Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Nineveh]

Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSI’s Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.

Full Story (http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2004_May_Pg1.htm)


Cool :)

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

Coral Ridge Ministries is teaming up with the Creation Studies Institute (CSI) to launch a national creation outreach. CSI’s Executive Director Tom DeRosa, an educator and creation studies authority, has spent many years assembling information, contacts, and artifacts in his study of evidences for creation. CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution.

Dimo:

Nineveh, why don't they just send their research through the peer review process set up for the scientific community at large?

Is it because people who are not commited to your specific religious paradigm would not come to this conclusion?

Evolution is not a lie. You accept "micro" evolution. If people want to overturn the concept of "macro" evolution, they should focus on finding tangible evidence for one or multiple mechanisms that stop many "micro" evolutions from becoming "macro" evolution. Swearing an oath to an antiquated and static religious paradigm is not science.

I think that whoever made the qoute you posted to is a liar.

[Jukia]

More creationist nonsense. I continue to say that if creationism has such scientific background and evidence then confront "The Man" head on. Do the research, publish in peer reviewed journals, if the evidence is on your side the scientific community will embrace it. There is no conspiracy of science, no God-less conspiracy.

There should be enough $ in the Christian fundamentalist movement to support some basic research (there was enough to elect W). do it but do it right, not this nonsensical, simply anecdotal, stuff.

[Nineveh]

I sorta figured none of the ToErs would have any kind word of congrats. Thanks guys :)

[Turbo]

I think it's cool, Nineveh. I'm fond of Coral Ridge Ministries.

[Jukia]

The site referenced makes a statement about mammoth bones found in FL with the claim that they are only 3-4000 years old. Any further info on that claim? Who made that determination and how?

[Swordsman]

Turbo, you do know that Dr. James Kennedy is a Presby and denounces the OV, right?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

The site referenced makes a statement about mammoth bones found in FL with the claim that they are only 3-4000 years old. Any further info on that claim? Who made that determination and how?

Did you bother looking for CSI's home page (http://www.csinfo.org/)? Perhaps your questions will be better answered there than the press release for the outreach.

[Jukia]

I have attempted to e-mail for some additional info but cannot get through to this outfit. I found nothing on the home page that provided any more specific info re these 3-4000 year old Mammoth bones from FL.
If my history serves when dealing with creationists who make paleontological (did I spell that right?) claims, I will never hear back from them even if I did have a good address.
So I called De Rosa and spoke with him. He said they did not do any radiometric dating, that the age was an estimate based on electron microscopy studies, that nothing is published, that the samples may now be contaminated.
Not a very respectable basis for suggesting an age.

[One Eyed Jack]

What would you consider a respectable basis?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

I think it's cool, Nineveh. I'm fond of Corel Ridge Ministries. D. James Kennedy isn't fond of open theism-- a wacky idea you embrace & promote. :down:

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

I sorta figured none of the ToErs would have any kind word of congrats. Thanks guys

Dimo:

I did not have a kind response because the qoute you used and the approach of most of these folks in general is not kind to others. This is exemplified by this segment of the qoute:

"CSI’s chief aim is to defend and promote creation and to expose the lie of evolution."

If you want to take the high road about attitudes try changing yours as well, by not refferencing inflammatory language such as this.

[Nineveh]

Dimo,
Sorry you didn't like the wording of their announcement. Would you have felt better had they used the word "fabrication"?

[Stratnerd]

N -

Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

N -

Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists.


...Funny how you qualified that lol :)

[Stratnerd]

should I take that as "ain't got none"?

I always figured that creationists were a useless bunch but I would like to see example of were they did something of value.

[Dimo]

Nineveh, yes then I can change what I posted from liar to fabricator.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

D. James Kennedy isn't fond of open theism So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?

Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11

the LORD hates...one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 20.


I assume Dr. Kennedy is a Calvinist, since he's the pastor of a Presbyterian church. But unlike many other Christian radio programs, I don't pick up any overtly Calvinistic doctrine on "Truths That Transform." If it weren't for the name of his church, I wouldn't know whether he were a Calvinist or an Armenian.

[bob b]

Originally posted by Turbo

So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. Of course many people do hate, or at a minimum show a lack of fondness toward, those who disagree with their theoretical ideas. This is easily seen here by noticing the venom directed toward me simply because I happen to believe that what is written in the Bible, and what has traditionally been what people have understood it to be saying, is true.


Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Titus 3:10-11

the LORD hates...one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16, 20.

I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.

I assume Dr. Kennedy is a Calvinist, since he's the pastor of a Presbyterian church. But unlike many other Christian radio programs, I don't pick up any overtly Calvinistic doctrine on "Truths That Transform." If it weren't for the name of his church, I wouldn't know whether he were a Calvinist or an Armenian.

The idea that a person must agree with all doctrines of a denomination in order to be a member has been out of favor in America for quite some time now. I doubt if many Christian consider the views of Christian leaders to be as infallible as Catholics do regarding their Pope, although some might. Calvin had many good ideas, but some were better than others. I am sure Dr. Kennedy knows and agrees with this.

If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers. :D

[Turbo]

Originally posted by bob b

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. ...or that individual's overall ministry. That was precisely my point. Did you see post 11?


I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.I think you misunderstood my post. But maybe I misunderstood yours. In what way do you think I'm sowing discord among the brethren?

[Jukia]

Jack: What would be respectable? Peer review, not letting the site be overrun by the general public and tourists (that was another excuse cited by DeRosa when I spoke with him), doing the research properly. Get the funding up front to do research.
The government won't give you any $ cause of the godless scientific conspiracy? the raise the $ from fundamentalisits. There seem to be enough of those to elect the moron in the White House, gotta be some big $ out ther to defeat the evolutionsists.

But no, we make some half-baked claims based on poor science and little evidence. If you could prove that there were mammoths in Florida within the last 4000 years I suspect that would be major scientific news, but you (meaning creationists) so you put out a press release that makes those who already believe happy but does not even stand the scrutiny of a 10 minute phone call.

Give me a break, Jack, even you know this is garbage science.

[Poly]

Originally posted by bob b

I suggest you follow this advice in addition to giving it to others.
If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers. :D

bob b, I think you misunderstand what is going on here. Freak makes it a point to get members around here stirred up for the sole purpose of seeing all the drama that goes along with this which has been evident time and again in reading his posts. He is not consistant in his attitude. As you may or may not know, Freak might go for quite a while seeming to be in support of a particular ministry for some of the good that he sees in it and then does an "about-face" and makes it his mission to slam it, hijacking threads having nothing to do with it. He does this, knowing that it will get a rise out of members on here who highly support it. He's also been known to make a huge ordeal over a member being banned simply to mix things up in hopes that a big drama will be started over it. It is evident that he enjoys this. This is why it has been necessary at times to point out this flaw in Freak which is what Turbo is doing. If one reads Turbos posts on here it is clear that he has no desire to sew discord among brethren as Freak does.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

So? Knight is an open theist and you are not. Are you therefore not fond of TOL or Knight?
I'm quite fond of Knight and TOL. You don't know what you speak of. You're simply spreading lies about me. I have supported TOL for years and have participated on TOL for years. I simply find open theism that you embrace as heresy, that's all.

[Freak]

Originally posted by bob b to turbo

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual. Exactly. :up:

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

Jack: What would be respectable? Peer review, not letting the site be overrun by the general public and tourists (that was another excuse cited by DeRosa when I spoke with him), doing the research properly.

Define proper research.

Get the funding up front to do research.
The government won't give you any $ cause of the godless scientific conspiracy?

Sounds like you're just trying to set up a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. You'd be screaming bloody murder over what they were doing with your tax dollars if they did that.

the raise the $ from fundamentalisits.

At least we're not stealing your money to fund our research.

There seem to be enough of those to elect the moron in the White House, gotta be some big $ out ther to defeat the evolutionsists.

We don't need money to defeat you. We have the truth on our side. All the money in the world isn't going to change that.

But no, we make some half-baked claims based on poor science and little evidence.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the half-baked claims made by evolutionists based on poor science and little evidence. And speaking of evidence, I don't suppose you'd want to provide us with some of this evidence for evolution that you claim is so overwhelming?

If you could prove that there were mammoths in Florida within the last 4000 years I suspect that would be major scientific news, but you (meaning creationists) so you put out a press release that makes those who already believe happy but does not even stand the scrutiny of a 10 minute phone call.

To be frank, Jukia, I don't believe you really called them, and even if you did, I don't think you could have debunked their arguments with a year of time to prepare your case and a team of scientists helping you, much less ten minutes all by your lonesome.

