the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Meaning, that government gets its power from the people. Further, this power comes down from the Most High God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Has the government strayed far from the intentions of the founders? The answer is a resounding yes. It is most certainly becoming a police state. This is the broader trend in the world, that will eventually coalesce into a totalitarian one world government.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

I agree that our government is corrupt and acts contrary to our interests. However, I am not an anarchist. If a government is infringing upon our inherent rights or direct commands given to us by God, then yes I think we have the right under God to disobey them. Protesting rich people doesn't appear to fall under that category.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.

No, I say that if you receive an order from authority you can expect to be forced into compliance if you disobey that authority. My comment is about the way this incident was portrayed, as if the protesters were just arbitrarily sprayed without any warning.

As far as the occupy movement offering a redress of grievances, I hardly see how a bunch of marxists, and socialists waving communists flags, defecating in the streets, and shooting up in their tents addresses any relevant issue this country is facing. It started out with a point, and was quickly taken over by hippies, anarchists, and every other far left wingnut with a pet cause and a bucket for handouts.

Comparing this sad menagerie to the civil rights movement? Come on..

because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

This is just a shadow of what is to come. The future rule of the antichrist is going to make Nazi Germany look like candyland.



>> ^enoch:

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peacef.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

It's natural that atheists proselytize, because atheism is a religion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-

It has its own creation story:

"Thus, a century ago, [it was] Darwinism against Christian orthodoxy. To-day the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."

Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.49

with its own miracles:

"Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot... given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12.

In which its adherants have total faith:

I have faith and belief myself... I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.

Isaac Asimov
Counting the Eons P.10

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

They believe it even in the face of contradicting evidence

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

EJH Cornor, Cambridge
Contemporary Botanical Thought p.61

It provides a comprehensive belief system:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideaology, a secular religion- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with its meaning and morality...

Michael Ruse Florida State University
National Post 5/13/00

Atheists know they are right no matter what:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

Even if they have to suppress the truth to prove it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

They are true believers:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

It won't be long before there are atheists churches and street preachers handing out tracks.

>> ^ghark:

I would just point out one thing for @NetRunner - the OWS movement is not the anti-tea party per se, over 70% of them identify as politically independent.
http://occupywallst.org/article/70-percent-ows-supporters-independent/


That doesn't surprise me in the least. Ultimately to me that's the big X-factor about OWS.

My optimist side says this is just the right kind of brew from which a strong, left-leaning 3rd party could arise. Or maybe just an authentic, left-wing version of the Tea Party -- people who don't swear fealty to the Democratic party, but who will force the politicians of both parties to cater to them via the threat of outside challenges in primaries and general elections. At a minimum, maybe it'll just help keep the media talking about the real problems (unemployment, wealth inequality, corporate misdeeds), and not the fake problems (debt, inflation, regulatory "uncertainty").

My cynical side tells me that its heavy resistance to making alliances with either party (including even established liberal groups like MoveOn), as well as its assiduously non-partisan messaging, is ultimately going to prevent it from being more than just a news fad. I'm worried that their somewhat rigid adherence to "independence" winds up meaning they get themselves political isolation, and not political revolution.

I'm hopeful about the potential for OWS to bring about a real reset of the political system, but each day that goes by without them making any attempt to translate the protest's energy into some sort of direct political action (i.e. voting, petitioning, primarying, general strikes, etc.), a bit of that hope fades. If all they ever plan to do is occupy public spaces and wave signs, they're just going to wind up being ignored.

The point is that his experience contradicts everything which is taught in this video. By all accounts he lived a normal life, with feelings and relationships and struggles, but did not have anything approximating the brain structure described in this video. Clearly you can see much that is being spouted here is just a materialists wet dream. The attempt to approximate all human experience into mechanistic terms.

No, Dandy-Walker does not contradict everything taught in the video. He has (and others like him have) most of the same brain structures (especially the ones related to consciousness). For the most part, they are missing their cerebellar vermis, which controls and analyzes spatial motion. The parts that have something to do with consciousness are still there, and they are even in pretty much the same place as they would be otherwise.

