Joined: Aug. 2005
These tidbits from your favorite DI fellows aren’t evidence, Dave.
If they are not, then could you propose an example of what IS evidence? Let me guess ... mountains and mountains of 'scholarship' from the science establishment to support Naturalistic Explanations Only? This was the kind of odds Galileo was working against too. Are you telling me that I should believe your evidence and reject mine because yours fits with the majority?
One of the things about science that YEC's just can't get their heads around is that there just isn't any "my evidence" and "your evidence." Science demands transparency and replicability. So all of the evidence we have comes from that dreaded "establishment." Unless there's a YEC research program I'm not aware of, all you have to go on is the evidence uncovered by the hard work of scientists, spit on by the cretins at AiG et al.
Second, what does “life-sustaining universe” mean?
Exactly what it says. And I challenge you to propose some parameter changes and ask a biologist how likely it would be for life to continue. The problem with naturalistic speculators like yourself is that you guys like to say "Well, we only know about life on earth ... sample size of one. There could be other planets, other universes, who knows!" OK, great. I agree. And there could be a Fairy Godmother for all I know. But if we are going to admit wild speculation into the arena, let's admit ALL kinds of wild speculation into the arena. My favorite is "Parallel Universes". I don't know how people can tell me with a straight face that there might be an infinite number of parallel universes, then in the next breath tell me I'm a wild speculator for proposing an Infinite God character.
It's a simple question (with complicated implications), and you didn't answer it, Dave. And there are demonstrably "other planets," so the 'parameter space' that would allow for life is a completely open question, just in the universe we are sure exists. You'll notice that I didn't say anything about multiverses, not because I agree with you that the concept is on an epistemological level with your "Super-Intelligence," but because, in a simplistic debate like this, it's open to your facile dismissal. Why don't you respond to the arguments I did make, rather than the ones you wish I'd made?
|Regarding the Denton "howler" ... THIS is the howler ...|
All the evidence available in the biological (and geological) sciences in fact supports the proposition that life began ~3.8 billion years ago
*cough* because we arbitrarily made some massive initial conditions assumptions so it would come out that long
We did? This is interesting. Can you lay out for me a few of these "massive assumptions"?
|and that from that time forward the most numerous, diverse, robust, and tenacious life-forms have been prokaryotes. |
the old 'what do you think makes humans so special, just look at the bacteria' saw ... sometime I'm going to do a thread on the implications of this thinking on law and culture ... talk about a howler ... this one will be way better than Rush Limbaugh and the Tree Huggers!
Again, you're responding to something I plainly did not say. Microbial life has dominated this planet from the dawn of life to now, and will continue to do so, right up until the sun, a bloated red giant, swells up to devour the earth. From a prokaryotes 'point of view,' the universe is made for it. And I can't imagine anything being worse than "Rush Limbaugh and the Pill Poppers," so have fun with that.
|Multicellular, animal life has been around for maybe a billion years, |
based on our flawed assumptions in dating supposed 'index fossils'
Again with the mystery assumptions. And I think you're confused. Index fossils are mostly used to date rocks, not necessarily other fossils, and certainly not the earliest. The date is derived from the earliest trace fossils, and the radiometric dates of the rocks themselves. Why don't you finish toppling the facade of evolution before you start in on digging out the rotten foundations of nuclear physics, there, tiger.
|most of that as relatively undifferentiated worm-like creatures. Mammals have been around for 80 to 100 million years, primates about 40 million, hominids 7 to 8 million, and genus Homo maybe two millionDitto above ... funny ... every non-YEC history book I can find anywhere says things like "4000 (or so) BC: History Begins" (I never find over 10,000). Hmmm... what did all those 'Homos' do for 1,996,000 years? You're telling me they all of a sudden started writing and making artifacts only in the last .000000001% (or whatever) of their existence on the planet ... yeah, pretty plausible|
"Writing" and "making artifacts" are separated by millions of years. Is it too much to ask that you try to perceive that technology developed through time? I mean, why cave painting, when they could've invented TV and been done with it?
|The human conception of a creative “Super-Intelligence” is about the only thing the Bible dates correctly, being about 5 or 6 thousand years old. In other words, roughly .000001 of the history of life, or .0025 of the existence of our genus. Pretty long build-up for the punchline, wouldn’t you say? |
the buildup is in your imagination, Mr. O'Brien, which is great. I like imagining things too. Have you seen Narnia? It's a good one for the imagination, but it's not about science, unless we redefine science ... which I'm not opposed to as long as the rules are fair.
If it's in my imagination, then evidently it is also in the imagination of the entire scientific community. Conspiracy theories? The rules are unfair? How dreadful.
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.