Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[gaara4158]

(Here he goes...) So to speak. There's a difference between head knowledge and wisdom. When your head knowledge outweighs your spiritual knowledge then, you're headed for trouble and confusion. That's just how it is, I dunno. I didn't set it up...but it works that way. Or would you deny the unseen aspects of life?

Does your Wife love you? I'm guessing yes, she does. But how do you know it? Well, you perceive it spiritually. You can even feel it. Even if she were to betray you is some small way, people make mistakes, but they still have the capacity to love, and to perceive. Don't tell me you don't know this? Lol...

The fact that you absolve yourself of explaining it (“I didn’t set it up”) indicates that you do understand at least on a subconscious level that it doesn’t quite make sense. This leads me again to ask, why do you believe it? You keep justifying your beliefs with spiritual this and spiritual that, but spirituality is precisely what I’m asking you justify!

Lol, no, I don’t sense my wife’s love for me through spirituality. I gather her testimony when she tells me she does, I gather evidence by observing her behavior toward me and involuntary signals of arousal and emotional attachment around me. I take into account the small possibility it could all be a ruse, and I conclude that it’s safe to say she loves me. There is no spiritual dimension to our love.

 

[gaara4158]

Loud,

Historical science is non-repeatable and is different from experimental science, which is repeatable. See HERE.

Oz

From your source:

“Both approaches to scientific questions are valid, a given scientific field can draw on both approaches, and neither approach is less scientifically powerful. Explore Evolution is wrong to state that these different approaches require "different methods," and even more wrong to state that "in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events" (p. 3).”

 

[Speedwell]

(Here he goes...) So to speak. There's a difference between head knowledge and wisdom. When your head knowledge outweighs your spiritual knowledge then, you're headed for trouble and confusion. That's just how it is, I dunno. I didn't set it up...but it works that way. Or would you deny the unseen aspects of life?
.

I would think that the literary genre determination of ancient texts would involve head knowledge, not "spiritual" knowledge. What "unseen aspects of life" bear on that determination?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Earth is a rare planet. We know that.

The amount of the universe we can observe is such a small portion that we can't conclude that it is reliably a good representation of it. Even so, we have found over a dozen planets like our own, despite the fact that our method by which to find planets greatly favors large ones.

Heck, the universe contains so many planets that the concept of a rare one is practically meaningless. It's unlikely that there is a single planet that's entirely unique.

Not only it's system, but it's positioning.

Not really. Our planet has a rather round orbit thanks to the large moon we have, but otherwise, the position of our planet from the star isn't even interesting. Plus, a planet with a closer orbit could have life if it orbited a smaller, less intense sun. And the same goes with a planet farther from a more intense sun. And that's just going by the life of this planet, who knows how many other ways life could develop.

We are very uniquely positioned in the galaxy.

-_- No? We're just in one of the "arms" of the Milky Way Galaxy.

As you can see, there's tons of stuff similarly positioned within the galaxy. About 70% of the galaxies nearby are spirals like the one we live in, so even the galaxy isn't special.

What can't be quantified?

How likely it is for life to form and how common planets that can support life are (including potential forms of life extremely dissimilar to our own). Plus, you are using the equation for the chances of intelligent life that could communicate with us, and that assumes that the technology to communicate within a reasonable time frame across light years is even possible.

They made short estimates of quantification's for simplicity's sake and it still came out as an absurdity of chance.

-_- Last I checked, the estimated number of intelligent life forms that could communicate with us within this galaxy, base on that equation, was 40. I put in what I considered to be extremely skeptical numbers, and it came out as 12. Not that it matters, the equation's a joke, dude.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think it was meaningful because they have the estimate of how many planets in our galaxy.