Even if the parts of their brain were jumbled up a bit, that doesn't mean they couldn't necessarily have consciousness. The body does some amazing things considering some of the biological errors that happen. People can be born with holes in their hearts, or on the wrong side of their body, and have perfectly functioning circulatory systems - that doesn't mean the circulation of their blood is transcendent from their circulatory system.

Let's put it this way..If you believe you're nothing more than material machinery then you don't have free will and you can't even trust your own rationality. You don't have free will because all of your choices are preceeded and caused by unconscious material processes.

This is a complete cop-out. I can say the same to you. If your god is omniscient, then he knows what you are going to do before you do it. Therefore you don't actually have free will because, no matter what, you are going to do what god always expected you to do.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Shiny, that sounds an awful like the same garbage Deepak Chopra spouts and that Sam Harris addressed in this video.
If consciousness is "entirely transcendent of its wiring" then why can damage to that wiring change/destroy the conciousness?
Consciousness is consciousness, whether the brain is damaged or undamaged. The key part is having it, and It stems from the soul. The quality of the consciousness is effected by the relative performance of the medium, but if access to information is lost in the physical, it doesn't mean it is gone. It's purely your assumption that it can be destroyed in any way. The access may be lost in the physical, but it still exists in eternity. God knows everything, so He is the ultimate memory storage for our souls.
As for the French civil servant with Dandy-Walker syndrome, let's get some facts straight: firstly, he has a lower than average IQ and secondly, his brain is not a "small slice in the center of his skull about one inch thick", it is pushed up against the sides of the skull with an empty cavity in the center.
The fact that he isn't lacking in consciousness isn't what makes it newsworthy either. It was newsworthy because he went so long without it being diagnosed and without having the common problems associated with it. The mortality rate for people with this disorder is high, but it isn't uncommon for a survivor with the disorder to have a normal cognition. The reason that is, is because their brain is misshapen and missing pieces, but those missing pieces tend to be the ones that deal with more basic functions like muscle control as opposed to those parts used for consciousness.
The point is that his experience contradicts everything which is taught in this video. By all accounts he lived a normal life, with feelings and relationships and struggles, but did not have anything approximating the brain structure described in this video. Clearly you can see much that is being spouted here is just a materialists wet dream. The attempt to approximate all human experience into mechanistic terms.
Let's put it this way..If you believe you're nothing more than material machinery then you don't have free will and you can't even trust your own rationality. You don't have free will because all of your choices are preceeded and caused by unconscious material processes. Here's a quote from Sam:
"For [many people], freedom of will is synonymous with the idea that, with respect to any specific thought or action, one could have thought or acted differently. But to say that I could have done otherwise is merely to think the thought, “I could have done otherwise” after doing whatever I, in fact, did. Rather than indicate my freedom, this thought is just an epitaph erected to moments past. What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, inscrutable to me. To declare my “freedom” is tantamount to saying, “I don’t know why I did it, but it’s the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don’t mind doing it.”
And this is why the last objection is just another way of not facing up to the problem. To say that “my brain” has decided to think or act in a particular way, whether consciously or not, and my freedom consists in this, is to ignore the very reason why people believe in free will in the first place: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about."
You can't trust your own rationality because it is based upon on chemical reactions in the brain, a process which evolved from the lower animals and with guarantee of any truth. Here's what darwin said about it:
"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
So, if I am speaking to someone who can't make independent choices, with rationality that came from monkeys, why should I believe anything that you're saying?
>> ^Skeeve:
Shiny, that sounds an awful like the same garbage Deepak Chopra spouts and that Sam Harris addressed in this video.

