Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
aharvey
New member
"You have proven a missing link?!" This statement, and your questions, only make sense if you didn't read my post, either time. How on earth can you interpret "Creationists will never accept evidence of missing links, no matter how compelling" as meaning "I have proven a missing link!"? If you honestly think these mean the same thing, then no wonder we're having trouble communicating.
This has degenerated into a completely purposeless "discussion". Sorry that I have not had the time to call Tom DeRosa about his mammoth again. Maybe one of you cretins (oops sorry, creationists, guess that was a Freudian slip, trying to make the word shorter, like evolution=evo) so maybe one of you creationists can get in touch with him and suggest that he put his $0.02 into this discussion. It was that press release that started all this to begin with right? But dollars to donuts he has not the nerve to put himself up against those with knowledge on this thread.
Nineveh--you drag out the old tired creationist arguments again and again. I especially like the references to earlier scientists who were Christian---nice historical perspective but really does not mean very much.
Nineveh--you drag out the old tired creationist arguments again and again. I especially like the references to earlier scientists who were Christian---nice historical perspective but really does not mean very much.
aharvey
New member
Okay, I'll put these three in one.
See, here's yet another case where a little knowledge would have helped you out. Systematists are well aware, and have been for decades, that "similarity" does not equal "relatedness." Look up the terms "homoplasy," "symplesiomorphy," "polyphyletic," and "paraphyletic," which all refer specifically to characters or classifications that are based on similarities that do not reflect relatedness. Your claim that relation could mean the same building blocks were used actually applies to similarity, not relatedness. Ultimately, though, this becomes an empty issue. While I could pose questions like "Why did God use so many of the same building blocks to make whales and bats?", the bottom line is that, as an omnipotent supernatural entity, He could have assembled the world and its inhabitants in any way, including one that exactly mirrors an evolutionary world. And He could do it so that there'd be no way to distinguish the two. That's why we can't assume, one way or the other, whether there's a supernatural creator involved, although we certainly can look at details of the process (e.g., timelines, global floods, etc.).
Oops, I think you got your wires crossed, more than once. Creationists are the ones with the requirement of magic (assuming magic means supernatural), and tight timeline, although I believe you needed six days, not one. Natural processes would have needed a very long time. Sort of by definition, it would take non-magical processes a whole lot longer than magical ones to produce a system as complex and diverse as life on Earth. I would have thought you'd at least be familiar with this level of the controversy!
Nineveh, you really like casting unsubstantiated aspersions, don't you? I have an idea. Let's look over recent Creationist and "evo" literature, and see how frequently Creationists correct each other in print compared to "evos." Or does it even matter to you whether creationists are more likely to gloss over their brother's errors? Hmm, now that I think about it, you didn't seem to be interested in whether creationists were more likely to use words carelessly, make foolish claims, or lie, compared to "evos" (another of your "evo" aspersions), and you didn't seem to want to evaluate levels of dogmatism in creationists and scientists (another of your "evo" aspersions). Isn't there something about motes and beams in the New Testament?
See, here's yet another case where a little knowledge would have helped you out. Systematists are well aware, and have been for decades, that "similarity" does not equal "relatedness." Look up the terms "homoplasy," "symplesiomorphy," "polyphyletic," and "paraphyletic," which all refer specifically to characters or classifications that are based on similarities that do not reflect relatedness. Your claim that relation could mean the same building blocks were used actually applies to similarity, not relatedness. Ultimately, though, this becomes an empty issue. While I could pose questions like "Why did God use so many of the same building blocks to make whales and bats?", the bottom line is that, as an omnipotent supernatural entity, He could have assembled the world and its inhabitants in any way, including one that exactly mirrors an evolutionary world. And He could do it so that there'd be no way to distinguish the two. That's why we can't assume, one way or the other, whether there's a supernatural creator involved, although we certainly can look at details of the process (e.g., timelines, global floods, etc.).
Originally posted by Nineveh
So it's ok for evo to assume everything just magically appeared one day? Convenient
Oops, I think you got your wires crossed, more than once. Creationists are the ones with the requirement of magic (assuming magic means supernatural), and tight timeline, although I believe you needed six days, not one. Natural processes would have needed a very long time. Sort of by definition, it would take non-magical processes a whole lot longer than magical ones to produce a system as complex and diverse as life on Earth. I would have thought you'd at least be familiar with this level of the controversy!
