Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

And what support other than you-like-it-better does evo have? ("Most scientists agree" won't cut it. "Most scientists" can be completely wrong, too. An example is the appendix, etc.)

Dimo:

It is the best explanation for origins in the area of natural philosophy. Since noone has any thing other than inferrence, which is based on ignorance, to support the idea that origins is the result of the "supernatural".

Again it is the methodology of YEC's that I do not trust. To me this is there modus operandi.

1.) I want to believe in eternal salvation for my own comfort. I want
to believe that my spiritual individual soul will have a nice cozy
place to go after physical death.

2.) The fundamentalist view of scriptures offers this promise.

3.) They accept this "free gift", as Bob has termed it.

4.) With this free gift there are some other requirements. One of
these, and the one at issue regarding natural philosophy is:

Strict adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis, unless it can be proved to 100% certainty that a passage is not literal. This interpretation is determined by considereing an ancient tradition as greater than current reasoning. This specific tradition was started and propagated by the upper echelon of people from that period of time and used to subjugate the less fortunate members of society.

All of this is to ensure that the individual concerned has enternal life in heaven.

Now you tell me why I should trust the elite class from the past to dictate to me my understanding of natural philosophy?

And why I should trust modern day people who are more concerned with their peculiar individual ideas of eternal salvation than searching for knowledge in the here and now?

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

You should see the vid on Mt St Helens. Things happen a lot more rapidly than one might be lead to believe through evo

Dimo:

Those who truly understand natural philosophy do not deny that catastrophes happen. There is nothing in the material sciences that negate rapid environmental changes such as what happened at Mt St Helens.

You may view environmental catastrophes as evidence for a YEC model of origins. But they are equal if not better support for the naturalistic model of origins. The natualistic model of origins has evidence that supports quite a few medium and large scale catastrophes. Mt St Hellens is considered small scale in the naturalistic model.

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

But someone forgot to tell the museums to catch up....

Dimo:

Well maybe we should prosecute the currators for not keeping up with the newest scientific findings. If we did that, I think the first museums on the list would be YEC museums.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Nineveh:

Well, I have to say that I've never seen Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) on display at any museum, nor in any text book. Have you ever seen the name Hesperopithecus on display anywhere? It's quite an unusual one, so it probably would stick in your mind.

And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

You are missing the point of the example I was giving to Jukia. I have seen the stories woven together on display in museums spawned by a few bones.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

And someone forgot to tell Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI to do good science. But that's OK, you can just continue to complain about hoaxs perpetrated by others an ignore plain incompetence.

Good reply to my post. lol

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."

Dimo:

Well in your case it was definitely for the worse. So you agree with me. Why was that like pulling teeth? Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk". Such is evo.

Anyway, as to your next few posts, I will ask you to stick to your and my convo. I've noticed before you tend to jump into an ongoing convo and it only serves to confuse what's being talked about. (that and I don't feel like cutting and pasting 4 separate posts into one, it's a pain in the butt. It helps to address one post to a person instead of so many in succession.) Thank you in advance

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by bob b

If one defines "genius" by IQ and academic honors then Brown is a genius. Nevertheless his concept must stand or fall depending on the evidence and it is very difficult to verify events that happened in the far past.

To what "far past" might you be referring? 4000 years isn't that long ago. We've got lots of anthropological, historical, archaelogical data from thousands of years ago. Why in the world would you think that data relating to the natural world would be any less available? This sounds like a copout to me.

Originally posted by bob b

His theory is consistent with scripture, which is more than one can say about the vague "millions of years" concept favored by most scientists working in the field of Origins.

"Vague" must mean something different to you than to me. When I asked about the maximum acceptable age of the earth, you told me that the YEC estimate of the age of the earth was about 6,000 years, with an upper limit of 10,000 years. Your upper limit is 167% of your estimate! Current scientific estimates put the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years (okay, 4,500 million years, since you used "millions" in your complaint); I'm pretty sure no scientist would set the upper limit of that estimate to 7,500 million years!

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk".

Dimo:

I know I took it from one of your posts. Embarassed that words created and understood by laypersons are often not sufficient in transferring the complete message of a scientific idea, maybe. I don't think this is support for your position. I will cut and paste my previous response that you left out, in the hopes that you will answer this time:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

Such is evo.