Give me a break, Jack, even you know this is garbage science.

What do you know about science? Don't think we've failed to notice how little you've actually contributed to these discussions. Mostly you just sit on the sidelines and jeer.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

I'm quite fond of Knight and TOL. I know. That's why I used them in my analogy.

You're simply spreading lies about me.What lie(s)?

I have supported TOL for years and have participated on TOL for years. I simply find open theism that you embrace as heresy, that's all. And I endorse Coral Ridge Ministries. What's the difference?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo
And I endorse Corel Ridge Ministries. What's the difference? That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear.

[Turbo]

I missed this post before:
Originally posted by Swordsman

Turbo, you do know that Dr. James Kennedy is a PresbyYes. and denounces the OV, right? I figured as much. I'll ask you what I asked Freak:

So?



I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. He also has many great guest speakers. I think Pam Stenzel is my favorite. I also like Joshua Harris. (Yes, I know.;)) There have been many others; I just don't remember their names.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear. CRM does not denounce the resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the six day creation, the great deluge, absolute moral truth...


It's no more strange than your support of TOL. (That is to say, it is not strange at all.)

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo


I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. And he takes a strong stance against open theism which you have adopted into your personal theology. :down:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

CRM does not denounce the resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, the six day creation, the great deluge, absolute moral truth... but it does denounce open theism...but wait you're much smarter then Dr. D. James Kennedy.

It's no more strange than your support of TOL. I don't support TOL's stance on open theism.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

And he takes a strong stance against open theism which you have adopted into your personal theology. :down: Really? I've listened to his show off and on for over three years, and I've never heard him talk about Calvinism or Armenianism, let alone the Open View. As I've said, my only real clue that he is a Calvinist is the name of his church. And just because I disagree with him on one non-essential issue (on which I've never even heard him speak) that is no reason to reject his entire ministry.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Freak

I don't support TOL's stance on open theism. So why are you getting on my case?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Turbo

Really? I've listened to his show off and on for over three years, and I've never heard him talk about Calvinism or Armenianism, let alone the Open View. Apparently you have never visited his website--and take a peek at his doctrinal statement.

btw, a good article to look at, that one of his professors have written on OV is here: http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/KnoxPulpit/slamerson_ets-paper.html

[Nineveh]

Stratnerd,
C'mon now, your question was worded about as honestly as "have you stopped beating your wife yet". You needed to add "recent" to example, "known" to lie and "by creationists" to the unearthing of the truth of a matter.

Far from slacking, God fearing Scientists aren't in short supply, and I will be so bold as to say their discoveries have made leaps and bounds in the world of science.

Andre Marie Ampere
Roger Bacon
Alexander Fleming
Lord Kelvin
Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Wright brothers
Gregor Mendel
To name but a few...

Now if we want to investigate "known" falsehoods, when did that peppered moth thing, and Heckle's ideas get taken out of school text books?

[Stratnerd]

N-

I asked "Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists."

You provided a list of almost all pre-Darwin scientists that have nothing to do with what I asked.

As for peppered moths and Haekle's problems, was it creationists that discovered the problems? Again no.

to add "recent" to example, "known" to lie and "by creationists" to the unearthing of the truth of a matter. by recent of thinking of anything post 1900. I'm not familiar with any scandals before this so I can't say either way. But, as far as I know, it was fellow scientists that eventually uncovered the scandals and put them in their right place. Again, I will say that post- Darwin creationists are a useless bunch. Sure, a list of pre-Darwin creationists is impressive but then everyone was a creationist because nobody made such a persuasive arguement before Darwin. Then look at the contributions of creationists after Darwin - comparitively slim I'd say.

as for "known" - what can I say? Gee show me fake fakes???

as for "by creationists" well yea sure because I want to know if creationists these days are a usefull bunch. I think they are useless but I'm looking for examples where these lies of evolutionists are being uncovered by creationists.

[Free-Agent Smith]

I quote this page (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns239.html).

THE JAVA APE-MAN
In 1891 a Dutch army doctor, Eugene Dubois, stationed in Java, reported finding the "missing link" between man and animals! He discovered the top of a skull, three jaw teeth, and part of a thighbone. But he found them 70 feet apart, among many bones along a creek, over the period of a year! After completing his military service Dubois kept the bones in a trunk at home and sent pencil drawings to various evolutionary leaders and museums of the world who eagerly welcomed his "scientific" proof.

THE PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS!
Calling his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.

Finally, after about 35 years, the scientific world demanded to see and evaluate the bones for themselves. Twenty-four European scientists met and studied the bones. Ten said they were the bones of an ape; seven said they came from a man; and seven said they were not the bones of a "missing link!" No less an authority than H.G. Wells, the agnostic historian known for his two-volume Outline of History, said they were the bones of an ape. Even Dubois himself finally admitted that the bones were probably from an ape. But the Java Ape-Man has been paraded in museums and high school and college text books the world over as the "missing link" between man and animals, proving evolution! Almighty God must have had these worldly wise men in mind when He inspired the Apostle Paul to tell Timothy to "...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called!" (1 Tim. 6:20). Still more!

THE NEBRASKA MAN!
In 1922 a so-called scientist claimed to have found in Nebraska the true "missing link" between men and animals. Dubbed the "Nebraska Man," it was flaunted in text-books and museums of the world as being one million years old. Pictures and models were created, based on the "scientific" studies of experts. Just three years later, in the famous "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, this overwhelming evidence was introduced to prove evolution and show that "ignorant Bible-believers" were wrong! Great "scientific experts" were quoted to prove their case and all who were dumb enough to believe that God created man in His image were mocked and ridiculed!

When evidence of the "Nebraska Man" was demanded, the "great scientific experts" reluctantly admitted that their evidence consisted of ONE (1) tooth! But that's not all! After evolutionists and the mainstream media reporters bullied lowly Bible believers for years with their "scientific proof" the rest of that skeleton was found, and guess what? It was the skeleton of an extinct pig! What an example of "profane and vain babblings . .. science, falsely so called!"

[Free-Agent Smith]

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists
by Harun Yahya Ph.D

Deceptive Evos (http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/deceptive.html).

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists
by Harun Yahya Ph.D

Deceptive Evos (http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/deceptive.html). I get the idea that this guy thinks he has evidence against evolution.
Yahya (http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter16.php),... and this guy isn't even a Christian.

All of Harun Yahya's works share one single goal: to convey the Qur' an's message, encourage readers to consider basic faith-related issues such as God's Existence and Unity and the hereafter; and to expose godless systems' feeble foundations and perverted ideologies.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I asked "Perhaps you can provide a recent example where scientist knew the truth but presented lies.... and was uncovered by creationists and not fellow scientists."

I don't think that was an honestly asked question. You had to qualify it at every turn :)

You provided a list of almost all pre-Darwin scientists that have nothing to do with what I asked.

I only listed 9 lol

Anywho, the concept of paganism predates darwin too. I think it is a point to know that the fathers of some sciences (like flight), were God fearing.

As for peppered moths and Haekle's problems, was it creationists that discovered the problems? Again no.

Thank goodness you made the qualification huh? Or else the lie might be less. So when did they finally take those "known lies" out of the text books?

by recent of thinking of anything post 1900. I'm not familiar with any scandals before this so I can't say either way. But, as far as I know, it was fellow scientists that eventually uncovered the scandals and put them in their right place. Again, I will say that post- Darwin creationists are a useless bunch. Sure, a list of pre-Darwin creationists is impressive but then everyone was a creationist because nobody made such a persuasive arguement before Darwin. Then look at the contributions of creationists after Darwin - comparitively slim I'd say.

Speaking of scandals, how about that embarrasement for National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html), huh? Seems some of these "fossils" will be touring museums this summer, talk about scandalous. But I can understand the zeal some "scientists" have for locating any missing link.

Personally I think "scientists" who abandon darwin now are treated like a mormon who gets a divorce. At one moment leaders in their fields, the next a pariah with no "peer review".

as for "known" - what can I say? Gee show me fake fakes???

Well, I'm sure you could look up a pic of the Piltdown man fairly easily... :)

as for "by creationists" well yea sure because I want to know if creationists these days are a usefull bunch. I think they are useless but I'm looking for examples where these lies of evolutionists are being uncovered by creationists.

Oh, and what if a Creationist did? "WHAT?! He's not PEER REVIEWED! EEgads! And he's a creationist! Everyone knows they aren't really scientists!"

Right.

