speculative, and therefore not in the realm of science.
Except that they are not speculative.  For example, the rate of c14 decay (and other kinds of radioactive decay) is no more speculative than the rate of gravitational attraction, so for you to suggest that it is speculative because we don't have all the information about it is akin to suggesting that the universal theory of gravity is speculative because we don't have all the information on it..  It goes the same way for your other assertions - you have no evidence to back them up either.  So holding them up as reasons for why carbon dating isn't reliable is no more believable than asserting that gravity might have worked differently in the past, or might work differently somewhere else in the universe, without providing evidence to show that it was actually the case.

Now, it is true that they are assumptions, after a fashion.  But they are assumptions based on the fact that we've never seen them fluctuate, and we don't have any scientific evidence (observational, experimental, or historical) that shows that they ever have in the past either.  So it isn't reasonable to conclude that despite this, they might have fluctuated anyway, and thus we can't rely on carbon dating.  If someone comes up with solid evidence to show that they have fluctuated in the past, it'll be different, but until then, trying to dismiss carbon dating (and other branches of science that contradict the Biblical narrative) based on "well, things might have been different" isn't going to fly.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Tree rings are not always reliable http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
I realise that may not be an easy read, but note the part about "missing and intra-annual rings"
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable.  First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest.  In any case, missing rings would result in younger ages for tree ring counts.  There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE.  And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.

But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider.  If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that.  Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings.  In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with.  See the problem?

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation
I did.  It was in this link (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating) (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above).  That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I think, being PhDs, they thought of that possibility. Perhaps you should ask them if you feel like this is the case.
If they were doing their jobs properly, they would have included it when they published their findings.  Because that's how scientific publication works - you include everything you worked with, no matter how trivial it might seem.  If they didn't include it in their publications, that means they either didn't account for it, messed up somewhere and didn't notice, or they intentionally left it out.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Only using older methods of dating. Learn about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope-ratio_mass_spectrometry
I heard about that, actually.  But I doubt that the RATE scientists used it, since it's newer than their publications.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I mentioned it as a possibility for you to consider, not that I was unaware, but I'm glad you researched it. Like I said, I generally agree with dates in the last few thousand years, using c-14. HOWEVER there is evidence of accelerated decay in other radioisotopes, but it may take a long time to debate this with you.
No offense, but I doubt that there is such evidence, since it is only creationists - with a vested interest in disproving the science of radioisotopic analysis - who have seemingly found it.  Other scientists who have investigated those things haven't found it.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Because the dogs are still dogs, regardless of how old the findings are.
You are trying to have this both ways, though.  You are trying to say that the age doesn't matter, because they are still dogs no matter what, but you are also trying to say that the age does matter - since you used the most ancient dog remains anyone has yet found.  If the age doesn't matter, why not use dog remains from a couple of thousand years ago?  The fact is that it wouldn't prove anything, since we know dogs have existed much longer than that.  So you used dog remains that were dated from long before the Biblical flood - indeed, the Biblical creation itself - because they would strengthen your assertion...except that you also want to say that the date doesn't matter, because that demolishes your assertion.  You can't have that both ways.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I don't want to be mean, but this is a bit muddled. I'd prefer you make a clear sentence or two statement about what you're saying. Really tho, I don't think my original point is very vital to this whole argument anyway.
In short, you're claiming that scientists think that other sciences have to be made to fit to evolution, without actually quoting any who do - but at the same time, you're shifting the burden of proof onto me, by demanding that I find scientists who don't think this.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather"
is a false analogy, because no religion claims that weather is not a natural phenomenon.
Rather, they don't now.  And you know why they don't?  Because scientists showed that they were natural phenomenons rather than the actions of a supernatural entity.  So it is not a false analogy.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work"
is also a false analogy, at least for Christianity, but possibly not for some witchdoctors, who presumably ignore germ theory.
This is also not a false analogy, for the same reason I gave above.  Just because most modern-day Christians do not now believe it - long after germ theory was introduced and shown to work - does not mean that Christians always thought that way.  Indeed, before germ theory was developed, a lot of Christians believed that they were caused by supernatural influences (either divine or diabolic).  Some Christians still think that today, not just witch doctors.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one"
Unless, of course, it is 1 Tim 6:20 "...science falsely so called" which I'm trying to show, and which this article and you are ipse dixit-ing that it is not.
You're the one who linked the article to begin with.  Don't start accusing me and it of things like ipse dixit when you didn't read it fully in the first place, especially now that I have shown that it detracts from your argument rather than supporting it.