That would be 100 billion planets in our galaxy. Current estimates as to the number of galaxies in the observable universe (the small portion we can observe) is 2 trillion. To give you an idea of how meaningless that makes the idea of a "rare" planet, let's assume that our planet is extremely rare, and only .0000000000001% of planets can support life at any point in their existence. That would mean that there are 20,000,000,000 such planets just in the small chunk of the universe we can observe. Unfortunately, it is impossible to quantify how many life-bearing planets there likely are, due to our limited knowledge on the formation of life. By the way, from my math, there'd only be 1 planet per 100 galaxies that could support life at some point in its existence, which I would consider to make life bearing planets extremely rare. See how the idea of rare doesn't make for a small quantity on a universal scale?

I can't really disagree and say you're wrong...because I am not a mathematician (and neither are you I'm guessing)

I have taken Calculus and 2 Physics courses for my major, as well as statistics. Science fields involve a lot of math, as well as management of variables. I can tell that there are too many unknown variables for the Drake equation to be meaningful to begin with, as is the case with any equation that claims to calculate the probability of life on other planets.

, So, I don't think that you can say that with 100% confidence that it wasn't meaningful!

No, I can. I'd stake the population of this planet on it, the Drake equation is a math toy, no more and no less. Heck, it lets you put in whatever numbers you want for most of the variables and gives no equations for finding realistic numbers for most of those variables. Drake Equation Calculator

 

[Aman777]

That would mean that there are 20,000,000,000 such planets just in the small chunk of the universe we can observe. Unfortunately, it is impossible to quantify how many life-bearing planets there likely are, due to our limited knowledge on the formation of life.

Amen, since we will find life (not Human life) everywhere we find liquid water. The only planet where we will find Humans (descendants of Adam) is planet Earth since there was only 1 Ark. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Amen, since we will find life (not Human life) everywhere we find liquid water. The only planet where we will find Humans (descendants of Adam) is planet Earth since there was only 1 Ark. Amen?

The chance of humans independently developing on another planet is so small that I would have to chalk it up to some intelligent force's intervention.

 

[pitabread]

Oh, I agree all right. That's sorta what I've been saying, lol. Theirs myriads of beings according to scripture. All sorts of angels and spirits and creatures and prolly most of them are smarter than us, lol. We have probably never ever been alone in our entire life. There's always spiritual beings around.

In the context of other planets, we're not talking about "spiritual" beings. Just other life forms.

 

[Divide]

To whom are you addressing your comment?

It was to you. We know a lot but we don't know it all yet. Plus they're hiding knowledge.

 

[Divide]

In the context of other planets, we're not talking about "spiritual" beings. Just other life forms.

I realize that and it seems to me, that any other life forms that we encounter in our future are all going to be spiritual, (disguised) and demonic.

 

[Divide]

The fact that you absolve yourself of explaining it (“I didn’t set it up”) indicates that you do understand at least on a subconscious level that it doesn’t quite make sense. This leads me again to ask, why do you believe it? You keep justifying your beliefs with spiritual this and spiritual that, but spirituality is precisely what I’m asking you justify!

Lol, no, I don’t sense my wife’s love for me through spirituality. I gather her testimony when she tells me she does, I gather evidence by observing her behavior toward me and involuntary signals of arousal and emotional attachment around me. I take into account the small possibility it could all be a ruse, and I conclude that it’s safe to say she loves me. There is no spiritual dimension to our love.

Wow, I'm sorry to hear that about you and your wife brother.

"indicates that you do understand at least on a subconscious level that it doesn’t quite make sense."

That's presuming an awful lot, lol.

"but spirituality is precisely what I’m asking you justify!"

But spirituality does not lend itself to a laboratory. You've dismissed out of hand almost everything I've wrote...so how do I justify it to you, that I know? You'd get more answers to that question, in my Miracles and Testimony thread...!

 

[Divide]

I would think that the literary genre determination of ancient texts would involve head knowledge, not "spiritual" knowledge. What "unseen aspects of life" bear on that determination?

All of them. Scriptures are an introductory to God. They point the way.