Creationists can start with the idea DNA is there for a reason, ToErs need millions of dollars and thousands of hours to finally come to that conclusion. So let's weigh your idea of "usless" with my idea of "wasteful uselessness". If darwin hadn't been the foundation of the study of DNA, just think how far science as a whole could be toward understanding what darwinist's created the term for, "junk DNA". Just that one small switch in thinking: "it's there for a reason" instead of "evo leftovers". Btw, the new story is, "evolution must have kept this DNA because it does have a use." In other words... it's there for a reason. "It's there for a reason" is about as ground breaking as Hillary's "boys and girls are different" epiphany. : shrugs:

I imagine our little convo isn't going to go anywhere, but you always seem to be willing to be nice to me , anyway :)

[Stratnerd]

Agent Smith,

1. Any of your examples have anything to do with creationists?

.... I asked if any of these scandals were exposed by creationists. As far as I know it was fellow paleontologists that critiqued these examples as well as all the others.

2. Yahya's stuff sucks. I have a review of two of his books coming out in a forthcoming issue of URL=http://www.cladistics.org/journal.html]Cladistics.

[Stratnerd]

I don't think that was an honestly asked question. You had to qualify it at every turn

It was more than a fair question. You could have provided an example like...

Duane Gish, noted proponent of creationism, discovered that the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc etc, were actually fakes and published his material in Science, Nature, etc etc.

I only listed 9 lol but they had nothing to do with what we discussing!

Thank goodness you made the qualification huh? Or else the lie might be less. So when did they finally take those "known lies" out of the text books? qualification? so you're saying that creationists had something to do with it? It is a very simple request that i'm making. The problem with Haekle's drawings is not the fault of science since his mistakes were uncovered and published many many years ago but, rather, a problem with authors of textbooks that are ill-informed or lazy or both.

Speaking of scandals, how about that embarrasement for National Geographic, huh? Seems some of these "fossils" will be touring museums this summer, talk about scandalous. But I can understand the zeal some "scientists" have for locating any missing link. yup, they didn't let several paleontologists review the fossils before they published. but once they did, guess how undiscovered that the fossils were jimmied. The fossil was not a fake but a composite of two fossils - each one was scientifically enlightening by itself.

Personally I think "scientists" who abandon darwin now are treated like a mormon who gets a divorce. At one moment leaders in their fields, the next a pariah with no "peer review". if they were leaders then they should be able to get their articles published.

Well, I'm sure you could look up a pic of the Piltdown man fairly easily... ???? yes Piltdown man is known so why was my use of this word making me less than honest???? I have no idea what were implying by this "qualifier"

Oh, and what if a Creationist did? then you could provide me of something useful! Nothing stops a creationist from publishing the same material that scientists do!!!!

Haekle, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, National Geographic - all scandals, right? None of the problems exposed in public were done by creationists and they just as easily could have.

Creationists can start with the idea DNA is there for a reason, we all know that DNA has a function.
ToErs need millions of dollars and thousands of hours to finally come to that conclusion. and some DNA still doesn't have a function. so what then? If the assumption is that all of it does then wouldn't the same amount of money be spent on finding what that function was?

the new story is, "evolution must have kept this DNA because it does have a use." In other words... it's there for a reason. sure, some.... but that's because the evidence leads us to that conclusion. Not some mystical preconceptions that cannot even be justified.

I imagine our little convo isn't going to go anywhere, but you always seem to be willing to be nice to me , anyway yup, despite calling my peers liars.....

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
qualification? so you're saying that creationists had something to do with it? It is a very simple request that i'm making. The problem with Haekle's drawings is not the fault of science since his mistakes were uncovered and published many many years ago but, rather, a problem with authors of textbooks that are ill-informed or lazy or both.

The "science" community SQUEELS over creationism even getting a mention but let "known lies" carry on? I think creationists have spoken out about these "evo proofs" more than once. So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify :)

yup, they didn't let several paleontologists review the fossils before they published. but once they did, guess how undiscovered that the fossils were jimmied. The fossil was not a fake but a composite of two fossils - each one was scientifically enlightening by itself.

I can't believe you would excuse the forgeries. Let alone promoting them "on tour" as a "missing link". Shame.

if they were leaders then they should be able to get their articles published.

Some do, as darwinists. Afterwards though... what did Behe tell you about "peer review"?

???? yes Piltdown man is known so why was my use of this word making me less than honest???? I have no idea what were implying by this "qualifier"

Making you less than honest?? ... you wanted shown fake fakes. The "missing link" is a fake, a fake "missing link" is a fake fake. I didn't think my reply was questioning your truthfulness.

we all know that DNA has a function.
and some DNA still doesn't have a function. so what then? If the assumption is that all of it does then wouldn't the same amount of money be spent on finding what that function was?

Still doesn't have a function? C'mon now, catch up to the new theories of darwinism. If they hadn't assumed darwin was right, they would have put forth all those resources toward finding out what they did to begin with.

sure, some.... but that's because the evidence leads us to that conclusion. Not some mystical preconceptions that cannot even be justified.

It's not a "mystical" concept that boys are different, just like it's not a "mystical" concept DNA is there for a reason. What's mystical is how evo is the savior because scientists now know it's there for a reason.

yup, despite calling my peers liars.....

Well, you did qualify your origional question to make sure the lies were unknown :) But I don't hold you thinking of me as a loon against you either... so :)

[Stratnerd]

So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify what's that?

can't believe you would excuse the forgeries. Let alone promoting them "on tour" as a "missing link". Shame. WHAT???? I am explaining the facts which you should dispute. What is wrong with using the useful parts of the fossil? If it isn't useful, then why not?

Afterwards though... what did Behe tell you about "peer review"? I never spoke to Behe

I didn't think my reply was questioning your truthfulness.{/quote] Oh... I guess I don't know what you meant when you said "honest question".

[quote] Still doesn't have a function? C'mon now, catch up to the new theories of darwinism. If they hadn't assumed darwin was right, they would have put forth all those resources toward finding out what they did to begin with. BINGO... so an equal amount of money would have been spent. But if a function was discovered then how was it given that we "knew" it had no function?

just like it's not a "mystical" concept DNA is there for a reason. sure it is, justify the reason why you think ALL DNA has a reason and I'm sure you'll bring in God does this or that and if God isn't mystical then I don't know what is.

Well, you did qualify your origional question to make sure the lies were unknown [completely perplexed!] I said "known"in reference to forgeries, etc.

[Jukia]

[b][i]
To be frank, Jukia, I don't believe you really called them, and even if you did, I don't think you could have debunked their arguments with a year of time to prepare your case and a team of scientists helping you, much less ten minutes all by your lonesome.



What do you know about science? Don't think we've failed to notice how little you've actually contributed to these discussions. Mostly you just sit on the sidelines and jeer.

Jack: Try again, I talked w Tom DeRosa last week, I called the 800 # on their web site since my e-mail was having trouble getting through. I posted what he said, I was not trying to "debunk" anything, I wanted information. I am sure that you know that I did not believe the claims made but thought that perhaps a direct connection could shed some light on the issue. They did no radiometric dating, access to the site is now difficult, they made a mistake by letting the general public in, the samples may be contaminated, they aged the fossils by electron micoscrophy (sp?) and claim that only 1% of the bone has been fossilized thereby determining that the bones were only 3-4000 years old ( I am unaware of whether or not that is a valid method of dating, sounds like it could be useful but I had not heard of it before so if you or anyone else has a cite to methodology and validity I would apprciate the information) the study has not been published in any peer reviewed journals (I don't think it has been published anywhere other than on their web site and newsletters).

If you have any other info contrary to what I have posted here on this particular claim by DeRosa and Kennedy please let me know.

Even you, Jack, can look at that and detemine that at best the research is sloppy. You have been around here long enough and posted enough on this board not to have to ask the question as to "What would be proper research". If you want to play with the bog boys in sceince you have to play on their field--means do it the right way.

And I am interested in the "we" of "Don't think we've failed to notice...". Now that sounds conspiratorial (very Nixonian and W-like).

Further, if you think I have just been on the sidelines "jeering", well I apologize. I will have to be more careful, but jeering is just so easy with you guys. I will try to do better.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

what's that?

LOL I sorta though that would be the attitude, thank you :)

WHAT???? I am explaining the facts which you should dispute. What is wrong with using the useful parts of the fossil? If it isn't useful, then why not?

The real value in all of this was to add another hoax to the "missing link" list.

I never spoke to Behe

Shoot I thought it was you that emailed 'im about peer review, mea culpa :o

BINGO... so an equal amount of money would have been spent. But if a function was discovered then how was it given that we "knew" it had no function?