If consciousness is "entirely transcendent of its wiring" then why can damage to that wiring change/destroy the conciousness?
As for the French civil servant with Dandy-Walker syndrome, let's get some facts straight: firstly, he has a lower than average IQ and secondly, his brain is not a "small slice in the center of his skull about one inch thick", it is pushed up against the sides of the skull with an empty cavity in the center.
The fact that he isn't lacking in consciousness isn't what makes it newsworthy either. It was newsworthy because he went so long without it being diagnosed and without having the common problems associated with it. The mortality rate for people with this disorder is high, but it isn't uncommon for a survivor with the disorder to have a normal cognition. The reason that is, is because their brain is misshapen and missing pieces, but those missing pieces tend to be the ones that deal with more basic functions like muscle control as opposed to those parts used for consciousness.
Next time you try to discredit science, point to something we don't know about instead of something that happens to 1 in 25000 live births.
@braindonut, you might find the following links interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy%E2%80%93Walker_syndrome
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/dandywalker/dandywalker.htm
>> ^shinyblurry:
Consciousness is entirely transcendent of its wiring, and how an individual processes reality is categorically unique from everyone else. If you let them dice you up into stupid machinery, like some kind of advanced parameciam, it will just make you more automated, not less. You are more than the sum of your parts. Some of these things may be superficially true, on a superficial level, but the patterns of our lives go much, much deeper than this. We're not just rats in a maze, but rather we are spiritual beings that transcend the raw material.
There is a civil servant in Europe with a normal IQ who got a brain scan one day and found out that his brain is just a small slice in the center of his skull about one inch thick. Clearly none of this "science" (and wild conjecture) applies to him. Ignore the psycho babble and discern your own individual nature. You are not your thoughts. That monologue in your head can be turned off, and there can be silence. Search out the patterns of your thinking, the automation of your being, and break the chain.

Shiny, that sounds an awful like the same garbage Deepak Chopra spouts and that Sam Harris addressed in this video.

If consciousness is "entirely transcendent of its wiring" then why can damage to that wiring change/destroy the conciousness?

Consciousness is consciousness, whether the brain is damaged or undamaged. The key part is having it, and It stems from the soul. The quality of the consciousness is effected by the relative performance of the medium, but if access to information is lost in the physical, it doesn't mean it is gone. It's purely your assumption that it can be destroyed in any way. The access may be lost in the physical, but it still exists in eternity. God knows everything, so He is the ultimate memory storage for our souls.

As for the French civil servant with Dandy-Walker syndrome, let's get some facts straight: firstly, he has a lower than average IQ and secondly, his brain is not a "small slice in the center of his skull about one inch thick", it is pushed up against the sides of the skull with an empty cavity in the center.

The fact that he isn't lacking in consciousness isn't what makes it newsworthy either. It was newsworthy because he went so long without it being diagnosed and without having the common problems associated with it. The mortality rate for people with this disorder is high, but it isn't uncommon for a survivor with the disorder to have a normal cognition. The reason that is, is because their brain is misshapen and missing pieces, but those missing pieces tend to be the ones that deal with more basic functions like muscle control as opposed to those parts used for consciousness.

The point is that his experience contradicts everything which is taught in this video. By all accounts he lived a normal life, with feelings and relationships and struggles, but did not have anything approximating the brain structure described in this video. Clearly you can see much that is being spouted here is just a materialists wet dream. The attempt to approximate all human experience into mechanistic terms.

Let's put it this way..If you believe you're nothing more than material machinery then you don't have free will and you can't even trust your own rationality. You don't have free will because all of your choices are preceeded and caused by unconscious material processes. Here's a quote from Sam:

"For [many people], freedom of will is synonymous with the idea that, with respect to any specific thought or action, one could have thought or acted differently. But to say that I could have done otherwise is merely to think the thought, “I could have done otherwise” after doing whatever I, in fact, did. Rather than indicate my freedom, this thought is just an epitaph erected to moments past. What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, inscrutable to me. To declare my “freedom” is tantamount to saying, “I don’t know why I did it, but it’s the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don’t mind doing it.”

And this is why the last objection is just another way of not facing up to the problem. To say that “my brain” has decided to think or act in a particular way, whether consciously or not, and my freedom consists in this, is to ignore the very reason why people believe in free will in the first place: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about."