Nineveh, you really like casting unsubstantiated aspersions, don't you? I have an idea. Let's look over recent Creationist and "evo" literature, and see how frequently Creationists correct each other in print compared to "evos." Or does it even matter to you whether creationists are more likely to gloss over their brother's errors? Hmm, now that I think about it, you didn't seem to be interested in whether creationists were more likely to use words carelessly, make foolish claims, or lie, compared to "evos" (another of your "evo" aspersions), and you didn't seem to want to evaluate levels of dogmatism in creationists and scientists (another of your "evo" aspersions). Isn't there something about motes and beams in the New Testament?
servent101
New member
Strathernd
Again - what constitutes rational in this day and age? - Those who are buying into the mass population control tactics - these are the ones that are portrayed as rational.
Many years ago - metaphysics was the branch of science that dealt with what constitutes an explanation - and at the very educated levels it still is - what we have in the school is nothing but entrenching beliefs by behavior modification - little difference really than what the church did a few hundred years ago.
But what the hay – the workers for the menial jobs in the factory are there, and materialism is alive and well.
So who is the enemy?
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Again - what constitutes rational in this day and age? - Those who are buying into the mass population control tactics - these are the ones that are portrayed as rational.
Many years ago - metaphysics was the branch of science that dealt with what constitutes an explanation - and at the very educated levels it still is - what we have in the school is nothing but entrenching beliefs by behavior modification - little difference really than what the church did a few hundred years ago.
But what the hay – the workers for the menial jobs in the factory are there, and materialism is alive and well.
So who is the enemy?
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Nineveh
Merely Christian
To put it simply: In the beginning God created....
Then we started employing the tool of science to investigate how things work around us.
Actually what you need is something that isn't later found to be A. the thing, B. the other thing, or C. a hoax.
They were
And I posted the whole article Mr. Smith was talking about from Nature's web site.Oh, and see? All I wanted was where you made these claims in the evo scientific community and the "peer review" corrections. But, you seem to be getting back to your MO of BOLD CLAIM + no evidence = science.
I asked Dimo on this thread to put all of his thoughts in one post when addressing one person, I'm now asking the same from you. If this is too taxing, I hope you won't mind if I skip them
I can apply the same reasoning to denominations... Why did God do things the way He did? So those who want to run as far as they can from Him have that freedom.
Paul seems to think even the vastness of creation is enough for those who have never heard the Name of Christ to know there is a God. So I guess one will see what they want when they take a good hard look around.
I guess a pagan might see what God can do as magic, but those who serve God understand it is a display of His Power and superior Knowledge. We are just now starting to scratch the surfice of His creation both from the very vastness of space to the tiniest building blocks of life. Maybe God made all this complexity to keep us busy (and prove chuck wrong lol)
And in the end, it's you that seems to make these bold claims and then just expect me to believe them. I know you say evidence is something that makes evos cringe, so your MO is understandable.
aharvey
New member
Okay, this has officially become pointless. You absolutely refuse to read what I write, and you utterly fabricate statements that I never made nor implied (see example of this below). Despite your stated interests, you clearly have no interest in learning anything you don't already 'know,' and and despite your presence on a so-called discussion forum, you clearly have no interest in even honestly exchanging ideas.
Example of utter fabrication in bold:
Example of utter fabrication in bold:
Stratnerd
New member
Originally posted by Nineveh
I'm not suprised
So I expect you will quite whining about it now?
Why dont you call him and suggest that he jump in here? He ought to be given the chance to support his position, especially re the age of the mammoth bones. Get the answers right from the man himself instead of third party.
Originally posted by Nineveh
ID doesn't mention a Creator, I did
ID doesn't actually do anything. It is not a scientific theory, only scientific sounding smoke and mirrors without substance. In the, what 7 years, of existence so-called ID theory has yet to generate a single scientific result. Even bad scientific theories have shown some usefulness.
As to your snide offhand comment regarding left handed amino acids, I have know idea what you are talking about.
The theory of evolution does not predict that a tree can turn into a dog. You would know that if you had a clue about evolution.
Take a look at taxonomy. The structure of taxonomy generally describes the relatedness of species.
You have no scientific theory or mechanism for your "common creation". Science, on the other hand has reproduction with modification. Elegant, and apparently correct.
Perhaps that is why Science isn't making the great leaps and bounds it once did, the dogma of chuck is in the way. I'll disagree with you about ID Scientists
Scientific advancement is proceeding at a rate faster than at any time in history. Your opinion regarding "ID Scientists" is an example of an opinion formed purely out of propaganda. If true, you should be able to point to scientific journal articles and technological developments spawned out of ID methods. You can't, because there aren't any. Indeed, to date, there are no "ID methods".