The premise evos started from was faulty. Now they hail the latest change in evo understanding and can start where creationist do. : shrugs: Maybe "scientists are designed by nature to waste money... : recalls a "study" on the smelliness of doggie poo :

sure it is, justify the reason why you think ALL DNA has a reason and I'm sure you'll bring in God does this or that and if God isn't mystical then I don't know what is.

Well... I hate to tell you this but evos are now believing evo held onto this "junk DNA" for a reason... curiouser and curiouser....

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

Far from slacking, God fearing Scientists aren't in short supply, and I will be so bold as to say their discoveries have made leaps and bounds in the world of science.

Andre Marie Ampere
Roger Bacon
Alexander Fleming
Lord Kelvin
Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Wright brothers
Gregor Mendel
To name but a few...

Dimo:

You forgot to mention Charles Darwin. I wonder why that is?

Which scientists after Darwin were YEC type Christians?


Nineveh posted:

Now if we want to investigate "known" falsehoods, when did that peppered moth thing, and Heckle's ideas get taken out of school text books?

Dimo:

They haven't. They are still valuable learning tools. Just like the model of young earth creation, and spontaneous generation is a good learning tool for the history of science. We know it is no longer accurate but it gives us a good idea of how science develops by finding more precise explanations as time goes on. People who truly understand how science works understand this. Yes Haeckle did exaggerate the embryonic similarities in his drawings to make the point more clear. The peppered moth research is still a good example of "micro" evolution, regardless of the cause of the morpheses.

Do you have a problem with every exaggeration or simplification that is used by educators as a learning tool?

That's right you have to see things in black or white. Ideas are either totally correct or totally incorrect to you. If one concept has even a small amount of inaccuracy then the opposing argument must be entirely correct. What a simple life you must lead. Too bad we all can't be as childlike in our view of the world as you.

[Dimo]

Bob B posted:

Your logic is quite flawed. One can disagree with a doctrine or theory without transferring that disagreement to a lack of fondness for an individual.

Dimo:

Bob I agree 100%.


Bob B posted:

Of course many people do hate, or at a minimum show a lack of fondness toward, those who disagree with their theoretical ideas. This is easily seen here by noticing the venom directed toward me

Dimo:

Bob I think you are mistaking critical analyses with a lack of fondness. Just because I recognize your incompetence, does not mean that I am not fond of you. Many people who are close to me, including myself, are incompetent at some things. You remind me of myself when it comes to tenacity. I actually admire your perserverance, just not your methodology. Therefore, I have little confidence in you your overall conclusions when it comes to the material sciences.

Bob B posted:

Simply because I happen to believe that what is written in the Bible, and what has traditionally been what people have understood it to be saying, is true.

Dimo:

Bob I believe that what is written in the Bible is true. Whether or not what you call "traditional" and the meaning that was intended by God are the same is another matter entirely. It seems to me that both ancient humans as well as modern humans are fallible. And past or "traditional" understandings can be innacurate, just like new or "non-traditional" understandings can be innacurate. The only thing we have to measure their accuracy are the knowledge and wisdom we each have.

[Dimo]

Bob B posted:

The idea that a person must agree with all doctrines of a denomination in order to be a member has been out of favor in America for quite some time now.

Dimo:

I agree Bob. This has been going on since way before the US was founded, however.

Bob B posted:

I doubt if many Christian consider the views of Christian leaders to be as infallible as Catholics do regarding their Pope, although some might.

Dimo:

Most Catholics do not consider the Pope to be infallible. I remember as a child questioning a literal interpretation of Genesis. This was prior to the Popes proclamation in 1981, that Catholics can now accept evolution. Most of the Catholics I knew already considered evolution to be the most accurate explanation for origins.

I think that many Protestants, such as yourself, think that the people who originated "traditional" ideas were infallible.


Bob B posted:

If I didn't know better I might think you are deliberately sowing discord among the brothers.

Dimo:

If I didn't know better Bob I would think that you are "deliberately" sowing discord among the brothers. Of course there are verses in scripture that support this sowing of discord. One of them was spoken by Jesus himself.

Perhaps Polly needs to read her Bible again.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

They haven't. They are still valuable learning tools. Just like the model of young earth creation, and spontaneous generation is a good learning tool for the history of science. We know it is no longer accurate but it gives us a good idea of how science develops by finding more precise explanations as time goes on. People who truly understand how science works understand this. Yes Haeckle did exaggerate the embryonic similarities in his drawings to make the point more clear. The peppered moth research is still a good example of "micro" evolution, regardless of the cause of the morpheses.

You are the second ToEr to try to justify hoaxes. What can I say?

Do you have a problem with every exaggeration or simplification that is used by educators as a learning tool?

I have a problem with obvious frauds being taught as proofs. But on second thought, what better way to illustrate ToE...

That's right you have to see things in black or white. Ideas are either totally correct or totally incorrect to you. If one concept has even a small amount of inaccuracy then the opposing argument must be entirely correct. What a simple life you must lead. Too bad we all can't be as childlike in our view of the world as you.

Crooks created frauds that were "eaten up" by mainstream science. I can't believe you and Strat actually think hoaxes and frauds are good things. Your logic is beyond me to rationalize.

[Stratnerd]

N-

You said "So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify"

I responded "what's that?" as in "what are you talking about" which you kindly replied: "LOL I sorta though that would be the attitude, thank you" :bang:

Did you not get I didn't know what you were talking about so again I'll ask "what's that?" as in "what is a recent known lie"?

The real value in all of this was to add another hoax to the "missing link" list. I guess you don't get it - two good fossils were put together - the upper body of a Cretaceous bird and the lower body of a Cretaceous lizard. BOTH GOOD (AKA BONA FIDE) fossils but presented together (by a seller not a biologist, btw) was a fake. :bang:

OK, if I take the real Mona Lisa and a Casset painting and put them together you have two pieces of good art stuck together to make one fake. Got it?

Shoot I thought it was you that emailed 'im about peer review, mea culpa I emailed an editor of one of the creationist mags and he said only creationists review their articles.

The premise evos started from was faulty. at the time the evidence was that this area had no function but later evidence suggest that it did. Big deal. :shrugs: Your inference should be from the evidence - how do you do science? Oh, you don't do science. Well, OK then, how would you find the function of junk DNA with less $ than a regular scientist? When would you decide that a particular sequence had no function and you were actually wasting $?

I can't believe you and Strat actually think hoaxes and frauds are good things see, I stay nice until I see this crap that really tees me off. DID I EVER SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I DID????

I said that one fake fossil was actually made up of two good fossils.

STOP TWISTING WORDS AROUND, PLEASE.

[Stratnerd]

Does anyone have an example were a biological scandal was uncovered by a creationist?

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Agent Smith,

1. Any of your examples have anything to do with creationists?

.... I asked if any of these scandals were exposed by creationists. As far as I know it was fellow paleontologists that critiqued these examples as well as all the others.As far as I know you never bothered to read any of the links I sent you.

2. Yahya's stuff sucks. I have a review of two of his books coming out in a forthcoming issue of URL=http://www.cladistics.org/journal.html]Cladistics. Whether you like the examples or not doesn't really matter. Yahya is a creation scientist.

[Stratnerd]

As far as I know you never bothered to read any of the links I sent you. i did but I failed to see where creationists were involved. maybe you could provide an example of a fraud that was uncovered.

Whether you like the examples or not doesn't really matter. Yahya is a creation scientist.

Nope. He's a philosopher and he probably doesn't write his own books. His expertise is in philosophy not science. But what fraud has he uncovered? Why even mention him?

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Does anyone have an example were a biological scandal was uncovered by a creationist? Biological scandal? Sounds like something from the Clinton administration. I understand that you probably don't give any credit to anyone who supports or endorses Creation science. I also understand that you, I and everyone else on here are debating theory.

So... until you can believe that science can prove intelligent design(Creationism), one aspect at a time or one chromosome at a time, I don't think anything I say or any link I can post will satisfy you.. so I won't.
BUt I have learned more from those claiming to believe in Creationism than evolution.

[Stratnerd]

I understand that you probably don't give any credit to anyone who supports or endorses Creation science. I give people credit when they are able to connect the dots and use logic. Since creation isn't based on evidence (connecting the dots) then logic MUST be twisted.

So... until you can believe that science can prove intelligent design(Creationism), name the experiment, the hypothesis, and, most importantly, the justification for the hypothesis. In other words, how do you take what you know about how God creates and turn it into ACGCAAGTAGCGT..... If you can't do it then you cannot justify. If you cannot justify then you cannot link prediction to hypothesis and you are not doing science but something else.

BUt I have learned more from those claiming to believe in Creationism than evolution. if Yahya is one of those then I am very sorry.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Strat,


Maybe you can use your evolutionary logic and prove macro-evolution to me, beyond any doubt?