You can't trust your own rationality because it is based upon on chemical reactions in the brain, a process which evolved from the lower animals and with guarantee of any truth. Here's what darwin said about it:

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

So, if I am speaking to someone who can't make independent choices, with rationality that came from monkeys, why should I believe anything that you're saying?

>> ^Skeeve:
Shiny, that sounds an awful like the same garbage Deepak Chopra spouts and that Sam Harris addressed in this video.

If consciousness is "entirely transcendent of its wiring" then why can damage to that wiring change/destroy the conciousness?
As for the French civil servant with Dandy-Walker syndrome, let's get some facts straight: firstly, he has a lower than average IQ and secondly, his brain is not a "small slice in the center of his skull about one inch thick", it is pushed up against the sides of the skull with an empty cavity in the center.
The fact that he isn't lacking in consciousness isn't what makes it newsworthy either. It was newsworthy because he went so long without it being diagnosed and without having the common problems associated with it. The mortality rate for people with this disorder is high, but it isn't uncommon for a survivor with the disorder to have a normal cognition. The reason that is, is because their brain is misshapen and missing pieces, but those missing pieces tend to be the ones that deal with more basic functions like muscle control as opposed to those parts used for consciousness.
Next time you try to discredit science, point to something we don't know about instead of something that happens to 1 in 25000 live births.
@braindonut, you might find the following links interesting:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy%E2%80%93Walker_syndrome
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/dandywalker/dandywalker.htm
>> ^shinyblurry:
Consciousness is entirely transcendent of its wiring, and how an individual processes reality is categorically unique from everyone else. If you let them dice you up into stupid machinery, like some kind of advanced parameciam, it will just make you more automated, not less. You are more than the sum of your parts. Some of these things may be superficially true, on a superficial level, but the patterns of our lives go much, much deeper than this. We're not just rats in a maze, but rather we are spiritual beings that transcend the raw material.
There is a civil servant in Europe with a normal IQ who got a brain scan one day and found out that his brain is just a small slice in the center of his skull about one inch thick. Clearly none of this "science" (and wild conjecture) applies to him. Ignore the psycho babble and discern your own individual nature. You are not your thoughts. That monologue in your head can be turned off, and there can be silence. Search out the patterns of your thinking, the automation of your being, and break the chain.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

>> ^moodonia:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
All religions are cults.

There are sets of criteria which define what is a cult and what is a religion, I understand that most people feel the need to share their personal beliefs whenever the subject of belief arises but lumping the two together is inaccurate.


I see where you are coming from.. however:

According to most mainstream English dictionary definitions of the word "cult", all religions fall into said category. The concept of a religion being non-standard (unorthodox), not mainstream, or not 'right' rests solely as the opinion of the individual perceiving said religion in question. It is a matter of perspective. My declaration that all religions are cults puts them all on equal ground without a preference to the religion of my familial ancestry. Calling one's own religion a 'true religion', and all others cults, comes from a false/biased perspective. That makes it one's own definition, not a standardized definition.

While a roman catholic might consider themselves a member of a 'true religion', they just might consider a southern baptist group in Oklahoma to be a cult. Meanwhile the baptists mentioned would consider the roman catholics 'cult-like' with their insistence of ritual and pomp and circumstance surrounding their traditions... most of which are not even in the Bible, and were mostly developed for it's 'oooh ahh' factor with colorful shiny costumes and incense.

Were the Greeks, Romans or Egyptians.. all members of 'cults'? Their religion most certainly was mainstream and heavily followed during their age. Could they be labeled as cults today? Most certainly. Just because a religion is main-stream, or followed by a majority does not make it any less a cult.

Merriam-Webster: "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"
Wikipedia: "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object."
Dictionary.com: "a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. "
thefreedictionary.com: "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."
Oxford: "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object"
Websters: "Followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices."

>> ^honkeytonk73:

All religions are cults.


There are sets of criteria which define what is a cult and what is a religion, I understand that most people feel the need to share their personal beliefs whenever the subject of belief arises but lumping the two together is inaccurate.