By the way, you are wrong.  I do not expect you to simply accept any of my assertions as valid simply because I say they are.  I expect you to think about them and to answer them intelligently, rather than using your own dogma as an excuse to disregard them.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
1. Irrelevant irrelevance, I wasn't suggesting it was true or untrue.
Except you just said that you were trying to show that it was "science falsely so-called", effectively, that it was false science.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
2. Also irrelevant, we already discussed theistic evolution
This isn't about theistic evolution, it's about your statement that atheism demands evolution.  Except that it doesn't, any more than atheism demands any other science.  That makes the appeal to consequences relevant, because you are trying to claim that since atheism demands evolution, evolution is required for atheism.  I.e., one must be an 'evolutionist' to be an atheist.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
3. The whole point of this argument is to show how evolution is not a necessary outcome of the scientific method.
Nothing in science is a "necessary outcome of the scientific method".  The scientific method is just a process for checking ideas against reality.  So trying to claim that it is not necessary is immaterial.  What matters is whether it's falsified by the scientific method, and evolution has not been.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
4. That could be easily argued with Darwin's book, not that this "fallacy" is relevant to the quote at all
I assume you mean the same Charles Darwin who specifically stated that he was not an atheist two decades after publishing "On the Origin of Species"?  Given that he is the man who discovered evolutionary theory to begin with, trying to claim that you can use his own book to argue that evolution is linked to atheism is absurd.  Thus the objection is also relevant.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
5. Something that could be even more easily argued
Sure, but not very effectively.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I did that already. C-14 is bogus, the dog fossils are not. Also, dogs descended from wolves.
Until you find evidence showing that it is 'bogus', this is nothing more than your opinion (shared by a lot of YECists, not that it matters), and not a particularly well-informed one at that.  Thus dismissing it only demonstrates cognitive dissonance on your part.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I told you twice to actually read it. If you are not going to, don't pretend to know what I'm talking about. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
I did read it, though it's not my field of study and thus is not easy to understand.  So I had a friend who is a biologist and who works with this stuff in his job read it too.  He's the one who made the "genes for eyes suddenly coding for giant fingers" comparison.  Thus, I question whether you actually know what you're talking about here.  But here's an easy way to prove that you do - tell me where in that document it shows that different DNA codes can't be overcome via evolution.  Specifically, which line.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It has to do with evolution because the supposed ancestors of certain animals have different amounts of polyploidy and chromosomes, whereas the variations within a kind (which is slight changes within a chromosome) generally do not, the exceptions generally being sterile or stillborn.
And you know they had different numbers of chromosomes because...  I'm quite serious here.  As far as I can tell, this is a totally baseless assertion.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
See previous argument
Until you show that said argument is actually based on something, there isn't much to see.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You could just as easily say that the differences in all those animals suggests they did not have a common ancestor. Also to my previous point, similarity does not imply relationship.
What you're saying here is virtually the same as saying, "well, just because wolves and dogs have certain similarities, it doesn't mean that they come from a common ancestor".  Except that this is incorrect, as you know.  Your argument here is just as bad - basically that it doesn't matter that they are consistently similar in ways that bridge the divide between genus and family, not just species, because they're different 'kinds' (or as you say, 'types') and couldn't possibly have come from a shared ancestor.  If someone who did not accept speciation came up to you and asserted that there's no way that the various species could ever have been anything but different species, you would probably call him on it - but you are doing essentially the same thing by asserting that it arbitrarily stops once you get past the species level (i.e., species all share common ancestors, but genuses do not, or families do not).

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Is this another ipse dixit? I already showed you a case of DNA dissimilarities, did you need a certain number of them?
The apparent genetic similarity (despite their evident physical differences) between horses and bats is an exception to the rule (and not the only one, either).  Simply pointing to something like this doesn't actually prove anything, especially when physical similarities are paired with DNA similarities much more often than not.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You may be right that it is difficult to tell motives and attitude online, but I assure you I'm not attempting to be mean to you in any way. I encourage you to do more research if you don't know what I'm referring to, and I will do the same for you, with a mutual understanding that it doesn't mean the other is somehow inferior.
I wasn't talking about myself here.  You seem to not realize how you're coming across to other people - responses which you intend as humorous are coming off as flippant, dismissive, or arrogant, for example, so I was trying to point it out for your benefit.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 09:35:21 PM
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case.

What is the YEC timeline for the domestication of the dog?

Well, the flood was probably somewhere around 2500-2300 BC (there's a little ambiguity, I think 2348 is round about right), and anytime after that, dogs could have been domesticated in a short amount of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Although most of the breeds around today, I'm told, didn't show up until the last few hundred years
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 09:51:53 PM
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them

If this is toward me: what questions have I not answered?

-Nam

Actually mrbiscoop, I should say ALSO left me one, on the last comment. I don't remember what yours was for, was it yesterday? You already told me you aren't big on science so I wouldn't expect you to answer the question I gave him. Feel free to ask me any science questions about YEC tho, if you'd like.

If you can't point it out then either you don't know, or I have answered all questions posed to me by you. Don't turn it around and state, "You can ask me a question.". Now, if someone else smited you, then you should be more direct and not generalise since others may have smited you.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 09:54:18 PM
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case.

What is the YEC timeline for the domestication of the dog?

Well, the flood was probably somewhere around 2500-2300 BC (there's a little ambiguity, I think 2348 is round about right), and anytime after that, dogs could have been domesticated in a short amount of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Although most of the breeds around today, I'm told, didn't show up until the last few hundred years

Non-biased evidence for the flood stated in the Bible of actually happening?

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 11, 2013, 09:57:36 PM
He's just gonna link to the Discovery Institute, or Answers in Genesis, or something.  And if you claim bias, then "everyone's biased!"  No reasoning with this kind of person.  Reason is heresy.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
He's just gonna link to the Discovery Institute, or Answers in Genesis, or something.  And if you claim bias, then "everyone's biased!"  No reasoning with this kind of person.  Reason is heresy.

It's still fun to ask. ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 10:52:35 PM
Quote
Except that they are not speculative.  For example, the rate of c14 decay (and other kinds of radioactive decay) is no more speculative than the rate of gravitational attraction, so for you to suggest that it is speculative because we don't have all the information about it is akin to suggesting that the universal theory of gravity is speculative because we don't have all the information on it..  It goes the same way for your other assertions - you have no evidence to back them up either.  So holding them up as reasons for why carbon dating isn't reliable is no more believable than asserting that gravity might have worked differently in the past, or might work differently somewhere else in the universe, without providing evidence to show that it was actually the case.

I don't disagree with the rate of decay, as I said. You didn't answer the other points I made about C-14 - Amount of biomass has been constant, amount in atmosphere has been constant. Your example of gravity also isn't very good since universal gravitational attraction is clearly seen in galaxies, etc. You can't compare a change in fundamental physical law to a change in the amount of material on a planet anyway.

You are still just begging the question, and presenting the same arguments, without addressing the fact that the amount of biomass in the past and C-14 in the atmosphere in the past is speculative, and therefore radiometric dating beyond a certain point is speculative, and does not belong to science.

Quote
Now, it is true that they are assumptions, after a fashion.  But they are assumptions based on the fact that we've never seen them fluctuate, and we don't have any scientific evidence (observational, experimental, or historical) that shows that they ever have in the past either.  So it isn't reasonable to conclude that despite this, they might have fluctuated anyway, and thus we can't rely on carbon dating.  If someone comes up with solid evidence to show that they have fluctuated in the past, it'll be different, but until then, trying to dismiss carbon dating (and other branches of science that contradict the Biblical narrative) based on "well, things might have been different" isn't going to fly.