[Stratnerd]

> Maybe you can use your evolutionary logic and prove macro-evolution to me, beyond any doubt?

I always thought there was just logic...

There is doubt, just as there is anything interesting in science. Things beyond doubt are just observations.

But we know that the phenotype is largely based on genetic programs

We know that this program makes mistakes from generation to generation

We know that those mistakes results in changes in phenotype

We don't know of any reason why the changes in genotype chould not have happened naturally

We know that the fossil history of organisms is largely reflected by their phylogeny - best explained by evolution

We know that biogeography is largely reflected by phylogeny - best explained by evolution

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

You said "So if we are honest, there is a recent known lie perpetuated by "scientists" pointed out by creationists repeatedly. But for some reason, it won't qualify"

I responded "what's that?" as in "what are you talking about" which you kindly replied: "LOL I sorta though that would be the attitude, thank you" :bang:

Did you not get I didn't know what you were talking about so again I'll ask "what's that?" as in "what is a recent known lie"?

I'm sorry, I thought you were following along, weren't we talking about text books?

I guess you don't get it - two good fossils were put together - the upper body of a Cretaceous bird and the lower body of a Cretaceous lizard. BOTH GOOD (AKA BONA FIDE) fossils but presented together (by a seller not a biologist, btw) was a fake. :bang:

Look, this was a hoax. Two fossils put together and proclaimed to be a "missing link" is a hoax, what is there to miss? Other than why you are defending it...

at the time the evidence was that this area had no function but later evidence suggest that it did. Big deal. :shrugs: Your inference should be from the evidence - how do you do science? Oh, you don't do science. Well, OK then, how would you find the function of junk DNA with less $ than a regular scientist? When would you decide that a particular sequence had no function and you were actually wasting $?

: laughing: You wanna miss this point don't you? All these years "scientists" operated under the ignorant assumption there was such a thing as "junk DNA". Just now they have become enlightened enough to realize it has a function, a purpose for being. So on with the new "theory"! Evolution had a purpose for keeping it. VIOLA! And mainstream science moves a whole step up to square one. DNA has a purpose for being there.

see, I stay nice until I see this crap that really tees me off. DID I EVER SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I DID????

I think you just took this opportunity to fly off the handle. If you wanna continue to defend a hoax as being worth something other than a hoax, I ain't gunna stop you, but I will think you are silly.

I said that one fake fossil was actually made up of two good fossils.

10 zillion fossils glued together and proclaimed to be something other than 10 zillion different fossils, is still a hoax. And "science" magazines will still blush at their eager zeal in the pursuit of any "missing link" by publishing full cover spreads on them.

Now, like I said earlier, this convo won't go anywhere. So if it's only going to make you grumpy, let's just stop now, ok? :)

[Stratnerd]

I'm sorry, I thought you were following along, weren't we talking about text books? scandals and what creationists were doing... but what was this lie?

Two fossils put together and proclaimed to be a "missing link" is a hoax, what is there to miss? Other than why you are defending it... you're missing the point the composite was a hoax but the pieces were bona fide. I'M NOT DEFENDING THE HOAX BUT USING THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES.

All these years "scientists" operated under the ignorant assumption there was such a thing as "junk DNA". and at one time we didn't know what caused a cold, what made us grow, etc. It's called science and it's about discovery. The evidence at the time suggested that it didn't have a known function but a closer inspection suggested that it did so we looked and we found it. Evolutionary biologists did this NOT creationists. They had nothing to do with.

So on with the new "theory"! yup, theories change and get modified. Not sure how this changes evolution. In fact, it was because of evolutionary theory we thought there was a function!

I think you just took this opportunity to fly off the handle. If you wanna continue to defend a hoax as being worth something other than a hoax, I ain't gunna stop you, but I will think you are silly. no, you put words in my mouth so let me try to set it straight again. I don't defend the use of the hoax but the use of the individual pieces.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

> Maybe you can use your evolutionary logic and prove macro-evolution to me, beyond any doubt?

I always thought there was just logic...

There is doubt, just as there is anything interesting in science. Things beyond doubt are just observations.

But we know that the phenotype is largely based on genetic programs

We know that this program makes mistakes from generation to generation

We know that those mistakes results in changes in phenotype

We don't know of any reason why the changes in genotype chould not have happened naturally

We know that the fossil history of organisms is largely reflected by their phylogeny - best explained by evolution

We know that biogeography is largely reflected by phylogeny - best explained by evolution
I was hoping you might be able to help define why we can't seem to get our hands on the missing links in the fossil records.

I was hoping that you might be able to give me a strong evolution explaination on the geographical oddities of the Grand Canyon.

I was hoping you could atleast provide me a believable link that truly proves man evolved from ape.

I was hoping you might give me some logical reason as to why I should believe that at one time, billions of years ago, my ancestors were primordial slime.

[Stratnerd]

I was hoping you might be able to help define why we can't seem to get our hands on the missing links in the fossil records.
1. there are some
2. there shouldn't be many

I was hoping that you might be able to give me a strong evolution explaination on the geographical oddities of the Grand Canyon. as opposed to a global flood that affected only the that area in the Grand Canyon yet ignore the rest of the planet? Without providing examples, how could I actually respond?

It's not about making ad hoc explanations that sweep away contrary evidence but rather pulling stuff into a theory that allows for more phenomena to be explained. Creationism is all about explaining away (super speciation, super plate tectonics, super light speed) and these explanations always leave more things unexplained.

I was hoping you could atleast provide me a believable link that truly proves man evolved from ape. other than the congruence between molecular phylogenies (that is, several independent sets of data keep points out that we are more like chimps than either of us are to gorillas) or the numerous fossils that are intermediate - why do you think we argue if H. erectus is "human" or ape. It can't be because it is dissimilar. What does creationism have to say about non sapian humans? "Oh neat"

I was hoping you might give me some logical reason as to why I should believe that at one time, billions of years ago, my ancestors were primordial slime. bcause as we go back in time we get to a point where for two billion years there's nothing but prokaryotes. So these were either poofed or they appeared naturally.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

1. there are some
2. there shouldn't be many Haven't seen one yet. I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species.

as opposed to a global flood that affected only the that area in the Grand Canyon yet ignore the rest of the planet? Without providing examples, how could I actually respond? Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds? You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones.

It's not about making ad hoc explanations that sweep away contrary evidence but rather pulling stuff into a theory that allows for more phenomena to be explained. Creationism is all about explaining away (super speciation, super plate tectonics, super light speed) and these explanations always leave more things unexplained. I have never heard of these "super" things before. Please enlighten me.

other than the congruence between molecular phylogenies (that is, several independent sets of data keep points out that we are more like chimps than either of us are to gorillas) or the numerous fossils that are intermediate - why do you think we argue if H. erectus is "human" or ape. It can't be because it is dissimilar. What does creationism have to say about non sapian humans? "Oh neat"If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better ?

bcause as we go back in time we get to a point where for two billion years there's nothing but prokaryotes. So these were either poofed or they appeared naturally. How would they have naturally appeared or "poofed"? And how do you know for sure that there was nothing around but prokaryotes? And how did evolutionists find evidence/fossils(?) of these?

[Crow]

Originally posted by Freak

That's strange. You embrace a ministry that denounces the very theology you hold so dear.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Freak!

Why in the world would you suggest that Christians (Turbo, in this case) would need to agree on all points of theology to appreciate and draw strength from each other?

There is not one Christian on this board that I agree with 100% on every issue. Nori and met in real life and we are so much alike that it's eerie, but we don't agree 100%. I was saved through Bob Enyart's ministry, and I don't agree with him 100% on non-salvic issues. Tye Porter and I were very close on most issues, but I didn't agree with him 100%. Nor with Nineveh, Agent Smith, Turbo, Sibbie, Knight, Poly, Lucky, SOTK, Sozo, Aimiel, OEJ, Jefferson, E4E, Melody, Christine, Elaine, wholearmor, Yorzhik, Clete, frostman J, Shaun, Berean Todd, Dread Helmet, and a host of others to whom I am forever indebted.

I don't agree with the Catholic church on a ton of issues, yet I can appreciate that they vigerously uphold the right of a child to be born. Didn't someone start a thread on how they appreciated some of the views the Catholic church holds recently, even though they don't agree with them on every issue? :think:

There are plenty of OV and CV people on this board that I have learned from.

I'm OV, and I appreciate CRM.

If I stand around waiting for the Christian brother or sister that I agree with 100% to appreciate, I'm going to be having a self-admiration society going on here, and nothing else.