Dimo:

Poor communication between professionals and lay persons is a problem with most disciplines. Natural philosophy is no exception.

Got anything else?

 

[Stratnerd]

N -

> They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

Now they are? Could you provide a link/evidence?

Why you insist this hoax can be worth anything but an embarrasment to National Geographic and any museum that makes a display on this "missing link" is beyond me.

NO NO NO NO... AGAIN, YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I thought NG was stupid to run the piece without having several experts take a look at it and scan it for validity. Like YOU posted the guy saw that it was a composite so now they study yhe individual pieces. :doh:

It's the evos that that didn't understand not all DNA coded for genes,

so creationists did all the work and have been making all the discoveries? Scientists can only infer what the evidence tells them. But you never said how the creationist perspective is or could be superior - why's that?

I thought Science and Nature were two of those "peer review" things you keep talking about...

smart butt, they are but it is the subject matter I avoid. GET IT??

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

You quoted the quote from a source that supports my position, even scientists are rather embarrased they labled something they had no clue about something like "junk".

I know I took it from one of your posts. Embarassed that words created and understood by laypersons are often not sufficient in transferring the complete message of a scientific idea. I don't think this is support for your position. I will cut and paste my previous response that you left out, in the hopes that you will answer this time:

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Nineveh posted:

Such is evo.

Dimo:

Poor communication between professionals and lay persons is a problem with most disciplines. Natural philosophy is no exception.

Got anything else?

Here, if you are so concerned with "lay person's understanding" help me out with the first question I asked you....

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

> They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

Now they are? Could you provide a link/evidence?

Did you miss the cover of National Geographic or the link to their "error correction" or something?

NO NO NO NO... AGAIN, YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I thought NG was stupid to run the piece without having several experts take a look at it and scan it for validity. Like YOU posted the guy saw that it was a composite so now they study yhe individual pieces. :doh:

Let me ask you simply:

Why do they even need tampered with fossils to study? It's not like we don't have any.

so creationists did all the work and have been making all the discoveries? Scientists can only infer what the evidence tells them. But you never said how the creationist perspective is or could be superior - why's that?

I think your attitude reflects the general attitude toward the field. Any finding is poo-pooed for any number of reasons. "Peer review" ring a bell?

smart butt, they are but it is the subject matter I avoid. GET IT??

LOL... ok. I just think it will be interesting to watch how "Joan's" "debunking" of a darwin theory plays out

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh poseted:

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

Dimo:

No I really don't have any specific links. This is a pattern and a realtionship that I notice when researching and studying animal behavior and their relevant phenotype characteristics.

I can give you some examples, but I really don't think you are interested in considering this view.

If you are interested, you don't have to give up your strongly held believes right now, but humor me for a little while.

One of the most obvious examples can be seen in human evolutionary development. If you follow the path backwards, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that our ancestors had hair covering virtually all of their bodies. Humans have substantially less hair. For the most part humans whose ancestors are from warmer climates like nubians, have smaller and more fine hair on their bodies than peoples from colder climates. I'm not talking about hair on the head, face, under the arms or in the pubic area. In general if you look at the whole of the human race, the further our ancestry is from the equator, the thicker and longer the hair grows. People from the north or germanic people have the thickest and longest hair on their bodies. According to the current understanding of human evolution we emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago. As the humans moved into colder climates, genetic variation tapped into the stored reservoir of DNA that allowed more hair covering on our bodies. This gave these people a reproductive advantage in colder climates.

Asians seem to defy this principle, since most them have small and fine hairs on their bodies. Perhaps with Asians there occupation of colder climates is more recent. Of course I have also not had the oppurtunity to see as many Asians as Nubians or Caucasians.

Also Nineveh, there are many, many more examples if you just look.

Now I know that you are going to try and prove me wrong by holding minute dicrepancies and small inaccuracies in what I have posted. But go ahead, I am ready.

Nineveh, now can you answer the question I have asked a couple of times already?

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

Oh and by the way I'm sorry to confuse you with all those posts addressing the details of your claims.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

yea, you keep saying that but you, by your own admission, aren't looking.

I don't look for fossil connections because I got tired of finding nothing.

Darwin, over 150 years ago, provided reasons why we shouldn't find very many fossils of intermediates. I would read his chapters in Origin of Species. To sum it up, the conditions that favor fossilization are rare enough that they don't capture/sample all that is going on.