 

[Divide]

That would be 100 billion planets in our galaxy. Current estimates as to the number of galaxies in the observable universe (the small portion we can observe) is 2 trillion. To give you an idea of how meaningless that makes the idea of a "rare" planet, let's assume that our planet is extremely rare, and only .0000000000001% of planets can support life at any point in their existence. That would mean that there are 20,000,000,000 such planets just in the small chunk of the universe we can observe. Unfortunately, it is impossible to quantify how many life-bearing planets there likely are, due to our limited knowledge on the formation of life. By the way, from my math, there'd only be 1 planet per 100 galaxies that could support life at some point in its existence, which I would consider to make life bearing planets extremely rare. See how the idea of rare doesn't make for a small quantity on a universal scale?

Oh, joy, a math whiz too eh? Lol. I do not know if the presentation that watched was based on the Drake calculation or not. But it sounded much like you do. So if there's 1 planet out of 100 galaxies that can have life...then, how many of those are capable of interstellar communication? OIt cut it down quite a bit more. No way I could keep up with you on the math of it, it's been awhile since I watched this and only have cruddy motes, lol. When did the Drake thing take place? Because I get the sense that these guys talk was recently (with the plast 5-10 years) from how they was talkin'...

I have taken Calculus and 2 Physics courses for my major, as well as statistics. Science fields involve a lot of math, as well as management of variables. I can tell that there are too many unknown variables for the Drake equation to be meaningful to begin with, as is the case with any equation that claims to calculate the probability of life on other planets.

Yeah I know. We wont really know until something happens and they have real data and more than conjecture and toying with math. And, I don't think it's going to. God isn't going to let man loose in the universe, lol!

 

[tas8831]

Still no evidence for ID or creation.

 

[OzSpen]

From your source:

“Both approaches to scientific questions are valid, a given scientific field can draw on both approaches, and neither approach is less scientifically powerful. Explore Evolution is wrong to state that these different approaches require "different methods," and even more wrong to state that "in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events" (p. 3).”

Do you agree or disagree? Do you agree that historical science is able to investigate what circumstances led to the decisions of the Council of Nicaea in 325?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Still no evidence for ID or creation.

Where are you looking?

Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design in the human eye? That's not what ophthalmologists tell me!

God's view, through the psalmist, is very different to yours: 'Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it' (Ps 139:14 NLT).

 

[Skreeper]

Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design in the human eye? That's not what ophthalmologists tell me!

Since we already know how the human eye evolved we don't need to invoke some intelligent agency behind it.

See Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

 

[OzSpen]

It was to you. We know a lot but we don't know it all yet. Plus they're hiding knowledge.

Where did I say anything about knowing it all and about the hiding of knowledge?

What hiding of knowledge are you talking about? Can you bring some of it out in the open? How do you know it is hidden knowledge?

 

[gaara4158]

Wow, I'm sorry to hear that about you and your wife brother.

"indicates that you do understand at least on a subconscious level that it doesn’t quite make sense."

That's presuming an awful lot, lol.

"but spirituality is precisely what I’m asking you justify!"

But spirituality does not lend itself to a laboratory. You've dismissed out of hand almost everything I've wrote...so how do I justify it to you, that I know? You'd get more answers to that question, in my Miracles and Testimony thread...!

And I’m sorry you think my marriage is missing something just because we don’t believe there’s a god sprinkling magical fairy dust over us. If we’re missing out on something, show it.

If you can’t or won’t subject your beliefs to scientific verification you shouldn’t be posting on the physical and life sciences board. You’re just spamming us.

 

[tas8831]

Where are you looking?

Here on this forum.

In this thread. Not one creationist or IDs advocate has presented anything that can be considered as evidence.

Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design in the human eye? That's not what ophthalmologists tell me!

Yes, i am sure that this happens.

God's view, through the psalmist, is very different to yours: 'Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it' (Ps 139:14 NLT).

So, you've got nothing but platitudes and assertions - like all the other attempts.