Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[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".

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]

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

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.