Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Nineveh
Merely Christian
"On the other hand I do believe in spirituality. I see it as an unseen but inherent part of the natural world. A part of the universe that is less tangible than the physical universe and the directly observable mechanisms therein. I may not be able to demonstrate to you or others the reality of this spiritual aspect here or in a short period of time my life. But I do know from my own life experiences about its influence."
What do you call this "spiritual" knowledge? Do you just make things up as you go, or do you borrow from some type of religion?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I totally agree, God's fingerprints are all over the place
Windows XP didn't make itself out of nothing. The intelligent designers at MS did, yet the DNA code is vastly superior.
Discovering how things work is what Science is supposed to be about.
No, when I stumble, I fall. I can't break gravity. When I don't organize, things tend toward chaos...
It seems more unnatural to force mother nature to take credit for things she can't do.
LOL MO just wants new evidence to be presented in the class rooms... That seems to be enough to get you guys in a tizzy.
Stratnerd
New member
> I totally agree, God's fingerprints are all over the place
As one creationist on this board likes to explain: "That which explains everything explains nothing". I still haven't heard a good justification for the "God did it" inference from looking at DNA sequences.
As one creationist on this board likes to explain: "That which explains everything explains nothing". I still haven't heard a good justification for the "God did it" inference from looking at DNA sequences.
if DNA wasn't a good carrier of information how could it have lasted so long? but I fail to see why poofing it is necessary... do we see any workings of this process today?
that's why poofing will never be part of science..
you're invoking the supernatural as an explanation.
it's the distortion of evidence... for example, look at the way you present DNA differences between us an chimps... "looks more doubtful" etc etc but what are the differences?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Intelligence makes more since than random chances : shrugs :
God made the DNA good in the beginning, just like everything else. I think we are seeing how well DNA works everyday.
*poofing*, as you call it, is what one has to believe in able to accredit mother nature accidentally joining two left handed molecules together in chuck's "essotric soup".
Yeaaaah , but somehow it has usurped biology all together...
I think it takes more magic to get those molecules to stick together when invoking randomness, chance, and lots of time. Actually, that sounds more like alchemy.
Tsk... now you get on me for "putting words in your mouth"...
I presented one thought on the topic. "the closer we look the more difference we will see". That's all I said.
I think distortion comes in when the story telling starts.
Stratnerd
New member
but the sequences aren't random and are likely due to shared ancestry not random chance :shrugs back:
Then mutations that cause death or life-long suffering are good too? And you still haven't provided a descent way to justify the God inference.
sorry, but it happens naturally every day in every living organism (there are exceptions) but this is likely a historical phenomenon - if not then what makes left-handed AA so special?
only for the ignorant and the handful of fundies out there
AGAIN I'll ask, what was the estimated difference and what is it now?
servent101
New member
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I guess the essoteric soup came with instructions?
No. But, it wasn't always that way. God created things good and we mucked it up by sinning.
What we get is an already working organism replicating itself, not creating itself out of nothing. God designed things to "take after their own kinds". What the problem in time+essoteric soup+chance offers isn't a copy of something already made, but making life from non life.
Right back atcha
According to the article, apparently they thought the differences would be much less, because they were "suprised" to see that many differences in just one comparison. (chimp to human)
Similarly, they most likey thought rats and mice would be much more different and were suprised how much they found exactly the same. (rats/mice and human)
I can't wait for more results
I think it would be neat if we could get some dino DNA to compare ...
Stratnerd
New member
doesn't need instructions...
of course... so DNA isn't good anymore? and sin affects DNA? got any evidence that this is so?
you still haven't provided any framework to determine what is due to supernatural and what might be due to common decent and how to tell the difference.
as a creationist, what would you predict about those same areas and why? be specific.
aharvey
New member
Credentials vs. credibility
Credentials vs. credibility
Credentials by themselves don't mean much. Just because Brewer has published lots of papers (none of which, from what I can see, having any connection with creation "science") doesn't mean his ideas are immune from scrutiny.
To keep it simple, let me provide just one example of deception from that piece of drivel of his you posted yesterday:
"In comparison to Haemophilus (N = 1703), Synechocystis (N = 3168), and Mycoplasma (N = 468) bacteria,of the 4,288 coded proteins in E. coli, there are only 111 proteins (2.6%) in common with these three eubacteria. (my emphasis)"
Now consider a little scenario:
I make several photocopies of a 5,000 page final exam (I have a bit of a reputation to maintain here, after all!). I blindly grab a stack out of one copy, which I give to student A; it turns out to include 4,228 pages. The next day, I blindly pull a stack out of a second copy, which I give to student B; it contains 1703 pages. The next day, I blindly pull a stack out of a third copy of the test, which I give to student C; it contains 3,168 pages, Finally, the next day, I blindly pull a stack out of a fourth copy, which I give to student D; it contains only 468 pages.
How many pages would you expect all four students to have, even knowing that the tests that all four students have came from a common source? Is your answer anywhere around, say, 111?
