Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

(Incidentally, you have been caught lying barefacedly. Time to clean up your act.)

Excuse me?

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Run away, run away!

Re: Re: Run away, run away!

Originally posted by john2001

Yes. Imagine being married to this shrill and whining harridan, and Oh, the children, the children...

"Two edged" it was said.

Jukia, you are a whiner when you can't bring yourself to pick up the phone to get answers.

As for you, john, if you don't want to carry on a convo, then end it. My feelings won't be hurt not conversing with you at this level of "scientific" understanding.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I have, they don't and it wouldn't make sense if they did. How could they possibly justify it?

Justify making guesses at what will be found on this level?

 

[Stratnerd]

Unless of course the evidence leads to the thought darwin could be wrong....

but the direction isn't going that way. For example, if highly conserved areas of DNA are important for survival then this validates evolutionary theory since, like I said, conserved sequences implies importance. If creationism made predictions like this that could be tested then you might have a point - but it doesn't so you don't.

At one point it was an evo left over with no function, now we have discovered it does have a function. Why must evo always start with "what we don't understand must be useless"?

unknown = unknown but not useless. Perhaps it wasn't so crucial since we were, and still are, removing it without effect.

Or perhaps he understands how evo science "chokes" on evidence that points away from chuck at any level.

meaning what? Behe and Darwin propose to explain two different things.

changing definitions and understandings of evo itself.

changing definitions... you mean words have different meanings in different contexts? Neat (interesting not "tidy" - see what I mean)! As for it changing - big deal that's ALL OF SCIENCE!!!!

 

[Stratnerd]

> Justify making guesses at what will be found on this level?

you just twisted my brain into a knot...

I gave an example of some DNA sequences and what we may infer from them. I was asking what can be inferred from them AND how it can be justified via a creationist perspective.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

but the direction isn't going that way. For example, if highly conserved areas of DNA are important for survival then this validates evolutionary theory since, like I said, conserved sequences implies importance. If creationism made predictions like this that could be tested then you might have a point - but it doesn't so you don't.

The man of the hour said ramdom chance of even finding 3 that were identical from 3 different kinds was was almost impossible. He was really supprised at what the evidence showed him.

unknown = unknown but not useless. Perhaps it wasn't so crucial since we were, and still are, removing it without effect.

I dunno about that. Got any studies?

Interesting thoughts on this topic:

Our body has been brilliantly designed, with plenty in reserve, and the ability for some organs to take over the function of others. Thus there are a number of organs which everybody agrees have a definite function, but we can still cope without them. Some examples:

Your gall bladder has a definite function—it stores bile from the liver, and squirts it into the intestine as required to help with the digestion of fat. However, it can be removed and the body will cope—for instance, by secreting more bile continuously.

You can cope with having a kidney out, because there is still enough kidney tissue left in the other one. (In the same way, a part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue, which includes the appendix, can be removed, and the remaining lymphoid tissue will usually be enough to carry on the total function). You won’t suffer from having your thymus out (if you’re an adult), because this extremely important gland, which ‘educates’ your immune cells when you are very young, is then no longer required. This is likely to be very relevant to the appendix.
cite

meaning what? Behe and Darwin propose to explain two different things.

As quoted by john:
"Although Darwin's
mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small."

changing definitions... you mean words have different meanings in different contexts? Neat (interesting not "tidy" - see what I mean)! As for it changing - big deal that's ALL OF SCIENCE!!!!

Wasn't it aharvey lamenting the shifting definitions a few pages back?

 

[Jukia]

I think I figured it out, Nineveh is on here for the express purpose of driving Stratnerd crazy. She clearly has no clue of how science works but takes great joy in using the word "evo" instead of evolution and calling poor dead Charles Darwin "chuck". But the bottom line is that she has no real knowledge or insight nor any desire to learn anything.
I will try my best to review this thread from time to time but not let her get under my skin.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

I think I figured it out, Nineveh is on here for the express purpose of driving Stratnerd crazy. She clearly has no clue of how science works but takes great joy in using the word "evo" instead of evolution and calling poor dead Charles Darwin "chuck". But the bottom line is that she has no real knowledge or insight nor any desire to learn anything.
I will try my best to review this thread from time to time but not let her get under my skin.

Do you ever have anything of value to add?

 

[Stratnerd]

The man of the hour said ramdom chance of even finding 3 that were identical from 3 different kinds was was almost impossible. He was really supprised at what the evidence showed him.

yes with certain assumptions - one of which being mutation NOT having an effect. Instead, what they found was highly converved areas which, GIVEN AN EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM, clues us in to the area being important. Not only does this not take away from Darwinian evolution - it validates it!!!!!! I don't think you're getting it.

dunno about that. Got any studies?

what... people die when they have their appendices removed?

"Although Darwin's
mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small."

EXACTLY - they are not supposed to explain the same thing... geesh.

 

[Stratnerd]

The more I look through the Hughes article the more powerful I see evolutionary theory. Look at how many predictions there are that are founded on evolutionary theory: the importance of the conserved sequences and the significance of the difference.

What can a creationist possibly say about any sequence data between two or more species?

cite

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

yes with certain assumptions - one of which being mutation NOT having an effect. Instead, what they found was highly converved areas which, GIVEN AN EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM, clues us in to the area being important. Not only does this not take away from Darwinian evolution - it validates it!!!!!! I don't think you're getting it.

Besides the fact that the purpose of the non-coding ultra-conserved elements remains unknown, said Haussler, the researchers also do not understand the molecular mechanism of their action that requires them to be so faithfully preserved. “A major question is what molecular mechanism would demand such a relentless conservation over hundreds of bases,” he said. “There is still the possibility that these regions are not so vital to the function of the organism, but in fact change very slowly for some other reason, such as lack of susceptibility to mutation, or “hyper-repair.” But it is even harder to imagine a mechanism for that.”

