Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[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.