Biomass and atmosphere have both been non-existent in the past, according to anyone. The question really is, when was that? Either way it has changed.

The earths magnetic field was greater in the past, according to non-speculative science. This would cause a decrease in the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Quote
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable.  First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest.  In any case, missing rings would result in younger ages for tree ring counts.  There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE.  And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.

But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider.  If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that.  Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings.  In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with.  See the problem?

I do see the problem. I've been letting you get away with ipse dixit, but now it's time to post sources.

Quote
Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation
I did.  It was in this link (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating) (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above).  That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.

That was also the part where I told you that that was old, as in 1982 like it says at the top. Now we have IRMS

Quote
If they were doing their jobs properly, they would have included it when they published their findings.  Because that's how scientific publication works - you include everything you worked with, no matter how trivial it might seem.  If they didn't include it in their publications, that means they either didn't account for it, messed up somewhere and didn't notice, or they intentionally left it out.

Yes, I know that. I told you to ask because the burden of proof is on you to dispute a scientific paper. Do you have a PhD by chance?

Quote
I heard about that, actually.  But I doubt that the RATE scientists used it, since it's newer than their publications.

I'm sure you have plenty of doubts about the truth, unfortunately.

Quote
No offense, but I doubt that there is such evidence, since it is only creationists - with a vested interest in disproving the science of radioisotopic analysis - who have seemingly found it.  Other scientists who have investigated those things haven't found it.

That's because of the different methods of looking for evidence. Edit: The evolutionists are not looking for whether or not it has happened, because they presuppose it has not.

Quote
You are trying to have this both ways, though.  You are trying to say that the age doesn't matter, because they are still dogs no matter what, but you are also trying to say that the age does matter - since you used the most ancient dog remains anyone has yet found.  If the age doesn't matter, why not use dog remains from a couple of thousand years ago?  The fact is that it wouldn't prove anything, since we know dogs have existed much longer than that.  So you used dog remains that were dated from long before the Biblical flood - indeed, the Biblical creation itself - because they would strengthen your assertion...except that you also want to say that the date doesn't matter, because that demolishes your assertion.  You can't have that both ways.

Age doesn't matter in the dogs part, it does in the earth part. Why are you making this an argument?

Quote
In short, you're claiming that scientists think that other sciences have to be made to fit to evolution, without actually quoting any who do - but at the same time, you're shifting the burden of proof onto me, by demanding that I find scientists who don't think this.

That's because I gave you some that do, such as the obscure fellow Dawkins.

Quote
Rather, they don't now.  And you know why they don't?  Because scientists showed that they were natural phenomenons rather than the actions of a supernatural entity.  So it is not a false analogy.

This is also not a false analogy, for the same reason I gave above.  Just because most modern-day Christians do not now believe it - long after germ theory was introduced and shown to work - does not mean that Christians always thought that way.  Indeed, before germ theory was developed, a lot of Christians believed that they were caused by supernatural influences (either divine or diabolic).  Some Christians still think that today, not just witch doctors.

Not based on doctrine they didn't, which is the point.

Quote
Nothing in science is a "necessary outcome of the scientific method".  The scientific method is just a process for checking ideas against reality.  So trying to claim that it is not necessary is immaterial.  What matters is whether it's falsified by the scientific method, and evolution has not been.

"Reality" as you call it must be shown through the scientific method

Quote
I did read it.  Furthermore, I had a friend who is a biologist and who works with this stuff in his job read it too.  He's the one who made the "genes for eyes suddenly coding for giant fingers" comparison.  Thus, I question whether you actually know what you're talking about here.

Argument from authority? I have to question whether or not you understood what he meant by that anyway. Let him know that there are no fingers or eyes mentioned, because the fingers and eyes of organisms have the same genetic codes. THESE genetic codes are from DIFFERENT organisms which supposedly have the same common ancestor. Let your friend know that he would probably have to be a geneticist to begin to answer this question.

Quote
And you know they had different numbers of chromosomes because...  I'm quite serious here.  As far as I can tell, this is a totally baseless assertion.

It may have something to do with the fact that the different animals they supposedly turned into have different amounts of chromosomes and polyploidy.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

Quote
What you're saying here is virtually the same as saying, "well, just because wolves and dogs have certain similarities, it doesn't mean that they come from a common ancestor".  Except that this is incorrect, as you know.  Your argument here is just as bad - basically that it doesn't matter that they are consistently similar in ways that bridge the divide between genus and family, not just species, because they're different 'kinds' (or as you say, 'types') and couldn't possibly have come from a shared ancestor.  If someone who did not accept speciation came up to you and asserted that there's no way that the various species could ever have been anything but different species, you would probably call him on it - but you are doing essentially the same thing by asserting that it arbitrarily stops once you get past the species level (i.e., species all share common ancestors, but genuses do not, or families do not).

The apparent genetic similarity (despite their evident physical differences) between horses and bats is an exception to the rule (and not the only one, either).  Simply pointing to something like this doesn't actually prove anything, especially when physical similarities are paired with DNA similarities much more often than not.

Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's just evidence! This is my whole point, which you seem to be missing. Both evolution and creation rely on assumptions of their validity, it HAS to be that way, and yet you keep insisting that evolution must be true, regardless of the fact that you've admitted repeatedly that everything that "proves" evolution is based on them.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 11, 2013, 11:01:31 PM
Creationism is based on the OT which is an assumption therefore it's untrue.
Evolution is based on evidence which is an assumption therefore it's untrue.

This is what CC is saying. So, no matter what "we" say, it's all opinion.
No matter what YEC's say, it:s all opinion.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 11, 2013, 11:27:05 PM
Well, I was thinking you would ask me something like: Why do you believe x fits with YEC? But,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter_Sandstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
St Peter's sandstone is a formation that is in a large area from Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, and very thick. Sandstone is, obviously, made out of sand.