Credentials vs. credibility
Credentials by themselves don't mean much. Just because Brewer has published lots of papers (none of which, from what I can see, having any connection with creation "science") doesn't mean his ideas are immune from scrutiny.
To keep it simple, let me provide just one example of deception from that piece of drivel of his you posted yesterday:
"In comparison to Haemophilus (N = 1703), Synechocystis (N = 3168), and Mycoplasma (N = 468) bacteria,of the 4,288 coded proteins in E. coli, there are only 111 proteins (2.6%) in common with these three eubacteria. (my emphasis)"
Now consider a little scenario:
I make several photocopies of a 5,000 page final exam (I have a bit of a reputation to maintain here, after all!). I blindly grab a stack out of one copy, which I give to student A; it turns out to include 4,228 pages. The next day, I blindly pull a stack out of a second copy, which I give to student B; it contains 1703 pages. The next day, I blindly pull a stack out of a third copy of the test, which I give to student C; it contains 3,168 pages, Finally, the next day, I blindly pull a stack out of a fourth copy, which I give to student D; it contains only 468 pages.
How many pages would you expect all four students to have, even knowing that the tests that all four students have came from a common source? Is your answer anywhere around, say, 111?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
DNA is instruction.
I think DNA is fairing pretty well these days, in general, it still works
I don't think it's as easy as all that. If you are really interested about the difference before the fall and after, I'll tell you what I know
Evidence you will find compelling? Prolly not, but I will get into it if you are really interested in knowing
My framework/base/world view is the Word of God. So, I determine everything in my life from that perspective. Before I get chided, I will contend everyone operates the same way.
So...
From my perspective everything we see around us was spoken into existence in 6 days about 6,000 ish years ago. I believe that spoken Word also came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ. I also believe He is what holds all things together now, and in the future He will remake the Heavens and the earth. God made "kinds" in the beginning. There is a natural order that dictates things can't breed outside of thier "kinds".
If common descent means a fish can bring forth another fish that has an advantage (like no eyes in a cave), I have seen evidence for it. If common descent means a fish gives birth to a bird, then I have not seen evidence for it.
So far I have not studied each part of a DNA strand and don't know what each particular sequence does. I don't believe we are done studying it yet
My prediction is, the tree we have is going to be really really different by the end of these studies.
Does anyone know if there has been a human to human DNA study done yet?
Nineveh posted:
What do you call this "spiritual" knowledge?
Dimo:
Knowledge of that which is unseen or faith.
Nineveh posted:
Do you just make things up as you go, or do you borrow from some type of religion?
Dimo:
I measure all my attitudes and behaviors by Christ's example. If I see things in other religions or in life that are in line with Christ's example I accept those as His truth, whether or not they claim to be Christian. The concept of Christianity was not created by Christ, but his followers. Jesus lived to set the example, his followers referred to their path as Christianity.
It may seem to you that I make things up as I go, but the only difference between you and I is that I do not make the assumptions that you make. You believe that the tradition of "fundamentalism" is the only path. I believe that the only fundamental concept of Christianity and Judaism for that matter is that there is only one God. Everything else follows historically from the point that the first humans had this revelation. And yes I often make logical and emotional connection between parts of scripture and/or life that I had not made before. So yes I guess you could say that I am making it up as I go. But that is because neither life, ourselves or our understanding of truth is stagnant. The Bible is a living breathing document. It is not just a snapshot of history.
Do you have a better way?
What do you call this "spiritual" knowledge?
Dimo:
Knowledge of that which is unseen or faith.
Nineveh posted:
Do you just make things up as you go, or do you borrow from some type of religion?
Dimo:
I measure all my attitudes and behaviors by Christ's example. If I see things in other religions or in life that are in line with Christ's example I accept those as His truth, whether or not they claim to be Christian. The concept of Christianity was not created by Christ, but his followers. Jesus lived to set the example, his followers referred to their path as Christianity.
It may seem to you that I make things up as I go, but the only difference between you and I is that I do not make the assumptions that you make. You believe that the tradition of "fundamentalism" is the only path. I believe that the only fundamental concept of Christianity and Judaism for that matter is that there is only one God. Everything else follows historically from the point that the first humans had this revelation. And yes I often make logical and emotional connection between parts of scripture and/or life that I had not made before. So yes I guess you could say that I am making it up as I go. But that is because neither life, ourselves or our understanding of truth is stagnant. The Bible is a living breathing document. It is not just a snapshot of history.
Do you have a better way?
Nineveh posted:
Well, Jesus claims to be The Way, so in that regard, no. But I take the Bible as it is written, from what you have said, I'm not sure if you do.
Dimo:
I assure you that I do the same. The only difference is that I do not hold the traditions that have been past down from previous generations as superior to my own reasoning ability. Nor do I hold ideas authored by contemporaries as superior to orthodoxy. To me all of these sources must be given equal consideration. I weigh all ideas, whether they be orthodox or reformative, against my own intellectual and emotional reasoning.
How do you discern the accuracy of a particular take on any passage from scriptures?