>> ^Darkhand:

Can someone tell me why we need speculators? In all seriousness I just want to understand. Please correct me if I am wrong but speculators just seem to me to be people who tell investors how to invest their money so the investors doesn't have to do research themselves?


so rich people can get richer?
leverage is all fine and dandy... but that's why you NEED government, to limit/inhibit actions like these... ie to protect the INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE... not the few

the concept of FREE MARKET ECONOMICS completely collapses once entities arise that have enough money to fundamentally change/inhibit free market action, whether through purchasing of politics, monopolization, or simply buying out the competition... supply/demand becomes secondary in the equation, and fantastic, there's no one there with the power to stop it... and don't expect those benefiting from it to control themselves... the actions of Wall Street over the last 30yrs can't be plainer proof of this

its ironic that most people that tout FREE MARKETS use NATIONALIZATION as the alternative... in the extreme... both are facism...

don't believe the propaganda and brainwashing, the most humane and sustainable economics lay somewhere in the middle...

its just sad that until the tragedy that the 3rd world is facing because of this type of economics is visited upon 1st world countries... nothing substantial will be done... because the politicians don't work for the people... they work for business... and business has no morals... only limitations, which are slowly (and moronically) being eaten away by the call for small government and the hijacking of libertarianism

"its nothing personal... just business"

I wish I could promote this comment. Instead, I'll just have to promote Goldy the Stranger's website, and particular the blog post this comes from...

*five minutes after searching "Rick Perry" on the site*

Holy shit, Dick Perry is so much more of an ignorant, hateful, despicable corporate shill of a fundie rethuglican candidate than I could've imagined! This post in particular got to me, and not just because it involves Switzerland's biggest, evilist bank (UBS) either:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/25/rick-perry-wanted-to-profit-on-dead-texas-teachers

"Let's bet on how quick we can tire old teachers into dying and make killer bucks off their hard earned savings, yay!!"


p.s.: Another tidbit of Perryntelligenz: Gay marriage, dangerous and bad. Texting while driving, a-okay.


>> ^bareboards2:

complete blog post from Goldy at The Stranger -- I thought this was great (emphasis added):
One of the more telling moments from last night's Republican presidential debate was when the audience at the Reagan Library broke out in wild applause at the mention of 234 death row inmates executed in Texas on Gov. Rick Perry's watch... no doubt some of whom were innocent.
I can understand why some people might support capital punishment, particularly the families of victims, although I personally oppose the practice on a number of grounds. But I have zero empathy for those who would applaud Texas's prolific rate of execution, as if it were something to aspire to. The brutal vindictiveness of many in the Republican base is never more on display than when they cheer an execution or two (or 234) as if it were a game-winning touchdown.
There is an interesting analogy to be made with the similarly hot-button issue of abortion, where the anti-abortion-rights forces adopted the "Pro-Life" label in order to imply that their Pro-Choice opponents were in fact Pro-Death. Of course, we're not. We're not even "Pro-Abortion" per se. While we may loudly cheer legislative and legal victories that support the right to reproductive choice, I'd wager that nobody has ever heard a round of hearty applause arise at the tally of aborted fetuses. Through improved education, counseling, and access to effective birth control, the goal has always been to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, with no particular extra emphasis on any one of those three objectives over the others. An abortion may evoke in some a sense of relief, but it's hard to imagine that it has ever been a cause for celebration.

One would think that even the most ardent capital punishment supporters (many of whom ironically self-identify as Pro-Life) would be more respectful of the awesome responsibility that comes with government sanctioned executions. But judging from that disturbing moment in last night's debate, apparently not.

complete blog post from Goldy at The Stranger -- I thought this was great (emphasis added):

One of the more telling moments from last night's Republican presidential debate was when the audience at the Reagan Library broke out in wild applause at the mention of 234 death row inmates executed in Texas on Gov. Rick Perry's watch... no doubt some of whom were innocent.

I can understand why some people might support capital punishment, particularly the families of victims, although I personally oppose the practice on a number of grounds. But I have zero empathy for those who would applaud Texas's prolific rate of execution, as if it were something to aspire to. The brutal vindictiveness of many in the Republican base is never more on display than when they cheer an execution or two (or 234) as if it were a game-winning touchdown.