None of us is perfect or in perfect agreement on all issues. The only perfection in us is the Righteousness which we never earned, but received from God by Grace through Faith.

But we can still draw strength from each other. And one day, when we are with Him in our new bodies and can learn the definitive answers first hand, I submit that we'll all have a suprise or two, and we'll all see that as long as we are His, our disagreements that were born of our limited human understanding weren't as important as we've made them.

[Jukia]

Agent Smith: Never heard of the hydro plate theory, that strikes me as super plate tectonics and super absurd as well. I have also seen numerous references to using a change in the speed of light to "prove" that the earth is much younger than it really is.
But I must admit that the hydro plate theory strikes me as the absolute silliest to explaint Noah's flood. It requires a complete suspension of belief in geology, meteorology, physics etc. Very creative with zero evidence to back it up. Absolute pure speculation. An A for creativity an F for real science.

[bob b]

Originally posted by Jukia

Agent Smith: Never heard of the hydro plate theory, that strikes me as super plate tectonics and super absurd as well. I have also seen numerous references to using a change in the speed of light to "prove" that the earth is much younger than it really is.
But I must admit that the hydro plate theory strikes me as the absolute silliest to explaint Noah's flood. It requires a complete suspension of belief in geology, meteorology, physics etc. Very creative with zero evidence to back it up. Absolute pure speculation. An A for creativity an F for real science.

Home of the Hydroplate Theory:

http://www.creationscience.com/

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

scandals and what creationists were doing... but what was this lie?

Never mind, I don't think you want to understand what I have been trying to relate.

you're missing the point the composite was a hoax but the pieces were bona fide. I'M NOT DEFENDING THE HOAX BUT USING THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES.

Alright. Look. Two fossils, that we have many of, were put together as a hoax. There isn't anything but a novelty value to them. Well... and a draw from museums (who should know they are a hoax) to display them as a missing link this summer...

and at one time we didn't know what caused a cold, what made us grow, etc. It's called science and it's about discovery. The evidence at the time suggested that it didn't have a known function but a closer inspection suggested that it did so we looked and we found it. Evolutionary biologists did this NOT creationists. They had nothing to do with.

Like I said, out of ignorance they were labled "junk". Now evos have a reason for them being there. I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious : shrugs:

yup, theories change and get modified. Not sure how this changes evolution. In fact, it was because of evolutionary theory we thought there was a function!

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.

no, you put words in my mouth so let me try to set it straight again. I don't defend the use of the hoax but the use of the individual pieces.

When two pieces are joined together and modified, what use have they other than their intended purpose as a hoax? It's not like the fossils themselves are one-of-a-kinds. (I still think you are silly for believing these modified fossils have any value other than their intended purpose)

***

Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality?

[aharvey]

Dang it! I should never have peeked at the Origins site to see what’s been happening lately! I’ve got too much actual research to do! Sigh…

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Haven't seen one yet [missing link]. I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species.

The whole “missing links” issue is a red herring. A missing link is a gap. Every time a “missing link” (we’ll call it C) is discovered between two known taxa (say, A and B), that creates two new gaps (one between A and C, the other between B and C). As time passes, the number of gaps increases, but the size of the gaps decreases. Makes this a perfect, but perfectly specious, line of creationist attack.

This “gap multiplication” is the only possible reason you would expect to find as many missing link fossils as fossils of “other species,” but then this is only because the majority of extinct species might be considered to be a “missing link” between something! If, on the other hand, you want to restrict the concept of missing link to transitions between major groups (phyla, for example), then you’d have to agree that such fossils should be far rarer than most, simply because there are millions of species, but only dozens of phyla!

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds? You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones.

Things must have changed since I last visited the Grand Canyon. When I was there, all the heavy fossilized bones were not in the bottom layers of the canyon sediments. I do agree with you, Agent Smith, that this would be a reasonable expectation if all these sediments were laid down in a single, geologically instantaneous event. However, I don’t know of anywhere in the world where this is the case. Hmm…

Originally posted by Agent Smith

If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better ?

“Better”?!? See, this is why we need to be teaching evolutionary theory in schools again. Evolution is change, not progress. Organisms can’t evolve a new feature just because it would be helpful. Furthermore, the environment in which a species lives both pushes and constrains the direction, and intensity, of evolutionary change. Once humans were on the scene, it might not have benefited other apes to evolve in the same direction.

And last, but not least, Bob b provides the link to the magical hydroplate “theory.” Talk about irony. Bob b, who consistently complains about the unreasonable assumptions used by evolutionists and actualists (i.e., scientists), provides a link to a theory whose two main assumptions are, and I quote:

“Assumption 1: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth’s surface. Excluding the solid structure of the interconnected chambers, the subterranean water, containing a large amount of dissolved salt and carbon dioxide, would have approximated a thin, spherical shell, about 3/4of a mile in thickness. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was a layer of basaltic rock.

Assumption 2: Increasing Pressure. Pressure in the subterranean water steadily increased.”

That first assumption alone leaves me breathless. Compare these to the assumption of actualism, so detested by Bob b:

“Assumption: fundamental physical and biological processes (but not necessarily their rates or intensities) have remained unchanged throughout time.”

I’m at a loss how actualism’s assumption is more worthy of ridicule than those of the hydroplate theory.

[cur_deus_homo]

CRM, CSI, ICR, CRI...they're all out there battling for their "truth" and trying to "reclaim America for Christ" and expose the "lie" of evolution. The Bible and the ministry of Jesus contains scant evidence upon which organizations such as these try to make their case for creating and fighting culture wars, which is their real agenda. If they were really interested in "Truth" and Christian unity they would be engaging face-to-face those in the church who disagree with them theologically. They don't engage others in this way, however, they only talk amongst themselves.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Turbo

I missed this post before:
Yes. I figured as much. I'll ask you what I asked Freak:

So?

I particularly like Kennedy's presentations on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Biblical Creation. He takes a strong stance against abortion and sexual immorality. He also has many great guest speakers. I think Pam Stenzel is my favorite. I also like Joshua Harris. (Yes, I know.;)) There have been many others; I just don't remember their names.

No worries. I just never correlated OVers with the likes of Presby teachers. My apologies for stereotyping. :)

[Jukia]

The hydroplate theory is simply the best, the most amazing and the most foolish of all the flood theories I have even seen!

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

The hydroplate theory is simply the best, the most amazing and the most foolish of all the flood theories I have even seen!

Then you should be able to appreciate how I feel about :darwinsm: :)

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Am I missing something? Do you buy that hydroplate theory? Can't tell from your post, maybe I am just dense this afternoon. Thanks

[Turbo]

bob b,

Did you see my reponse to you from Saturday? (post #20)

[bob b]

Originally posted by Turbo

bob b,

Did you see my reponse to you from Saturday? (post #20)

Yes, but this subject has been beaten to death.

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.

Dimo:

Again Nineveh you are misinformed. This is the laypersons understanding. Genticists and paleobiologists realize that any DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future. When analysing the current influence of any DNA on enzyme production some effects are more apparent than others. The current effect of much DNA is still not known. Bob's one example does not change the whole of scientific understanding.

But of course your black or white thinking kicks in again. If there is one inaccuracy, it must all be wrong.

How sad.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but this subject has been beaten to death. OK. :sigh:

[Dimo]

Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but this subject has been beaten to death.

Dimo:

That's funny I thought this subject was beaten to death way before this thread was started. Kind of like every other thread and subject started by YECs about origins. The only reason I offer my insight is to point out that the only "evidence" for the YEC model is misinformation, deciet, and/or old warn out arguments that some newer people to this debate might have missed.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia
Do you buy that hydroplate theory?

I've read Mr. Brown's book. He makes sense to me :)

Can't tell from your post, maybe I am just dense this afternoon. Thanks

Your post and mine were equivalent in substance :)

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Dang it! I should never have peeked at the Origins site to see what’s been happening lately! I’ve got too much actual research to do! Sigh…

Well I don't wonder in to the "origins" very often either. Since I am not well-educated in antrhopology people tend to treat me like a total idiot even though I do try to learn in here. You would have to say that I believe in Creationism because I haven't seen or heard of anything yet that can get me to believe in evolution.


This part of my post is open to all and not directly adressed to aharvey.
Since my terminology isn't quite to par with some of you guys I would appreciate it if you would speak down to my level, so that I better understand your arguements against Creationism. Since I am not a moron try not to be too patronizing.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.

Dimo:

Again Nineveh you are misinformed. This is the laypersons understanding. Genticists and paleobiologists realize that any DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future. When analysing the current influence of any DNA on enzyme production some effects are more apparent than others. The current effect of much DNA is still not known. Bob's one example does not change the whole of scientific understanding.