Well, Jesus claims to be The Way, so in that regard, no. But I take the Bible as it is written, from what you have said, I'm not sure if you do.
Dimo:
I assure you that I do the same. The only difference is that I do not hold the traditions that have been past down from previous generations as superior to my own reasoning ability. Nor do I hold ideas authored by contemporaries as superior to orthodoxy. To me all of these sources must be given equal consideration. I weigh all ideas, whether they be orthodox or reformative, against my own intellectual and emotional reasoning.
How do you discern the accuracy of a particular take on any passage from scriptures?
I happen to be an earthscientist, so my opinion is not the opinion of a lay person. None of the items that ICR has published so far is science. All of these things are scientific sounding apologetics written for lay people.
There was little in what Kenyon said on that program which reflects the current issues in abiogenesis. Indeed, there was little or no discussion of the recent discoveries associated with the RNA world hypothesis, which is where the current issues of abiogenesis.
Again, abiogenesis is not evolution (i.e. origin of species) so attempting to link the two subjects as being dependent upon one another is a cheap debating trick, nothing else. Furthermore, tearing down a field of mainstream science does not automatically elevate creationism of any form, including intelligent design creationism.
So what? Brewer has misapplied his expert knowledge by taking an example out of context to make a point that isn't true. From his article we only can note that the genomes of microorganisms display characteristics consistent with cross-species exchange of genetic material. He doesn't mention that. The intended effect is that the reader will believe that *all* genomes similarly cannot be organised in a simple heiarchy of relatedness, which is patently false.
Part of learning how to thing is to learn which people you trust, and which ones you can't trust. Students in gradeschool and highschool are not equipped to actually evalute the quality of scientific evidence, themselves. A student cannot simply walk into an advanced field of science and "play at the level of the big boys".
For example, few scientists with expertise in any of the fields related to the things we are discussing would view *any* of the articles put out by ICR, CRI, Answers in Genesis, or any of the other creationist sources as having scientific content.
I never said that "dogs have a sense of humor", however it is clear that chimpanzees do, in the sense of playing tricks. All of the mamals seem to have a sense of playfulness, which gets more complex the closer the species is to humans phylogenically. Humor as practiced by humans is largely a language thing.
Morality, as in moral *codes* are a human thing.
Animals have a social structure that seem to share many characteristics of those aspects of human culture that we would call "moral" as well as that which we would calle "immoral".
You understand, of course that when scientists study the genetic distance between species this is done via comparisons of the mitochondrial DNA. This is because the DNA in the mitochondria do not undergo recombination, and are inherited only from one parent. The only differences seen in the mitochondrial DNA are from non-recombination related mutations.
The nuclear DNA, on the other hand undergoes recombination and is inherited from both parents. No doubt there will be genetic differences between the chromosomal DNA of even closely related species. Because relatedness between species will already be established via comparisons of the mitochondrial DNA, studies such as those in the Nature article willl have no impact whatsoever on the issue of common descent. What they will allow is a measure of variation due to genetic drift and recombination related mutations.
(Of course, aharvey will have to see if I am correct on all of this, as this is not my field.)
Last edited:
Nineveh
Merely Christian
For all the bluster about no guesses coming out of creationism, the man who did Mt St Helens was out in the field showing his theories in action.
Except the part about him changing his mind.
Again, I know the big bang and abiogenesis is lopped off. But where do you logically go after you get back to the "mother of all life forms"? Darwin said back to a single cell in the essoteric soup. So, logically, if there wasn't a "natural" beginning for darwin, whacha gunna do?
Actually, I believe the work going on now, that Nature and Science wrote about is proving Dr. Brewer correct. In Nature the comparison moved us further away from chimps, and in Science ( but I linked to the researcher's page cuz I don't have a subsciption to Science.com ) we got moved closer to rats, mice, chickens, dogs and fish. I am positive of one thing: It will be thrilling to see more news come out as things are compared. I posted the National Center for Biotechnology Information website.
No, I don't believe everyone can walk into a biochem lab and play with all the toys, but most could look over their shoulder and understand the findings, if they cared to.
This reminds me of the "ignorant" being kept away from the "complexity" of Scripture. But, after Martin Luther got ahold of a Bible, things changed, the "enlightened" lost their strangle hold on truth.
And I think you are an "earthscientist" talking about chemical biology, but I don't discount your ideas, I don't agree with them, but then If I did our convo wouldn't be very interesting
Besides, this argument goes along with "they don't publish", "they don't hypothosize", "they don't have journals", " they don't have peer review", etc. All four have been found to be false, this argument as attested to by Dr. Brewer belies this argument as well.
My cat likes to "play tricks", but he doesn't tell all his friends about it to get a laugh. Animals may exibit interaction, but that doesn't explain how they "evolved" a sense of humor. Or a sense of kindness, a sense of morality, patience, self control, artistic drive, intellectual drive, etc.
Do you believe in a concept of evil?
Agust 23, 2002
I'll I'm gunna say is, I can't wait to see more of this research
I don't think biochem is his field either.