This is baloney, but thank you for proving my point by stating it. And in what seems darn near universal, it's always this garbage about YEC. No one believes YEC and anyone who does cannot possibly be a threat to you, or science as you define it, regardless of how many "wedge documents" exist. But again, the irrational fear to even discuss the notion of DESIGN IN LIFE is pervasive throughout academia and therefore any debate must be stamped out by those in academia. Do you deny this is what is happening? (No, you justify it with irrationality and claims of a scientific bogeyman) How is this science? I thought science is to be open to all possibilities? I guess it's open to all possibilities as long as mother nature does it and not some designer.
When I first started working post-college, I had to figure out why our product was having compass bearing problems. During part of my investigation, I ended up calculating the B fields generated by the electric lines near our compass alignment shack. Turns out, the high electricity lines were not enough to interfere with the alignment process, even though they were practically next to the compass shack where we did this process. Having done the calculations myself (although not exactly the same as this next inference), I had serious reservations as to how a 4.5 billion year old spinning, orbiting rock could still have a magnetic field. Fact is, earth cannot have one unless we assume the field strength increased (not decayed) throughout most of pre-history. How is this science? It's not, but it must be assumed because after all, life on earth created itself, on it's own, without any non-natural outside influence and all "scientists" know this. In fact, evolution is a proven theory and therefore, if you do not accept this, you cannot be a scientist, nor work in science.
Well, it's a darn good thing I am an engineer and my designs have to work in the real world, not in some computer simulation or doctorial degree textbook. I'm obviously not a scientist, since I think evolution a fairy tale.
Let me leave you with a serious question, one that even RA danced around. How is SETI a legitimate scientific endeavor when scientists believe all order and all complexity in life, as we witness it today, came about in a completely naturalistic and undirected manner? That all life came from a single simple original life form. Basically, the SETI scientists are saying that if we capture an ordered radio signal from outspace, it must have been created by intelligent life. Yet at the same time, these evolution beliving SETI scientists, turn around and suggest that the simplest life form we have found, which contains many times more programming source code and data arrays than a 10 minute Youtube video, came about purely through Darwinian evolution.
Our side may have more than it's fair share of "pathetics", but any scientist who accepts both evolution and SETI as valid science is a hypocrite. If evolution is true, you cannot assume that intelligent life created an organized signal from outspace any more than you can assume that life is a prosuct of design.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. I'd say most of the creationists we debate are YEC.
But again, the irrational fear to even discuss the notion of DESIGN IN LIFE is pervasive throughout academia and therefore any debate must be stamped out by those in academia. Do you deny this is what is happening?
I'm sensing bias. . . We have not found evidence of design. We have found plenty of evidence that complexity can evolve. We've also know that proposed irreducibly complex systems are not irreducibly complex. You're claiming evidence of design exists, but there is no evidence for that. The rule in science is to look for natural explanations. So far we have not run into anything that requires an unnatural explanation and suggests a supernatural designer.
I thought science is to be open to all possibilities?
Science is concerned with the observable. If we find something has no observable natural explanation, than that topic will fall outside the purview of science. We have not seen this to happen.
Having done the calculations myself (although not exactly the same as this next inference), I had serious reservations as to how a 4.5 billion year old spinning, orbiting rock could still have a magnetic field. Fact is, earth cannot have one unless we assume the field strength increased (not decayed) throughout most of pre-history.
First of all, earth is not a rock, secondly, the magnetic field has oscillated (switching directions) many many times in earth's history. I'm more interested in biology, so probably someone else could tell you more about that.
Well, it's a darn good thing I am an engineer
That's interesting. It's been noted that while many engineers are evolutionists, the scientists who are creationists are very frequently engineers, much more often than one would expect. I think there is an underlying personality trait, perhaps an interest in organization and design, that predisposes some people to both go into engineering and believe in a suopernatural designer.
Let me leave you with a serious question, one that even RA danced around.
To rephrase, you say that since life is complex and organized and is thought to have evolved, how can we assume a complex and organized signal from outer space is from an intelligent species rather than from a natural process.
I don't see how the two are analogous. Life is organized because organisms reproduce with variation, and natural selection weeds out certain phenotypes and promotes others. Since nonlife does not go through this process, we can't iteratively build a nonbiological complex signal from simpler ones.
Purely mechanical causes certainly are the first alternative considered (as science demands) when we note a signal from space. For instance, pulsars produce signals at regular intervals. The first pulsar was originally named LGM-1 for Little Green Men!
If I remember correctly, SETI is not looking for an ordered signal but a signal using the same frequencies we use. They are taking their lead from something we have an example of and is most reasonable given the distances involved. They are assuming that, because we have yet to see it happen naturally, those frequencies are more likely to be used by intelligence than by nature. Even if they receive a signal in the range expected, from what I have read they will first assume that it is a naturally occurring signal and look to natural explanations first.
"Yet at the same time, these evolution beliving SETI scientists, turn around and suggest that the simplest life form we have found, which contains many times more programming source code and data arrays than a 10 minute Youtube video, came about purely through Darwinian evolution.
Scientists are not considering a complex life form such as what we find now but a much simpler self replicating molecule. Nor are they attempting to find the molecule that is our ancestor, just a molecule which self replicates and develops the attributes of life. Current evolutionary thought has surpassed Darwinian theory. Darwin's theory is the basis for what we now believe but that theory has been expanded considerably.