Quote
The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a stream, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension; i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or erg). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains.

Notice "precipitation of minerals" means that there was water in there upon formation, meaning it is quite likely that this large cohesive amount of sandstone formed at the same time, in an awfully large flood.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 11, 2013, 11:56:48 PM
CC

I can't possibly read all of your posts, because I'm already old and I don't have that much time left. But you seem to love complaining about carbon dating, and its alleged problems. Are you ignoring the fact that other dating systems show results consistent with what carbon dating reveals, or would you prefer we not bring up stuff like?

Do you have equally in compelling argument,emits against uranium-lead dating, or potassium-argon dating?  You know, like another sixty-plus posts worth, or would you just prefer we extrapolate your hatred of facts to mean you disbelieve 100% of the stuff that threatens your fragile little religious world.

And I hope that you appreciate that I didn't bring up Samarium-neodymium dating, rubidium-strontium dating, fission track dating, chlorine-36 dating, and especially luminescence dating, because that one is so darned hard to spell. You're welcome.

Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 12, 2013, 12:00:13 AM
CC

I can't possibly read all of your posts, because I'm already old and I don't have that much time left. But you seem to love complaining about carbon dating, and its alleged problems. Are you ignoring the fact that other dating systems show results consistent with what carbon dating reveals, or would you prefer we not bring up stuff like?

Do you have equally in compelling argument,emits against uranium-lead dating, or potassium-argon dating?  You know, like another sixty-plus posts worth, or would you just prefer we extrapolate your hatred of facts to mean you disbelieve 100% of the stuff that threatens your fragile little religious world.

And I hope that you appreciate that I didn't bring up Samarium-neodymium dating, rubidium-strontium dating, fission track dating, chlorine-36 dating, and especially luminescence dating, because that one is so darned hard to spell. You're welcome.

Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.

Did you expect the sandstone to cover the earth? How big exactly is big enough for you? Edit: Obviously many other places have sedimentary rock too, what I used is an example, not a thorough discourse

And yes, there are also good reasons to doubt other dating methods, mostly with similar reasoning as c-14.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 12, 2013, 12:14:51 AM
PP,

He's not making it up, he's using other Creationist ideas as his own.

http://creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 12, 2013, 12:48:33 AM
PP,

He's not making it up, he's using other Creationist ideas as his own.

http://creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

;)

-Nam

Stop using English, you're just using Shakespeare's language as your own
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 12, 2013, 12:53:10 AM
Anyways it's been fun. I'm going to go listen to my pastor drone on and on about how evil science is, then I'm going to live in a hole where I only talk to fundys who agree with me.

Bye bye now.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Nam on September 12, 2013, 12:57:32 AM
PP,

He's not making it up, he's using other Creationist ideas as his own.

http://creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

;)

-Nam

Stop using English, you're just using Shakespeare's language as your own

How's that even remotely the same? It's not. You're an idiot. See, I don't go to Shakespeare's works and then come here and speak in his words. He didn't create the English language. Modern English was formed in the mid 16th century, during his lifetime but he didn't create it.

You, on the other hand, go to websites or read books that either you've been brainwashed into, indoctrinated into, or just agree with your point-of-view and then come here and spout it off as if they are your ideas.

You try so hard to show you know what you're talking about but you don't. Clearly your replies here show this.

-Nam
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ChristianConspirator on September 12, 2013, 02:38:56 AM
Quote
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable.  First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest.  In any case, missing rings would result in younger ages for tree ring counts.  There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE.  And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.

But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider.  If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that.  Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings.  In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with.  See the problem?

After researching this a bit I've come to the conclusion that this appears to be a valid argument. An argument against it is possible, but speculative at present, so I concede on this point.

I'm going to take a break from this inter-net for a while, but I'll probably get back on here, eventually.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Mrjason on September 12, 2013, 04:17:53 AM
Well, I was thinking you would ask me something like: Why do you believe x fits with YEC? But,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter_Sandstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
St Peter's sandstone is a formation that is in a large area from Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, and very thick. Sandstone is, obviously, made out of sand.

Quote
The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a stream, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension; i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or erg). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains.

Notice "precipitation of minerals" means that there was water in there upon formation, meaning it is quite likely that this large cohesive amount of sandstone formed at the same time, in an awfully large flood.

Quick note on this. If the sandstone were formed all at the same time, due to a world wide flood you would expect it to contain fossils of the same species of marine bivalves (and other marine fauna) across the board. 
if you have a mix of species showing differing evolutionary traits then it can not possibly have all been formed at the same time.
Even if you discount evolution as a myth i don't see how you rationally can explain differing species not co-existing in a localised area. I mean come on how did god make sure the brachiopods stayed in what would become South Dakota but didn't stray over to Alaska?
And to be frank, why on earth would he be bothered in keeping the mollusc's separate? Oh yes thats right, he hates shellfish...
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 12, 2013, 07:30:29 AM
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Hatter23 on September 12, 2013, 07:49:02 AM
Quote
Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?

Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way.

Yes. It is biased towards rationality and expose irrationality. Thus, it is biased towards accuracy.



Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Hatter23 on September 12, 2013, 07:55:39 AM
Quote
Can you give a specific example of this?

Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

You're getting your good ideas mixed up. Neo-Darwinism, the term , was coined by a friend of Darwin's, indeed because of new findings by Lamarck and stuff. You seem shocked that anyone would try to update scientific information. Something that, in this century, is done daily.

But the punctuated evolution thing, as you tried to explain it, is all wrong. When a biologist says that evolution happened quickly, he isn't talking Internet-fast, he is talking biology-fast.  And so slow we cant observe it? thats cute. Did you make that up ourself or read it in a comic book?

In biological term, a newly evolved species changing trait that shows up in merely 25,000 years is considered lickity split. And indeed such changes can and do leave fossil evidence.

And if it is so slow we can't observe it, then it hasn't happened.