There is an interesting analogy to be made with the similarly hot-button issue of abortion, where the anti-abortion-rights forces adopted the "Pro-Life" label in order to imply that their Pro-Choice opponents were in fact Pro-Death. Of course, we're not. We're not even "Pro-Abortion" per se. While we may loudly cheer legislative and legal victories that support the right to reproductive choice, I'd wager that nobody has ever heard a round of hearty applause arise at the tally of aborted fetuses. Through improved education, counseling, and access to effective birth control, the goal has always been to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, with no particular extra emphasis on any one of those three objectives over the others. An abortion may evoke in some a sense of relief, but it's hard to imagine that it has ever been a cause for celebration.

One would think that even the most ardent capital punishment supporters (many of whom ironically self-identify as Pro-Life) would be more respectful of the awesome responsibility that comes with government sanctioned executions. But judging from that disturbing moment in last night's debate, apparently not.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

the thing about "personal responsibility", is that it is used in very misleading, and brainwashed ways

the brainwashed way is the whole "you shouldn't have had a kid if you can't afford it" schpeel...

first, its moronic because it reduces the subject to $ figures... raising a child goes WELL beyond money, let alone the questions posed morally and on the scale of society itself... should only the rich (and yes, its expensive to have a child, outrageous actually, in the US... i'm not talking about the cost of feeding/clothing/education/etc... simply the procedures up to and including birth, let alone any issues that may arise afterwards both in mother and child - glad I live in a country where this is covered socially, and that I more than happily contribute to - our future isn't regulated to have/have nots)

second, as part of a society, do you feel you have a personal responsibility to it? or other members of it (irrespective of your opinion as to whether or not a particular person is "contributing" or not)? do other's in your society have a personal responsibility in regards to you?... the debate in the US literally ALWAYS boils down to someone arguing "personal responsibility" yet assuming none in regards to the society they "LOVE SO MUCH" and "WOULD DIE FOR"... that, or that if you give people handouts, that's all they'd ever want; they'd never strive

WELL, that is EXACTLY describing the situation of your (and I mean YOU, yes YOU) parent's raising you... did they keep all the receipts and calculate the interest you owe on top regarding food they fed you, education they paid for, etc? are they sending collectors yet?

better yet, can you honestly say you have no drive or ambitions in life because of being raised like this (as is the general norm)?

it provides a foundation, a base from which to launch... its two swimmers racing, one with something to push off of, and the other starting with nothing to push off of... sure the outcome isn't decided completely... but you can make a REALLY accurate guess as to who has the better chance to win... no one is throwing them a dragline while they are swimming... its just the start of the race

if you had a family member who got ill, would you help them? if the swimmer got cramps and couldn't stay afloat would you want someone to pull their head up above the water?

why this doesn't translate from being a staple of family life, to society should make most American's go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

the honest truth... it is GREED
both personal GREED of the average citizen not wanting to spend a cent on a fellow citizen
and corporate GREED... they see social programs and free health care as either a pool of money they don't got but WANT or robbery from them... and they lobby and basically buy off politicians through campaign financing and lucrative job offers post office... meanwhile you are sold that this is in the interests of your freedom... when really all you are being sold is the freedom to be F_CKED

Government is there to protect the INTERESTS of it's citizens, not it's CORPORATIONS (most of whom are multinational btw)... and it's failing Americans... mainly because Americans are failing themselves... they'd rather drink the kool-aid than question what's in it... they'd rather get worked up about side issues that really only affect their life MINIMALLY (mainly because of religion) rather than care about issues that do... and they like to bite people who question the status quo... why? because WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!! USA USA USA. (despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary)

its really elementary logic to deduce that a society that tries to elevate itself by uplifting all members of that society (or as many as possible) will have a better survival chance than a society where all individuals horde and fight over resources... i mean, which one do you think leads to feudal style systems? really?

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.