If anything is holding people back, it is the gutting of our educational system caused by pressure on teachers from the organized program of disinformation coming out of the creationist movement.
So it's ok for evo to assume everything just magically appeared one day? Convenient
The general view of the origin of life is that it arose through chemical processes. Those chemical pathways are, by necessity, different from those that operate in cells today.
The "magical" origin is the one proposed by the creationists and the ID-ologoues.
And the closer we look at DNA, I just have this feeling, the more evo Taxonomy will be stood on it's head. Strat said there is another term used on the DNA level than Taxonomy, molecular systematics, so let's keep our terms in line
Molecular systematics and its relationship to classical Linean is a big topic now.
I really don't know what you mean by "time and money wasted". I seriously doubt that you have even the tiniest clue as to what science is all about, or how science is funded. As to public education, maybe it was wasted in your case.
Very few, actually. The myth of the lone inventor making the great scientific breakthrough, only to be suppressed by the dogmatic establishment, is the sort of thing that plays well on Art Bell, but in real life doesn't really hold up.
Of course, that is their claim. In each case,
it is apparent that neither of these men actually do any science related to the topic of evolution. In each case, they also seem to be publicity hounds who want to sell popularized "anti-science" books.
The real thing to look for is if a scientist working in the field of evolutionary biology or genetics and were to publish a bunch of papers with titles such as: "non-Darwinistic aspects of ....thus and such", making an actual scientiific case for an alternate theory of evolution. Such a person would be taken seriously.
Neither Dean Kenyon, nor Michael Behe are such people. It is quite clear from their writings that their reasons for being ID proponents are purely religious. (Or possibly about selling books.)
Sure, look up "mutation" and "genetic drift". There are a host of mutation mechanisms, and those, combined with genetic drift cause genomes to change with time. In fact, genomes *must* change with time. There is no alternative. Mendelian genetics assumes that genes do not change. In essense, Darwin presupposed both Mendelian regularity, and mechanisms of mutation for his theory of evolution.
One comparision? I suggest you get a clue. Comparative genetics has been practised for more than 20 years, and in that time the view of the relatedness of species has been clarified. The whole notion of common descent is indespensible for understanding those genetic similarities as well as any genetic differences.
Your point is really that when you don't understand the technical reasons that your ideas are bogus, you resort to the "big conspiracy" explanation.
I can see chuck's ideas getting richer
All of biology and genetics that we see today are examples of the richness that has sprung from an increased understanding of evolution. Basically, "Chuck" fathered most of the biological sciences.
At least in pullik skool
Basically what is taught in public school should reflect the issues and results of mainstream science. It should not be influenced by third party self-styled "experts".
t appears, however, that some form of RNA was the progenitor of DNA.
As to a rough sketch of what scientists think about the subject that you can understand, please see:
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html
servent101
New member
Strathernd
Ignorance yes - I was unable to come to a conclusion on the site - I myself am a Creationist at heart - though I do not flat out reject evolution - I am just not sure of the merits of either point of perspective. Evolutionis not at all in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches, at least as long as you do not take everything literally.
Eventually - the important thing is that if there is a Creator - and I am sure that there is, that we would conform to the Creator's Pleasure - and the Creator takes no joy in destroying the wicked.
Whatever and however you perceive life to be - I am aware from your posts that you do have a high standard of evaluation in your search for truth and meaning to what is here, and a genuine desire to do what is right and upright. We may not always agree - but this is where you show your colors the best.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Ignorance yes - I was unable to come to a conclusion on the site - I myself am a Creationist at heart - though I do not flat out reject evolution - I am just not sure of the merits of either point of perspective. Evolutionis not at all in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches, at least as long as you do not take everything literally.
Eventually - the important thing is that if there is a Creator - and I am sure that there is, that we would conform to the Creator's Pleasure - and the Creator takes no joy in destroying the wicked.
Whatever and however you perceive life to be - I am aware from your posts that you do have a high standard of evaluation in your search for truth and meaning to what is here, and a genuine desire to do what is right and upright. We may not always agree - but this is where you show your colors the best.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Stratnerd
New member
Servent,
Thanks!
and
Thanks!
and
Although, technically, I don't believe in Truth; I do however, believe in it practically. As such, only evolution leads to explanations that are both self-consistent and congruent with other sciences (e.g., cosmology). You will often see many creationists accuse evolutionists of wanting to remove God from everything. That is not so - most of only want to know what an accurate picture of life and that may even include God.