Don't bother quoting Darwin. He didn't have as much faith in his theory as the evolutionists who quote it.

heck no, why should they? completely different processes.
then, given a global flood, why don't we find a single heavy layer, then a single medium layer, then a fine layer, and organisms sorted out by weight?

The current of the water affects how well sediment or dead animals settle.

Bob B., is quite familiar with all these since he has suggested them. In fact, the hydroplate theory is part of the super-tectonics. The superspeciation thing is use when accounting for the few thousand years between Noah's kinds and all the species today. Super light speed to account to the star light/distance problem. All ad hoc explanation meant to explain way problems that reality and logic present. Problem is they leave more unexplained.

Then if bob b knows more than you about it then when I get time I will talk to him about it.
[quotee]
evolution works through mutations that are random as well as the interaction with the environment. The likelihood that the same combination of mutations that occurred to produce us will occur in a another lineage is ~ nil. Also, given the intelligence of apes now and the other species of primates, I would say they they too have become more intelligent. [/quote] Since you said it, I'm sure you can prove that like you ask of the creationists.

we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.

What evidence?

by being out in the field

What was found in the field with the prokaryotes? Can you show me some of those fossils?

 

[Dimo]

Agent Smith posted:

I don't look for fossil connections because I got tired of finding nothing.

Dimo:

Well its a good thing that your opinions are irrelevant to this field then.

Agent Smith posted:

Don't bother quoting Darwin. He didn't have as much faith in his theory as the evolutionists who quote it.

Dimo:

I don't think darwin had "faith" in his theory. Faith comes from the heart. Empirical knowledge comes from the intellect.

Agent Smith posted:

The current of the water affects how well sediment or dead animals settle.

Dimo:

Yes, and?


quote:
we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.

Agent Smith posted:

What evidence?

Dimo:

The evidence you cannot see, because of the log in your eye.


quote:
by being out in the field

Agent Smith posted:

Can you show me some of those fossils?

Dimo:

No. but there are geochemists and paleobiologist that can show you.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Dimo

I would say that your post was interesting but it wasn't.
I would even say that it was intelligent but it wasn't.
I would suggest that you are a really bright, intelligent and an up-and-coming genius but you aren't.
I would say that you read posts very well but that would be stupid of me to say also since in an earlier post in this thread I made a post suggesting my ignorance in this area of study and you obviously missed it.

But thanks for stepping in for Stratnerd. I'm sure he will appreciate your attempt.

 

[Nineveh]

Nineveh asks:

"I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link? " Check post 81 if you need context.

Originally posted by Dimo
No I really don't have any specific links. This is a pattern and a realtionship that I notice when researching and studying animal behavior and their relevant phenotype characteristics.

I don't mean to sound flippant, be we were discussing how I didn't understand "junk DNA". You made the comment about "junk DNA" saying, "may become useful in the future". I wasn't really interested in your opinion on the matter but the "science" behind your opinion. "Cuz I said so", doesn't really support your idea that Science thinks of "junk DNA" in the terms of "future use".

I can give you some examples, but I really don't think you are interested in considering this view.

After being pointed out by you as as being one of the "unlearned" about such terminology (junk DNA) and it's meaning, it seems your attitude doesn't reflect sharing your knowledge on the "future use" of "junk DNA".

If you are interested, you don't have to give up your strongly held believes right now, but humor me for a little while.

Well, no. I really didn't want to waste my time with, "cuz Dimo thinks "junk DNA" has a "future use". I was sorta hoping for some "science" that supported your view on it.

One of the most obvious examples can be seen in human evolutionary development. If you follow the path backwards, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that our ancestors had hair covering virtually all of their bodies. Humans have substantially less hair. For the most part humans whose ancestors are from warmer climates like nubians, have smaller and more fine hair on their bodies than peoples from colder climates. I'm not talking about hair on the head, face, under the arms or in the pubic area. In general if you look at the whole of the human race, the further our ancestry is from the equator, the thicker and longer the hair grows. People from the north or germanic people have the thickest and longest hair on their bodies. According to the current understanding of human evolution we emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago. As the humans moved into colder climates, genetic variation tapped into the stored reservoir of DNA that allowed more hair covering on our bodies. This gave these people a reproductive advantage in colder climates.