How much complexity do you expect mother nature to take credit for?

what... people die when they have their appendices removed?

Now, now, you get on me for generalizing...

Is there any research that suggests removing this part of the lymphatic system does or does not have any long term ill effects?

EXACTLY - they are not supposed to explain the same thing... geesh.

Please be a bit more clear about your last statement?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

What can a creationist possibly say about any sequence data between two or more species?

cite

Common designer.

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

To propose a common designer, science would need to establish the premise of a designer first. As well as attributes of this designer, so that the hypotheses can be falsified if it was not due to this "designer". Since the Christian concept is that of an omnipotent God, this hypotheses offers no explanatory answers. Other than the warm fuzzy feeling in your tummy. Perhaps in the theological realm this is a sufficient explanation however, for science explanations need to offer some insight into the mechanical processes involved.

Also, it is logically consistent to see the "common desinger" as using "common descent" in his design. At least this physical concept of "common descent" can be critically and statistically analysed for accuracy.

 

[Nineveh]

Strat,
Here is something you might be interested in reading.

 

[Stratnerd]

How much complexity do you expect mother nature to take credit for?

(1) no mention of complexity only lack of knowledge (2) ecological systems are complex yet they do that by themselves.. and there are many many other examples of this - weather comes to mind too.

Is there any research that suggests removing this part of the lymphatic system does or does not have any long term ill effects?

got me... I have enough of my own research to do

Please be a bit more clear about your last statement?

Darwin = spreading of innovations, species. Behe = source of innovations. Different things.

Common designer.

so differences = different designers or, since sequences are often nested, is there a head designer and others broken into groups... say one for vertebrates and other for plants and within those another set of designers for each class, etc etc.

In other words, you cannot justify your position. How do you know it is one designer, two collaborating designers, or a designer for each species that copies off each other... how do you explain differences? Such as why do birds fly with feathers but bats use skin?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

(1) no mention of complexity only lack of knowledge (2) ecological systems are complex yet they do that by themselves.. and there are many many other examples of this - weather comes to mind too.

No mention of complexity? Let alone the left handed amino acids thing, “There is still the possibility that these regions are not so vital to the function of the organism, but in fact change very slowly for some other reason, such as lack of susceptibility to mutation, or “hyper-repair.” But it is even harder to imagine a mechanism for that.” And then there is the problem of getting the acids in the right order, etc...

I tend to believe our whole earth is a maze of complexity, the closer we look, the more complex it gets.

got me... I have enough of my own research to do

Fair 'nuff

so differences = different designers or, since sequences are often nested, is there a head designer and others broken into groups... say one for vertebrates and other for plants and within those another set of designers for each class, etc etc.

Do you really misunderstand the concept to that degree?

In other words, you cannot justify your position. How do you know it is one designer, two collaborating designers, or a designer for each species that copies off each other... how do you explain differences? Such as why do birds fly with feathers but bats use skin?

Why not? You believe 1 mother nature created it all without intelligence to the design. I believe God created all with intelligent design.

 

[Stratnerd]

However, these data support intelligent design by a single set of principles just as well.

see above... this position cannot be justified since we don't know how supernatural design works. Does it make any kind of predictions?

Furthermore, recent multi-gene comparisons of the amount of divergence between different organisms now provide better support for a complex relationship between different organisms, a relationship that first looked more like a shrub, with many more early branches (figure 2).

doesn't surprise me and doesn't go contra Darwin.

Now the trend seems to be toward nearly independent origins, a model more like grass.

really??? How does this explain the universality of DNA, RNA, and a multitude of metabolic pathways?

if there were independent origins for major kinds of animals, then a large portion of the genome should be original, unique sequences not present in other kinds of organisms

what is this based on? why not a completely different set of rules?

That's 29% unique genetic information with no known origin, no possible descent.

yup and I'm sure extinction has nothing to do with it... is every ancestor supposed to stick around?

In the case of a fly, a worm, and a human, 50_60% of the genes are unique or with no known function.

Now, if we include more taxa, I wonder what will happen to those numbers? Hmm....

 

[Stratnerd]

Do you really misunderstand the concept to that degree?

I understand more than the creationists! That's why I can recognize it as being bogus. Please tell me what test are you using to separate (1) the need for a designer (2) the number of designers and (3) the interaction between designers.

Why not? You believe 1 mother nature created it all without intelligence to the design. I believe God created all with intelligent design.

you didn't answer my question of how you go from observation of sequences or morphology and infer God did it 6000 years ago?

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted;

I tend to believe our whole earth is a maze of complexity, the closer we look, the more complex it gets.

Dimo:

I agree. There is logic and/or mathematics that supports this concept.

Perpetual or Infinite Reduction

But please tell us how this supports your claim that naturalistic evolution is less accurate than supernatural young earth creationism.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I understand more than the creationists! That's why I can recognize it as being bogus. Please tell me what test are you using to separate (1) the need for a designer (2) the number of designers and (3) the interaction between designers.

About creation? Then why the question about "different designers"? Your question is answered in Genesis. The God of Scripture can account for the same buiding blocks in different kinds and left handed molecules sticking together.

you didn't answer my question of how you go from observation of sequences or morphology and infer God did it 6000 years ago?

The sequences are not in a random order. We are now seeing sections that act to protect other sections from mutation, as per the new research. Evo needs abiogenesis for mother nature to begin, and she is having trouble with the smallest of building blocks, let alone putting them in the right order.