But of course your black or white thinking kicks in again. If there is one inaccuracy, it must all be wrong.

How sad.

Um... how does this make the assesment that DNA now is "junk"? OOPs no, sorry, they don't think it's "junk" anymore because it has a use now. They finally realized it wasn't just evo left overs but actually has a function. They labled it "junk" before they had a clue what it was or what it did.

To set the record straight:
Junk DNA Definition: Stretches of DNA that do not code for genes; most of the genome consists of so-called junk DNA which may have regulatory and other functions. Also called non-coding DNA.

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."
cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA)

DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future.

I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Kind of like every other thread and subject started by YECs about origins.

May I suggest I started this thread about Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI teaming up? I sorta thought the OP and thread title would give it away...

[Jukia]

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

[Stratnerd]

Never mind, I don't think you want to understand what I have been trying to relate. :doh: That's why I asked several times what you were trying to say. Geesh.
Alright. Look. Two fossils, that we have many of, were put together as a hoax. There isn't anything but a novelty value to them. Well... and a draw from museums (who should know they are a hoax) to display them as a missing link this summer... OMG... they are using the pieces individually not a composite. I don't get why you insist that each piece is worthless? The hoax is the composite not the individual pieces.

Like I said, out of ignorance they were labled "junk". Now evos have a reason for them being there. I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious it was exactly because of evolutionary theory that we suspected that those sequences had function. What is it about creationism that makes any predictions that would make you think that a particular sequence had a function? If everything has a function then if we found a region of DNA without a particular function would you insist that it did or would you allow to falsify your "hypothesis" that all DNA has function?

It's not like the fossils themselves are one-of-a-kinds. (I still think you are silly for believing these modified fossils have any value other than their intended purpose)

ITS THE UNMODIFIED PIECES THAT HAVE VALUE.

Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality? no, I steer away from that kind of stuff.

[bob b]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

If one defines "genius" by IQ and academic honors then Brown is a genius. Nevertheless his concept must stand or fall depending on the evidence and it is very difficult to verify events that happened in the far past.

His theory is consistent with scripture, which is more than one can say about the vague "millions of years" concept favored by most scientists working in the field of Origins.

[Stratnerd]

Haven't seen one yet. yea, you keep saying that but you, by your own admission, aren't looking.
I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species. Darwin, over 150 years ago, provided reasons why we shouldn't find very many fossils of intermediates. I would read his chapters in Origin of Species. To sum it up, the conditions that favor fossilization are rare enough that they don't capture/sample all that is going on.

Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds? heck no, why should they? completely different processes.
You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones. then, given a global flood, why don't we find a single heavy layer, then a single medium layer, then a fine layer, and organisms sorted out by weight?

I have never heard of these "super" things before. Please enlighten me. Bob B., is quite familiar with all these since he has suggested them. In fact, the hydroplate theory is part of the super-tectonics. The superspeciation thing is use when accounting for the few thousand years between Noah's kinds and all the species today. Super light speed to account to the star light/distance problem. All ad hoc explanation meant to explain way problems that reality and logic present. Problem is they leave more unexplained.

If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better? evolution works through mutations that are random as well as the interaction with the environment. The likelihood that the same combination of mutations that occurred to produce us will occur in a another lineage is ~ nil. Also, given the intelligence of apes now and the other species of primates, I would say they they too have become more intelligent.

How would they have naturally appeared or "poofed"? assuming that the same processes that occur today (mutation/selection, etc) occur in the past and we have never witnesses poofing - why should we invoke a process/event that we've never seen and how no idea how it happens (which means you can never justify it).
And how do you know for sure that there was nothing around but prokaryotes? we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.
[/quote] And how did evolutionists find evidence/fossils(?) of these? [/QUOTE] by being out in the field

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Yeah, they were :)

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

So because we have no Oceanographers on TOL, Brown's ideas are less of a theory than, let's say... dinosaurs-to-birds theory?

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

Yep :)

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b

His theory is consistent with scripture.


And the reason you buy into it, clearly nothing to do with facts and evidence.

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Nineveh




So because we have no Oceanographers on TOL, Brown's ideas are less of a theory than, let's say... dinosaurs-to-birds theory?





No, nothing to do with oceanographers on TOL. I have suggested that someone, preferably someone on TOL, find an oceanographer, unconnected with Brown, who agrees with him.

Brown's theory is actually fascinating but made up of whole cloth, there is no basis for it that I am aware of other than perhaps bob b's statement that it is consistent with Scripture. But that is not really the point of science--to make up theories that fit with Scripture. The point of science ought to be to investigate the natural world, get the facts first etc.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
OMG... they are using the pieces individually not a composite. I don't get why you insist that each piece is worthless? The hoax is the composite not the individual pieces.

They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1 cite (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp)

If we only had one of each of the peices, I might see your point, but we have many of these fossils. Why you insist this hoax can be worth anything but an embarrasment to National Geographic and any museum that makes a display on this "missing link" is beyond me.

it was exactly because of evolutionary theory that we suspected that those sequences had function. What is it about creationism that makes any predictions that would make you think that a particular sequence had a function? If everything has a function then if we found a region of DNA without a particular function would you insist that it did or would you allow to falsify your "hypothesis" that all DNA has function?

Nice try. It's the evos that that didn't understand not all DNA coded for genes, they labled DNA that didn't act in their realm of understanding as "junk". This isn't the only example of this attitude either. At one point the appendix was considered an evo left over, too.

ITS THE UNMODIFIED PIECES THAT HAVE VALUE.

Whatever you wanna believe.

no, I steer away from that kind of stuff.

I thought Science and Nature were two of those "peer review" things you keep talking about...

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

No, nothing to do with oceanographers on TOL. I have suggested that someone, preferably someone on TOL, find an oceanographer, unconnected with Brown, who agrees with him.

Looks like that leg work belongs to you.

Brown's theory is actually fascinating but made up of whole cloth, there is no basis for it that I am aware of other than perhaps bob b's statement that it is consistent with Scripture. But that is not really the point of science--to make up theories that fit with Scripture. The point of science ought to be to investigate the natural world, get the facts first etc.

Sorta like the whole cloth that turns two fossil teeth into a thriving social community?

[Jukia]

Nineveh: No the leg work is not mine.
Got a cite for the 2 fossil teeth into the thriving social community comment?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No the leg work is not mine.

Ok, so because you don't like Dr. Brown's theory, you want someone else to prove it to you? Are you willing to put forth the same effort proving evo theories?

Got a cite for the 2 fossil teeth into the thriving social community comment?

I will start by referencing Mr. Smith's post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=525690#post525690), and then ask you how many museum displays you have seen with the happy neanderthal family cooking dinner.

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Sorry, dont have time to work through Smith's entire rant. got a specific issue to refer me to?
And I don't want someone to "prove" Brown to me, I would think that is something you would jump at. I think it is utter nonsense, garbage science at its best (or worst?). But if you think it makes sense, find some other support. When I first heard of plate tectonics I thought it was pretty crazy but have since seen enough evidence to think it is factual. But the general idea of plate movement over millions or billions of years is a bit more palatable than Brown's ideas. However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

[Flipper]

Jukia:

Sorry, dont have time to work through Smith's entire rant... However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

Actually, it's really not that long. Agent Smith references Java Man and Nebraska Man. One from the 1890s, the other from 1922.

Java Man would probably have been demonstrated as mistaken ID had the finder of the bones actually allowed scientists to see more than just sketches.

Clearly hominid palaeontology left a lot to be desired at the turn of the century, slightly more than 30 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. I think science has moved on a bit since then though.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Sorry, dont have time

No hurry, I can wait :)

And I don't want someone to "prove" Brown to me, I would think that is something you would jump at. I think it is utter nonsense, garbage science at its best (or worst?). But if you think it makes sense, find some other support.

And what support other than you-like-it-better does evo have? ("Most scientists agree" won't cut it. "Most scientists" can be completely wrong, too. An example is the appendix, etc.)

When I first heard of plate tectonics I thought it was pretty crazy but have since seen enough evidence to think it is factual. But the general idea of plate movement over millions or billions of years is a bit more palatable than Brown's ideas. However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

You should see the vid on Mt St Helens. Things happen a lot more rapidly than one might be lead to believe through evo :)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Clearly hominid palaeontology left a lot to be desired at the turn of the century, slightly more than 30 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. I think science has moved on a bit since then though.

But someone forgot to tell the museums to catch up....

[Jukia]

And someone forgot to tell Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI to do good science. But that's OK, you can just continue to complain about hoaxs perpetrated by others an ignore plain incompetence.