People who feel a need to cram all of reality into 6,000 years have a hard time appreciating the actual timeframe of both the universe and of life. So when they see terms like "punctuated equilibrium" they get all excited and redefine it to mean what they want it to mean instead of what science says it means. And then they try to argue about it.

Wanting everyone else to go along with your pretend reality is asking a bit much.

Edit: spelling errors and clarification

Speciation of the Farro Island house mouse versus the common mouse has occured since the intropuction of scientific method, as it happened in a period within the past 250 years. Speciation of a macroscapic animal has been observed.

So much for even that flimsy excuse of YEC.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Mrjason on September 12, 2013, 08:08:09 AM
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 12, 2013, 08:59:01 AM
CC
Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.

Did you expect the sandstone to cover the earth? How big exactly is big enough for you? Edit: Obviously many other places have sedimentary rock too, what I used is an example, not a thorough discourse

And yes, there are also good reasons to doubt other dating methods, mostly with similar reasoning as c-14.

You don't get to have it both ways. You can't point out that something points to proof for you, and then dismiss it as irrelevant. In one part of that deposit, you can find some of the purest sandstone in the world, while in other parts, not so much. One big flood forming different kinds of sandstone in the same region at the same time?  "sure, why not!" you say, and you suggest it as proof or at least evidence of a flood, then when it is pointed out that, as a localized phenomena it appears to be proof only of a localized geologic event (which is what I implied, though I was busier making fun of you), then you say "Golly gee, that was just an example. And there is other sandstone in the world, so that is more proof. And I feel no need whatsoever to explain the lack of consistency is the worldwide deposits of sandstone after implying that a really big flood formed sandstone, because, you know, my source hasn't made up an excuse yet either so I have to beg off."

So since you've already dismissed this argument, I won't ask questions like how come none of the sandstone around the world, often full of fossils, has no fossils of drowned sinners in it? It seems like all your creation scientists could jump in a mini-van, run out to a sandstone deposit anywhere they choose, and start digging out human corpses so lovingly zapped by your favorite deity. And that would go a long way towards proving once and for all that your favorite bedtime story for kiddies, the near total destruction of the earth, was true.

So while you are inconvenienced by the facts of the matter, you are still demanding that your one minute synopsis of the matter take precedence over the work of scientists who tell us that this particular sandstone formed over 400 million years ago, and it took millions of years to form. And the fact that this particular sandstone contains no large animal fossils whatsoever, and in fact contains very few fossils at all. Compared to many other sandstone deposits. But that's okay, because a large, churning, angry sea, blending the drowned biomass of an entire planet, can still carefully separate materials and drop them where you want.  But then it goes to all that trouble and you dismiss the importance of differing deposits as "just an example".  You aren't very appreciative, are you.

Of course you seemed to imply that you were leaving, but I noticed that you posted again on another thread this morning. Lacking a know-it-all attitude, I can't speak, like you do, with an inconsistent air of superiority, but I do hope that this morning's appearance means that you will respond with poor sarcasm to this post of mine, as you have so often done before.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Azdgari on September 12, 2013, 09:28:36 AM
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Heh.  Thing is, it's a granite that rose and started assimilating parts of the sandstone.  But the granite itself is an S-type, which means it's made of melted sediments (and not just sandstone) in the first place.  So where did those sediments come from?  And how exactly did both the sandstone and granite get worn down to this level (it's got a mineralogy that's stable only under at least a couple of kilometers of pressure), in the space of about 4k years?

Nothing about real geology makes sense in a YEC paradigm.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Mrjason on September 12, 2013, 09:45:59 AM
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Heh.  Thing is, it's a granite that rose and started assimilating parts of the sandstone.  But the granite itself is an S-type, which means it's made of melted sediments (and not just sandstone) in the first place.  So where did those sediments come from?  And how exactly did both the sandstone and granite get worn down to this level (it's got a mineralogy that's stable only under at least a couple of kilometers of pressure), in the space of about 4k years?

Nothing about real geology makes sense in a YEC paradigm.

I was going to try and write an answer to this but it was becoming more and more ludicrous and I couldn't post it. Sorry.

Even basic geology + maths defies YEC.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Hatter23 on September 12, 2013, 10:01:37 AM
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Heh.  Thing is, it's a granite that rose and started assimilating parts of the sandstone.  But the granite itself is an S-type, which means it's made of melted sediments (and not just sandstone) in the first place.  So where did those sediments come from?  And how exactly did both the sandstone and granite get worn down to this level (it's got a mineralogy that's stable only under at least a couple of kilometers of pressure), in the space of about 4k years?

Nothing about real geology makes sense in a YEC paradigm.

I was going to try and write an answer to this but it was becoming more and more ludicrous and I couldn't post it. Sorry.

Even basic geology + maths defies YEC.

The fact of oxbow rivers in the Grand Canyon require long slow erosion, and cannot arise from a global flood requires nothing more sophisticated than a large kiddiepool, a hundred pounds of clay, a bucket, and a garden hose.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 12, 2013, 01:54:11 PM
CC:  Given that I am not using "ipse dixit" anyway, and I seriously resent your repeated accusations that I am, it's just as well that you're backing off for the time being.  I will say that I appreciate you taking a second look at the bristlecone pine thing, but it isn't just that one thing.  I don't base my statements on "because I say so", which is what ipse dixit is.  I base them off of knowledge I have or that I learn.  I have provided sources about stuff, and I certainly don't expect anyone to accept anything simply because I said it, so I don't really think you have any basis for making that accusation.

Believe me, if you could show (with evidence, in a way that other people could independently confirm without relying on the Biblical narrative) that evolutionary theory were flawed or wrong, I would not mind at all, because that would advance human knowledge.  But so far, the best you've been able to do is cast some doubt on the subject, which doesn't help.  Really, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that you are relying on the Biblical narrative to support your assertions.