That sounds like adapting to a colder climate.

But anyway... back to "junk DNA" and how scientists believe it has a "future use".

Asians seem to defy this principle, since most them have small and fine hairs on their bodies. Perhaps with Asians there occupation of colder climates is more recent. Of course I have also not had the oppurtunity to see as many Asians as Nubians or Caucasians.

...oh ...sorry you weren't done explaining hair....

Also Nineveh, there are many, many more examples if you just look.

I was just wondering if you had any links to the "scientific" "evidence" that supports your view of "junk DNA" having a "future use"....

Now I know that you are going to try and prove me wrong by holding minute dicrepancies and small inaccuracies in what I have posted. But go ahead, I am ready.

Well, the most glaring accusation I have is, you offered me your opinion on hair but no "peer reviewed" studies in the field that supports your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use".

Nineveh, now can you answer the question I have asked a couple of times already?

"Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?"

I never claimed it was evidence against "natural philosophy". It takes an attitude like yours to lable something so mysterious and wonderous as DNA something like "junk".

Oh and by the way I'm sorry to confuse you with all those posts addressing the details of your claims.

S'ok You know I'm a lil slow, so making it easy for me to keep up is a credit to you

 

[Stratnerd]

Did you miss the cover of National Geographic or the link to their "error correction" or something?

you make it sound like NG knew it was a faux composite and still presented it. They were duped and deservedly so.. unlike you are trying to make it sound I thought they were idiots to shortcut the review process. Of course, the whole point to this conversation was the importance of creationists to this process. It was science that uncovered the fraud and science moves on.

Why do they even need tampered with fossils to study? It's not like we don't have any.

A chinese quarry person put the fossil together not a paleo seeking to fill the missing link. It was the paleos that uncovered the fraud. It's how science works.

Any finding is poo-pooed for any number of reasons. "Peer review" ring a bell?

Huh? All findings from everyone get poo-pooed first. HOW DO YOU THINK THE NG FRAUD WAS UNCOVERED! It just the creationists don't present anything that explains data better. As I've pointed out several times over and over, creationists explanations are ad hoc to explain away evidence and usually create more problems than the solve.

 

[Stratnerd]

I don't look for fossil connections because I got tired of finding nothing.

Well here's one... Archaeopteryx.

Don't bother quoting Darwin. He didn't have as much faith in his theory as the evolutionists who quote it.

I don't care if Darwin gave it up - try disputing facts. Also, Darwin had lot's-o-faith in his geological and biological observations. Maybe you should read Origins and see so instead taking creationists web sites words.

The current of the water affects how well sediment or dead animals settle.

yea, that was my point about why deltas are different from other places.

Since you said it, I'm sure you can prove that like you ask of the creationists.

are you kidding it is just logic.

What evidence?

ha ha ha..... man... you're full of 'em.

What was found in the field with the prokaryotes? Can you show me some of those fossils?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/archaean.html

 

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

Man, I never get tired of this debate!!!! :chuckle:

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

you make it sound like NG knew it was a faux composite and still presented it. They were duped and deservedly so.. unlike you are trying to make it sound I thought they were idiots to shortcut the review process. Of course, the whole point to this conversation was the importance of creationists to this process. It was science that uncovered the fraud and science moves on.

I'm sorry if you think that was my take on it, it's not.

What I believe is evos are so zealous for a missing link, sometimes they jump a little early. It's sort of a historical thing : thinks of Mr. Smith's post:

About your origional question, I already said it was a dishonest one, remember? You had to put 3 qualifications in 1 sentance....

A chinese quarry person put the fossil together not a paleo seeking to fill the missing link. It was the paleos that uncovered the fraud. It's how science works.

Well, I hope, with all of my heart, if these known hoaxes go on display this summer, they are displayed as hoaxes, not a missing link.

Huh? All findings from everyone get poo-pooed first. HOW DO YOU THINK THE NG FRAUD WAS UNCOVERED! It just the creationists don't present anything that explains data better. As I've pointed out several times over and over, creationists explanations are ad hoc to explain away evidence and usually create more problems than the solve.

It took 35 years for the truth to come out over Java Ape-Man. So I find it hard to believe your claim "all findings" are so closely scrutinized at first.

LOL yes, we agree there Creationism does create more problems for evo than it solves