[Flipper]

Nineveh:

Well, I have to say that I've never seen Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) on display at any museum, nor in any text book. Have you ever seen the name Hesperopithecus on display anywhere? It's quite an unusual one, so it probably would stick in your mind.

And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.

As mentioned above Lubenow, publishing in 1992, was one of the first major creationists to conclude that the Java Man skullcap did not belong to an ape. Bill Mehlert came to similar conclusion in a paper published in a creationist journal in 1994:

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. (Mehlert 1994)

Following this many of the better-informed creationists decided that the skullcap which had hitherto belonged to an ape was in fact human, such that Carl Wieland, the CEO of Answers in Genesis was able to write in 1998 (in a review of Richard Milton's book Shattering the myths of Darwinism) that [Milton's] statement that the Java Man remains are now thought to be simply those of an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature is simply false. He appears to have been misled by the myth (commenced by evolutionists, and perpetuated in both creationist and evolutionist works since) that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, recanted and called his discovery a 'giant gibbon'. Knowledgable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore. (Wieland 1998)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."

Dimo:

Well in your case it was definitely for the worse. So you agree with me. Why was that like pulling teeth? Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

And what support other than you-like-it-better does evo have? ("Most scientists agree" won't cut it. "Most scientists" can be completely wrong, too. An example is the appendix, etc.)

Dimo:

It is the best explanation for origins in the area of natural philosophy. Since noone has any thing other than inferrence, which is based on ignorance, to support the idea that origins is the result of the "supernatural".

Again it is the methodology of YEC's that I do not trust. To me this is there modus operandi.

1.) I want to believe in eternal salvation for my own comfort. I want
to believe that my spiritual individual soul will have a nice cozy
place to go after physical death.

2.) The fundamentalist view of scriptures offers this promise.

3.) They accept this "free gift", as Bob has termed it.

4.) With this free gift there are some other requirements. One of
these, and the one at issue regarding natural philosophy is:

Strict adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis, unless it can be proved to 100% certainty that a passage is not literal. This interpretation is determined by considereing an ancient tradition as greater than current reasoning. This specific tradition was started and propagated by the upper echelon of people from that period of time and used to subjugate the less fortunate members of society.

All of this is to ensure that the individual concerned has enternal life in heaven.

Now you tell me why I should trust the elite class from the past to dictate to me my understanding of natural philosophy?

And why I should trust modern day people who are more concerned with their peculiar individual ideas of eternal salvation than searching for knowledge in the here and now?

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

You should see the vid on Mt St Helens. Things happen a lot more rapidly than one might be lead to believe through evo

Dimo:

Those who truly understand natural philosophy do not deny that catastrophes happen. There is nothing in the material sciences that negate rapid environmental changes such as what happened at Mt St Helens.

You may view environmental catastrophes as evidence for a YEC model of origins. But they are equal if not better support for the naturalistic model of origins. The natualistic model of origins has evidence that supports quite a few medium and large scale catastrophes. Mt St Hellens is considered small scale in the naturalistic model.

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

But someone forgot to tell the museums to catch up....

Dimo:

Well maybe we should prosecute the currators for not keeping up with the newest scientific findings. If we did that, I think the first museums on the list would be YEC museums.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Nineveh:

Well, I have to say that I've never seen Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) on display at any museum, nor in any text book. Have you ever seen the name Hesperopithecus on display anywhere? It's quite an unusual one, so it probably would stick in your mind.

And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

You are missing the point of the example I was giving to Jukia. I have seen the stories woven together on display in museums spawned by a few bones.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

And someone forgot to tell Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI to do good science. But that's OK, you can just continue to complain about hoaxs perpetrated by others an ignore plain incompetence.

Good reply to my post. lol

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."

Dimo:

Well in your case it was definitely for the worse. So you agree with me. Why was that like pulling teeth? Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk". Such is evo.

Anyway, as to your next few posts, I will ask you to stick to your and my convo. I've noticed before you tend to jump into an ongoing convo and it only serves to confuse what's being talked about. (that and I don't feel like cutting and pasting 4 separate posts into one, it's a pain in the butt. It helps to address one post to a person instead of so many in succession.) Thank you in advance :)

[aharvey]

Originally posted by bob b

If one defines "genius" by IQ and academic honors then Brown is a genius. Nevertheless his concept must stand or fall depending on the evidence and it is very difficult to verify events that happened in the far past.

To what "far past" might you be referring? 4000 years isn't that long ago. We've got lots of anthropological, historical, archaelogical data from thousands of years ago. Why in the world would you think that data relating to the natural world would be any less available? This sounds like a copout to me.

Originally posted by bob b

His theory is consistent with scripture, which is more than one can say about the vague "millions of years" concept favored by most scientists working in the field of Origins.

"Vague" must mean something different to you than to me. When I asked about the maximum acceptable age of the earth, you told me that the YEC estimate of the age of the earth was about 6,000 years, with an upper limit of 10,000 years. Your upper limit is 167% of your estimate! Current scientific estimates put the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years (okay, 4,500 million years, since you used "millions" in your complaint); I'm pretty sure no scientist would set the upper limit of that estimate to 7,500 million years!

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk".

Dimo:

I know I took it from one of your posts. Embarassed that words created and understood by laypersons are often not sufficient in transferring the complete message of a scientific idea, maybe. I don't think this is support for your position. I will cut and paste my previous response that you left out, in the hopes that you will answer this time:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

Such is evo.

Dimo:

Poor communication between professionals and lay persons is a problem with most disciplines. Natural philosophy is no exception.

Got anything else?

[Stratnerd]

N -

> They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

Now they are? Could you provide a link/evidence?

Why you insist this hoax can be worth anything but an embarrasment to National Geographic and any museum that makes a display on this "missing link" is beyond me. NO NO NO NO... AGAIN, YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I thought NG was stupid to run the piece without having several experts take a look at it and scan it for validity. Like YOU posted the guy saw that it was a composite so now they study yhe individual pieces. :doh:

It's the evos that that didn't understand not all DNA coded for genes, so creationists did all the work and have been making all the discoveries? Scientists can only infer what the evidence tells them. But you never said how the creationist perspective is or could be superior - why's that?

I thought Science and Nature were two of those "peer review" things you keep talking about... smart butt, they are but it is the subject matter I avoid. GET IT??

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk".

I know I took it from one of your posts. Embarassed that words created and understood by laypersons are often not sufficient in transferring the complete message of a scientific idea. I don't think this is support for your position. I will cut and paste my previous response that you left out, in the hopes that you will answer this time:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

Such is evo.

Dimo:

Poor communication between professionals and lay persons is a problem with most disciplines. Natural philosophy is no exception.

Got anything else?

Here, if you are so concerned with "lay person's understanding" help me out with the first question I asked you....

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

> They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

Now they are? Could you provide a link/evidence?

Did you miss the cover of National Geographic or the link to their "error correction" or something?

NO NO NO NO... AGAIN, YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I thought NG was stupid to run the piece without having several experts take a look at it and scan it for validity. Like YOU posted the guy saw that it was a composite so now they study yhe individual pieces. :doh:

Let me ask you simply:

Why do they even need tampered with fossils to study? It's not like we don't have any.

so creationists did all the work and have been making all the discoveries? Scientists can only infer what the evidence tells them. But you never said how the creationist perspective is or could be superior - why's that?

I think your attitude reflects the general attitude toward the field. Any finding is poo-pooed for any number of reasons. "Peer review" ring a bell?

smart butt, they are but it is the subject matter I avoid. GET IT??

LOL... ok. I just think it will be interesting to watch how "Joan's" "debunking" of a darwin theory plays out :)

[Dimo]

Nineveh poseted:

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

Dimo:

No I really don't have any specific links. This is a pattern and a realtionship that I notice when researching and studying animal behavior and their relevant phenotype characteristics.

I can give you some examples, but I really don't think you are interested in considering this view.

If you are interested, you don't have to give up your strongly held believes right now, but humor me for a little while.

One of the most obvious examples can be seen in human evolutionary development. If you follow the path backwards, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that our ancestors had hair covering virtually all of their bodies. Humans have substantially less hair. For the most part humans whose ancestors are from warmer climates like nubians, have smaller and more fine hair on their bodies than peoples from colder climates. I'm not talking about hair on the head, face, under the arms or in the pubic area. In general if you look at the whole of the human race, the further our ancestry is from the equator, the thicker and longer the hair grows. People from the north or germanic people have the thickest and longest hair on their bodies. According to the current understanding of human evolution we emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago. As the humans moved into colder climates, genetic variation tapped