Here's the thing.  If the events that the Bible says happened actually happened, then there should be physical evidence to show that they did.  With a global flood, there should be evidence that shows that the entire world was flooded (and not just scattered sandstone deposits - think more like a layer of sandstone across the whole crust of the planet, covered by what built up since).  Meaning, you should be able to use that evidence by itself to show that those events happened, and be able to do so in such a way as to convince skeptics that they did, since that's how scientific methodology works.  It isn't about using ancient religious books to explain the events.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: nogodsforme on September 12, 2013, 03:27:17 PM
The "flood really happened" thing is really scary to me.

If there had been a worldwide flood, there would be worldwide geological evidence, and it would be indisputable. The great flood would be the basis of every geology course in the world. Creation folks would not have to pick and choose bits of scientific information (like sea shells on mountain tops) and make them fit a flood narrative. Everything would already fit the flood narrative. Fossils would be jumbled up, with reptiles, mammals and humans all mixed together. There would be a mix of plants and animals instead of distinct species adapted to separate ecosystems. In other words, there would be marsupials like kangaroos everywhere, not just in one tiny region of the planet.

Instead we see fossils laid down in distinct layers, with simpler creatures below the more complex ones. We see dinosaurs well separated from later mammals. We see modern human remains separate from the earlier species of hominids. We see ferns and other early plant fossils below the more complex plants with seeds. We also see that the fossil record matches up with every system of dating.

And we find indigenous and endemic species separated by oceans, islands and mountains. We only find pandas in China, only find chiclids in central African lakes. Many organisms have a very short life span and depend on a social environment where you need far more than a handful to continue the species--bees and ants come to mind.

None of this could possibly be the case if a flood large enough to cover the earth  had happened. Such a catastrophic event would have disrupted all marine, arctic, desert and tropical micro ecosystems. It would have killed most microorganisms, bird life, plant life, insect life and amphibious life. Temperature rise would mean no polar bears or penguins who rely on ice to survive.  The few animals, insects and plants that did somehow survive would die off soon from lack of food, companions, etc.

Any human survivors would have perished in the disease environment created by rotting corpses and vegetation-- if the lack of uncontaminated water and fresh food did not kill them first. There would be no marine life, no animals to hunt or herd, nothing to plant and no soil to plant in. The physics of such an event would also be catastrophic to the weather and geomorphology of the planet.

In other words, such a flood would have rather quickly ended all life on earth. Add the belief that a few people and animals could survive the flood in a gigantic sealed up wooden boat and re-populate the planet, and you have a level of nonsense that is incredible. How anyone in the 21st century can believe such a story is beyond me.  :?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 12, 2013, 04:08:49 PM
Probably the idea is that if God could cause the flood in the first place, he could purify the land and waters to make them safe for people, and he could make it possible for a few animals of each type to repopulate the world.

But such an idea isn't scientific, at least not with real evidence to support it.  Most YECists don't seem to care, though.  What matters is what they think happened, not what the evidence backs up, since to many of them, the Biblical narrative is all the evidence they need or want.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Graybeard on September 12, 2013, 04:44:50 PM

Well, the flood was probably somewhere around 2500-2300 BC (there's a little ambiguity, I think 2348 is round about right),
Is there any reason why, at that time, the Egyptians didn't get wet?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: mrbiscoop on September 12, 2013, 06:42:01 PM
Anyways it's been fun. I'm going to go listen to my pastor drone on and on about how evil science is, then I'm going to live in a hole where I only talk to fundys who agree with me.

Bye bye now.

  This is closer to the truth than you think.
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Hatter23 on September 13, 2013, 05:31:35 AM
Anyone else notice the irony that he accuses others of "ipse dixit" and "moving the goalposts" when he's a fundamentalist and an apologist....which meets the definitions of those two things respectively, perfectly?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: median on September 16, 2013, 12:26:01 AM

Fair enough, the math analogy was false, but the one about a history book stands. I was referring to Genesis, which is a history book. The Nicene Creed is what has been agreed on are solid doctrines of faith in the bible. People deny it, of course, but it can be shown in the bible conclusively why they are incorrect.


The claim that Genesis is a history book is indeed quite debatable. Is the Hindu Baghivad Gita a history book? How about the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Even if one was to agree that Genesis was a history book, not all history books are created equal - and like the other alleged "history" books of ancient religion we have significant reason to doubt their claims to the supernatural/miraculous. Since most of these hundreds of ancient religions have creation stories, which one should we believe and why? Further, why not stop being gullible and withhold believing any of them until we investigate? Regarding the Nicene Creed, why would you bring it up? Faith isn't a pathway to truth, nor is it a reliable method for separating fact from fiction. So the analogy falls very short. There is just no sound correlation between questions of science and questions of "faith" - especially since faith is most often fixed and unwavering. It's very starting point is a conclusion, rather than a question as in science. Sure, you can "show me in the bible" why you think someone is incorrect (conclusively? I think not) but that's just begging the question as to the claim you started with regarding scientists having "evolution bias" (which is nonsense).

Quote
I asked you specific questions pertaining to your charge that scientists who disagree with your personal belief about the age of the earth are "cherry picking" and I drew an analogy regarding Christian cherry picking of bible passages. I also asked you a direct question regarding your charge of cherry picking toward those scientists. Was this answer ignoring that question? I can understand if it was but if you're going to accuse scientists of something please provide a link or some specific evidence for that assertion.

Exodus, which is also a history book, says 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them". Verses like that are numerous, of course, and one has to reject them in order to accept evolution. You asking me about my cherry picking is really off the subject. For all you know I may enjoy rape, etc, so you don't have proof that I cherry pick, that would be a whole other conversation.


This is a big red herring. I asked you for specific evidence of scientists "cherry picking" and all you can do is quote the bible? Would you accept such reasoning if a Muslim quoted their "history book" along this same line of reasoning? I smell intellectual dishonesty coming. Btw, it's also true that "one has to reject" lots of other claimed holy "history" books from other religions. But of course, you haven't demonstrated these religious books are "history books" anymore than the other religions have demonstrated their claims to knowledge of ancient history. If you believe the bible, then don't you believe that men often lie in order to get their way? How about lying when writing "history" books which makes claims to the supernatural and miraculous - have men forged such things in history? I'm sorry, the bible is not a "history book" in the manner by which you are implying. By your logic we should accept every religious text as a history book b/c they mention historical places/peoples.


