> > Yes you can, in a way. I think the answer is theistic evolution. IT is when you have old Earth creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution.
> 
> Um...
> 
> No. YEC is not equivalent to "Old Earth Creationism."
> 
> One negates the other. -One disagrees with the other about the age of things, but they both believe in creation by fiat from God. And some of those OEC's think like I do.

Even the more fundamentalist religion that I was raised in does not subscribe to YEC. As David points out, they accept Old Earth Creationism and the subset of evolution dealing with adaptation without speciation. Personally, I don't think any one religion has the right of it, which is why I study them all.-I call bull. -I mentioned it briefly in a different post, but I don't see many people approaching the creation of life from the view of Maltheism or Draconian Setianism. -This is because human ego is predilected towards those theories that place us in a special, or gifted category, because we WANT to seem bigger, more special... -worth more than the air we breathe...-Arrogant monkey shite, is what that is...

David has ultimately rejected ALL mythological interpretation of how man began, and simply looks at all the evidence and asks "Why?"
> 
> > The best you can do is something like David's position--humble admittance that all world religions probably got the creation idea wrong EXCEPT for the God part. You can't have both YEC and evolution in the same belief system.
> 
> Yes you can, in a way. I think the answer is theistic evolution. IT is when you have old Earth creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution.-Um...-No. YEC is not equivalent to "Old Earth Creationism."-One negates the other.

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:
> > > 
> > > Follow the money!
> > > 
> > > And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. 
> > > 
> > > $2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.
> > 
> > To Drive that home... since 2009 we've spent ~$2M PER YEAR on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvodynia
> > 
> > I'm not trying to belittle the pain of some women, but we spend more money per year on genital pain than that man has spent on the origin of life problem. 
> 
> I don't care about your statistics. I keep finding weird OOL studies, lots of them.-In insurance, we have a word for people who ignore statistical outcomes:-cash cows.

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:
> > 
> > Follow the money!
> > 
> > And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. 
> > 
> > $2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.
> 
> To Drive that home... since 2009 we've spent ~$2M PER YEAR on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvodynia
> 
> I'm not trying to belittle the pain of some women, but we spend more money per year on genital pain than that man has spent on the origin of life problem. -I don't care about your statistics. I keep finding weird OOL studies, lots of them.


> > > Not a problem exclusive to science or religion, but a direct consequence of a politicized system. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian model where all schools are private.
> > 
> > Agreed in part. All school districts should be local control only. No state departments of ed and certainly no federal dept of ed. School choice mandatory.
> 
> At the same time... the question arises of funding for small rural school districts... 
> 
> How else to supply that without federal grants?-Federal grands make a long round trip and cost a lot to administer. Work it out on a county level. In Texas property taxes are at county level as are school taxes.

David has ultimately rejected ALL mythological interpretation of how man began, and simply looks at all the evidence and asks "Why?"
 
> The best you can do is something like David's position--humble admittance that all world religions probably got the creation idea wrong EXCEPT for the God part. You can't have both YEC and evolution in the same belief system.-Yes you can, in a way. I think the answer is theistic evolution. IT is when you have old Earth creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution.

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:
> 
> Follow the money!
> 
> And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. 
> 
> $2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.-To Drive that home... since 2009 we've spent ~$2M PER YEAR on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvodynia-I'm not trying to belittle the pain of some women, but we spend more money per year on genital pain than that man has spent on the origin of life problem.

In passing, what the heck are "virii"? Is this computerspeak? The plural of virus is viruses. If someone is trying to create a learned Latin plural, it would have to be viri, but that is the plural of vir meaning man. Virii would be the plural of virius, which as far as I know doesn't exist. Can't we stick to what Matt has called "common parlance"?-Heh. Yep. It IS computer speak. Don't know when it arose, but for "us" the plural of viruses is virii... we do that to differentiate the biological from the electrical...-Forgive me...


> > Not a problem exclusive to science or religion, but a direct consequence of a politicized system. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian model where all schools are private.
> 
> Agreed in part. All school districts should be local control only. No state departments of ed and certainly no federal dept of ed. School choice mandatory.-At the same time... the question arises of funding for small rural school districts... -How else to supply that without federal grants?


> I am getting confused. The two articles you have linked us to come under "scienceagainstevolution", offering us a woeful distortion of the theory of evolution, which the author clearly thinks incorporates abiogenesis. It does not. Since you agree with him, let's forget about his website and concentrate on what you believe! If you reject the notion that all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms (whether through chance processes or by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer), and you regard as silly the idea that God created every organ and species separately, what alternative hypothesis can you offer us?-The idea that God created everything in 6 days and that the world is only 6k years old IS silly, just as silly as claiming that will all our complexity we were able to go from a single cell (ignoring abiogenesis for the moment) to the complex organisms we are today by pure chance. -A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend of mine and made the rather obvious statement that, at least in the areas where they overlap, science and religion must agree, other wise one or the other are wrong.-While I do not profess to any one religion, I have never made any bones about my theism, nor about my extreme interest in the life sciences. I do not see them as opposites or even opponents. In my world view, theism analyzes the nature of a UI from the religious/philosophical standpoint, its personality for lack of a better word, while science studies its actions and the results of its actions. In my world view, one can, in some ways, be used to analyze and critique the other, but not in the destructive manner that exists between atheist and religious fundamentalist. -I have no issue with evolution as adaptation within a given family of creatures. I also have no issue with the creationist belief of 'God created them according to their kind'. One describes variation, which is a well known and well observed fact. The other describes the physiological differences that can not be explained by random chance, mutation, or epigenics. In other words, there was no reason for a UI to create a Jersey, a buffalo, and a ox. Creating a single breedable bovine species with the ability to adapt would have been sufficient. The question for me is, why does it have to be one way or the other?

http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx
> 
> That's just nih. 
> 
> Of all those tax dollars, how much for the Origin of life?
> 
> 
> Like I said. No one cares. (No money or fame in it.)-Lots of folks care:-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/earths-early-atmosphere-impossible-to-recreate/

I just described the ENIAC. Remember however, a user is still required to determine the meaning of input/output, and to verify the machine's validity. It wasn't until the 1950s where adding machines started taking the title "computer" away from humans.
> > 
> > So in conclusion... a computer is no less complex than the human mind, because a computer (at present) can do nothing at all without a mind to interpret and evaluate results. A computer doesn't act in a vacuum. And a computer only outsources functions we already do in our own heads... meaning that a light switch, where a human mind maps "ooh" to "on," and "awww" to "off" is the simplest computer possible. Which is the same thing as a one-bead abacus.
> 
> Ok, then we are on the same page, as long as you are accounting for the human mind in the simpler single circuit versions then we can agree. I actually read an article on ENIAC not too long back. It was the inspiration for Spacewars!, one of the first video games ;)-You will also appreciate that games were around at the time of the ENIAC! -It used to be such an illicit activity...