It sounds like you started with your conclusion and are now working backwards.



This charge can go the opposite way. In other words, scientists who want to keep consistent with the view of evolution may indeed do this. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer)


Another lazy approach. I'm sorry, I'm going to need you to be more specific in your points - as opposed to just posting some generic Wiki link. What specifically is the point you are trying to make as pertaining to this subject of science and YEC?


Indeed I am. My presupposition is that the bible is correct, although that's not to say that I can't inspect the possibility that it isn't.


I predicted correctly. So you've started with your conclusion (that the bible is "correct" - or rather that your interpretation of the bible is the correct) but why would you do this? Furthermore, it doesn't sound like a pre "supposition". It sounds like a precommitment.


Quote
Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc).
I have, and it would be similar to the charge that I may be false because of my bias.


Interesting. So now you've both admitted that you started with your conclusion (your interpretation of the bible) and that you are practicing bias when it comes to these subjects. Do you think these are good things to practice when it comes to the pursuit of separating fact from fiction? If a Muslim practiced your kind of thinking would it be very reliable in getting him closer to knowledge of the world? I think you can see the answer is no. So why continue this way? Do you even care whether or not your beliefs are true or are you just looking to be comfortable with what you assumed from the outset?


Quote
My observation was not ad hominem

I've noticed that this can be quite murky to prove. I could proceed now to go on a tangent about how you evolutionists probably soil yourselves when in a real debate with a creationist, but if I did that, could you ultimately show that it was in order to prove you wrong, or that it was merely an observation?


I'm not quite following you here at all. So you'll have to explain better. However, regarding this "you evolutionsts" charge, you haven't asked me what my beliefs were yet. So why assume? Furthermore, plenty of professing Christians accept the evidence for evolution (as I posted earlier). So, this name calling is getting you nowhere - but even if you could show all the evidence for evolution false it still wouldn't get you one bit closer to proving a deity/God or proving your personal theology. AT BEST, you would simply have to admit that you don't know how we go here, and stop there.

Quote
No I'm not leveling attacks at anyone other than you in this discussion. You have made multiple claims/charges against scientists and I've asked for some evidence for these claims (not broad statistical assertions but specifics). Are you just going to avoid the call for evidence to these claims of yours?

Which claims? I told you about Marc Hauser and Paul Kammerer, I'm not sure if there's some number of people you need? If some other claim, be specific.


Nooo, you haven't "told me" about them. All you've done is post a link to Wikipedia without making any further statements. How would you feel if I did this same thing back to you? You need to be specific as to the arguments you are making. Furthermore, showing one or two scientists to be in error/or having done wrong etc won't help you in taking down the whole of a scientific endeavor. You do know that, don't you?

How come you're not doing this with the germ theory of decease, the "theory" of gravity, or the shape of the earth? There is still a Flat Earth Society you know.

Quote
It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible


The point of mentioning axioms was so that I could show everybody has a bias. You keep mentioning personal interpretation: Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Christ also had the idea that the earth is not billions of years old, and why should I call myself a Christian if I don't believe him?


That's the problem with your thinking. It's based on an assumption! Instead of admitting you don't know, you just assume. But why? Why do that if you really care whether or not your beliefs are true? You aren't believing "Jesus". You're believing hear-say from an old book that you've read, and been told about. For someone who rejects evolution it doesn't seem that your standard of evidence is that high. The NT wasn't even written by eye-witnesses and it contradicts itself all over the place. But besides that why would you believe it in the first place? Why believe ANY book that makes claims to the supernatural and then base your entire life upon it (including how you interpret scientific data)? It's seems quite hypocritical, since you wouldn't lower your standard of evidence in this way for a fast talking salesman at your door - and lots of other religions practice this same kind of thinking to their peril. So why not stop the big assumption?
Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: Hatter23 on September 16, 2013, 06:02:06 AM


That's the problem with your thinking. It's based on an assumption! Instead of admitting you don't know, you just assume. But why? Why do that if you really care whether or not your beliefs are true? You aren't believing "Jesus". You're believing hear-say from an old book that you've read, and been told about. For someone who rejects evolution it doesn't seem that your standard of evidence is that high. The NT wasn't even written by eye-witnesses and it contradicts itself all over the place. But besides that why would you believe it in the first place? Why believe ANY book that makes claims to the supernatural and then base your entire life upon it (including how you interpret scientific data)? It's seems quite hypocritical, since you wouldn't lower your standard of evidence in this way for a fast talking salesman at your door - and lots of other religions practice this same kind of thinking to their peril. So why not stop the big assumption?
CC claims that he is not using two different standards of proof, despite the very obvious fact that he does.

Title: Re: I don't get YEC.
Post by: jaimehlers on September 16, 2013, 02:54:41 PM
I don't disagree with the rate of decay, as I said.
I beg to differ, but you did say you disagreed the day before this latest response of yours.

There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.

I think I would have noticed if you had retracted it before now.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You didn't answer the other points I made about C-14 - Amount of biomass has been constant, amount in atmosphere has been constant. Your example of gravity also isn't very good since universal gravitational attraction is clearly seen in galaxies, etc. You can't compare a change in fundamental physical law to a change in the amount of material on a planet anyway.
Actually, there's no guarantee that the theory of universal gravitation is constant through the entire universe.  Indeed, something is interfering with it, thus why every galaxy we can see except those in the Local Group are redshifted - and the more redshifted the further they are away, as if they're accelerating away from us.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You are still just begging the question, and presenting the same arguments, without addressing the fact that the amount of biomass in the past and C-14 in the atmosphere in the past is speculative, and therefore radiometric dating beyond a certain point is speculative, and does not belong to science.
False.  I was pressing you on the rate of decay, since you indicated that you thought it could have changed radically in the past  Since you've conceded that the rate of decay would have remained constant, I'll switch my focus to the other points you raised.  However, the first one (that the amount of biomass is the same) is not actually an assumption used in carbon dating.  A smaller amount of biomass wouldn't cause organisms to take in more c14, and a larger amount of biomass wouldn't cause them to take in less.

What matters for carbon dating is whether the rate of decay has changed and whether we can account for the times when c14 was either greater or less than it is now.  That's why we use tree rings and also use carbon dating on objects where we can confirm the date through other methods.  That lets us account for c14 fluctuations.  For example (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/04/science/la-sci-sn-cosmic-ray-increase-20120604), we've determined that there was a major influx of cosmic rays about 1,200 years ago, enough to increase the amount of c14 in tree rings from that time period by a noticeable percentage.  That means we can account for that fluctuation.  So, very simply, we don't require that the amount of c14 remains constant, just that we can keep track of the times when it changes.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Biomass and atmosphere have both been non-existent in the past, according to anyone. The question really is, when was that? Either way it has changed.
Of course.  But the YEC assumption, that God essentially snapped his fingers and caused all life forms (and the life cycles that support them) to come into existence over a few days a bit more than 6,000 years ago, is not tenable.  Whereas the longer time frames implicit in geology, evolution, and so on have one key advantage - they don't require things to have happened quickly, which YECism does.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
The earths magnetic field was greater in the past, according to non-speculative science. This would cause a decrease in the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
Which can easily be accounted for in carbon dating.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I do see the problem. I've been letting you get away with ipse dixit, but now it's time to post sources.
I have been posting sources.  If you are missing them, then that is your fault.  You do not get to accuse me of ipse dixit simply because you haven't paid close enough attention to my posts.

Quote
I did.  It was in this link (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating) (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above).  That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
That was also the part where I told you that that was old, as in 1982 like it says at the top. Now we have IRMS
The fact that it is three decades old does not invalidate it.  If you can point out where the conclusions of this website are wrong, that is another story.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Yes, I know that. I told you to ask because the burden of proof is on you to dispute a scientific paper. Do you have a PhD by chance?
No.  Do you?

Also, do you know what actual PhDs the authors of this paper you're referring to have?  It is entirely possible to get a PhD in a totally non-scientific field.  If you don't, you should check.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I'm sure you have plenty of doubts about the truth, unfortunately.
No, I have plenty of doubts, period.  I don't claim to know what "the truth" is.  That's because I'm a skeptic.  I do not simply accept what someone tells me - doesn't matter who it is - as the truth.  I require them to provide solid evidence to support it.  And so far, you have utterly failed to provide even the slightest shred of real support for YECism as science.  All you've done is try to call science that disagrees with YECism into question, and then arbitrarily claimed that the rest of science supports it.  That isn't even slightly convincing.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
That's because of the different methods of looking for evidence. Edit: The evolutionists are not looking for whether or not it has happened, because they presuppose it has not.
You mean like creationists presuppose that the Biblical creation and Biblical flood happened?  No, I don't think so.  Scientists have a vested interest in not simply accepting such presuppositions as fact, because it invalidates the whole system of scientific methodology and undercuts the basis of the science we use today.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Age doesn't matter in the dogs part, it does in the earth part. Why are you making this an argument?
Because you're trying to have it both ways - to claim that the age doesn't matter in some things, but it does in others.  It either matters in everything, or it matters in nothing.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
That's because I gave you some that do, such as the obscure fellow Dawkins.
This is a lie.  You didn't even mention Dawkins in this thread until just now.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Not based on doctrine they didn't, which is the point.
Which doctrine?  There are literally thousands of Christian doctrines, and at least some of them do indeed buy into supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (http://www.tbm.org/role_of_demons_and_sickness_by_t.htm) (such as disease).  Note the writer of that page trying to explain that you need supernatural intervention for some diseases and not for others, that some are caused by germs and others by demons.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"Reality" as you call it must be shown through the scientific method
Do you even understand how the scientific method works?  It's a process by which people come up with explanations which fit existing observations - meaning they haven't been falsified.  It isn't about determining whether something is true, it's about determining whether it's false.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Argument from authority? I have to question whether or not you understood what he meant by that anyway. Let him know that there are no fingers or eyes mentioned, because the fingers and eyes of organisms have the same genetic codes. THESE genetic codes are from DIFFERENT organisms which supposedly have the same common ancestor. Let your friend know that he would probably have to be a geneticist to begin to answer this question.
I asked him to help me figure out what the page was saying because I could only get a general idea.  He told me that the information on this page was about showing where the initiation codons for genes were, not showing that organisms can't change evolutionarily.  At this point, I seriously doubt that you have sufficient background in biology and genetics to understand what anything on that page means.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It may have something to do with the fact that the different animals they supposedly turned into have different amounts of chromosomes and polyploidy.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Which proves...?  Again, I'm being quite serious.  I do not think this means what you think it does.  Most organisms - in fact, the vast majority of organisms, and most of the ones on that list - are diploid, not polyploid.  And there is no reason that a diploid organism can't survive and even thrive with an extra pair or two of chromosomes.  Polyploidy is when you have three paired chromosomes or more in a set, instead of just two (for example, 69 chromosomes in sets of threes instead of 46 in sets of twos).  I think you would find if you looked that the polyploid organisms follow different lines of descent than the diploid ones[1].

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's just evidence! This is my whole point, which you seem to be missing. Both evolution and creation rely on assumptions of their validity, it HAS to be that way, and yet you keep insisting that evolution must be true, regardless of the fact that you've admitted repeatedly that everything that "proves" evolution is based on them.
Actually, I haven't once insisted evolution must be true.  I'm not sure why you think I did.

By the way, every single branch of science stands on certain assumptions.  Evolution is no different in that respect.  That's why we call them scientific theories.  The difference between science and creationism is that scientific assumptions are based only on what we can observe (even if it's historical) and test, whereas creationism's assumptions are based on doctrine from an ancient book, written by people who didn't know or care what science was.  It's like the difference between an educated guess and a WAG, except that scientific theories are far more sound than educated guesses.
 1. <