Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Stratnerd]

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:

NG is out to make money. What could scientists gain by yet another fossil supporting evolution. It's already a well-accepted theory/paradigm within the scientific community and evolutionary biology projects are well-funded. There's nothing to gain - even for birds and dino debate there are many other fossils to support that particular supposition. It came down to people wanting to make buck. Again, evos exposed it and creationists had nothing to do with it.

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

I don't get how it was DISHONEST... qualifiers yes because I wanted something specific. Here, I'll make it easy: what frauds have creationists exposed?

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.

When was that? There's a different standard today - and thankfully so.
[

 

[Nineveh]

THE DINOSAUR MUSEUM
World-renowned paleontologists Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas have developed this collection of treasures for children of all ages. See the Archaeoraptor, the "missing link" between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds....

http://www.southeastutah.org/tourism/museums.htm

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

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".

Dimo:

Sorry. But I am very ignorant whe it comes to genotype metamorpheses. Through my understanding of behavioral biology, I can see the manifestations of these, however. Again I do not expect you to take my word for it. I would just ask you to consider what I have to say about this. There are many sources you can use to find this information. If I believed that finding these links for you would have any effect, I would search for you.


Nineveh posted:

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".

Dimo:

We are all ignorant of many things. I am no exception. The only difference between you and I is that I do not see ignorance as a reason to become a fundamentalist.

Nineveh posted:

That sounds like adapting to a colder climate.

Dimo:

And what exactly do you think the mechanisms for adaption are?

Nineveh posted:

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

Dimo:

I didn't think we left that subject.

Nineveh posted:

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

Dimo:

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Which kind of evidence would be compelling for you?

Does it have to from scietific journal?

Nineveh posted:

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".

Dimo:

Please tell me how apparently ineffective DNA for the current phenotype cannot have a possible future use?

Previous qoute:

"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:

I never claimed it was evidence against "natural philosophy".

Dimo:

That was the implication of your argument.

Nineveh posted:

It takes an attitude like yours to lable something so mysterious and wonderous as DNA something like "junk".

Dimo:

I never claimed that any DNA is really "junk" DNA. That was a misnomer that you grasped to try and undermine natural philosophy.

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

Nineveh posted:

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

Dimo:

I really don't think you'ld like to give me credit for anything.

 

[Stratnerd]

N-

$50 that the Archaeoraptor exhibit no longer exists...

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Well here's one... Archaeopteryx.

I looked this up on the net and found that eight fossils of this bird exsist. I understand the comparisons they were making with these fossils. It reminds me of a duck bill platapus. It lives but defies explanation for it's physical make-up. I'll look into this and come back later on it. Thank you for the Archaeopteryx.

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

It took me a few to go through the pages on the website before I found this explanation. I will look into this also and come back when I get information.


From the link you gave me:
prokaryotic -- Literally "before the nucleus", the term applies to all bacteria and archaea. Prokaryotic cells have no internal membranes or cytoskeleton. Their DNA is circular, not linear.

 

[Stratnerd]

It reminds me of a duck bill platapus. It lives but defies explanation for it's physical make-up. I'll look into this and come back later on it. Thank you for the Archaeopteryx.

the platypus does NOT defy explanation. it's called a duck-bill because of the superficial appearence. The "bill" is actually lips not the same bone structure or the keratin covering of a duck (or any bird). It lays eggs for sure but it belongs to an ancestral group of mammals that split off from the eutherians (placental mammals). It also has a coracoid bone (strut around the "collar bone" area) which is also ancestral. Evidence that this is all ancestral - grind up the DNA (that has nothing to do with those features) and you'll find that the platypus also has ancestral type DNA (more like the supposed ancestors). But anyway, Archaeopteryx shares features that are only found in birds and some that are not typical of moderns birds but more like the supposed ancestor.

If that isn't an intermediate then please define an intermediate for me.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo
Sorry. But I am very ignorant whe it comes to genotype metamorpheses. Through my understanding of behavioral biology, I can see the manifestations of these, however. Again I do not expect you to take my word for it. I would just ask you to consider what I have to say about this. There are many sources you can use to find this information. If I believed that finding these links for you would have any effect, I would search for you.

How about we finish up with science offering some information on your belief "junk DNA" has a "future use" first, ok? Hey, bob b at least offered Dr. Walt Brown's web site so Jukia could look over the info...

We are all ignorant of many things. I am no exception. The only difference between you and I is that I do not see ignorance as a reason to become a fundamentalist.

Neither do I I see it as a reason to become a pompus evolutionist.

And what exactly do you think the mechanisms for adaption are?

A different topic

I didn't think we left that subject.

No, we haven't, is there any scientific support for your view or not?

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Your usual standard of peer reviewed publication.

Which kind of evidence would be compelling for you?

Evidence there is information on this planet that supports your view?

Does it have to from scietific journal?

Why would you offer less than you demand from others?

Please tell me how apparently ineffective DNA for the current phenotype cannot have a future use?

If you are asking why "junk DNA' can't have a "future use"....

Well you see, I don't know and you are keeping it a secret

That was the implication of your argument.

Dimo, you are having trouble giving support for your own understandings, please don't attempt to discern mine.

I never claimed that any DNA is really "junk" DNA. That was a misnomer that you grasped to try and undermine natural philosophy.

No, I put the definition down and you are still trying to find some info on your theory "junk DNA" has a "future use".

I really don't think you'ld like to give me credit for anything.

It's obvious you will think as you like

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

N-

$50 that the Archaeoraptor exhibit no longer exists...

http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/index.html

Several of the fossils in this volume will be featured in the 2004/05 traveling museum exhibit: Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight, organized by The Dinosaur Museum and the Liaoning Fossil Administration Office. The exhibit will premiere at the San Diego Natural History Museum from February 7 through September 7, 2004 and then continue to travel to other museums.

The link has a drawing of a ( "whole cloth" ) Archaeoraptor but does not mention the bones specifically. I guess if you really care, take that $50 and visit a museum that claims to have them on display.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

the platypus does NOT defy explanation. it's called a duck-bill because of the superficial appearence. The "bill" is actually lips not the same bone structure or the keratin covering of a duck (or any bird). It lays eggs for sure but it belongs to an ancestral group of mammals that split off from the eutherians (placental mammals). It also has a coracoid bone (strut around the "collar bone" area) which is also ancestral. Evidence that this is all ancestral - grind up the DNA (that has nothing to do with those features) and you'll find that the platypus also has ancestral type DNA (more like the supposed ancestors). But anyway, Archaeopteryx shares features that are only found in birds and some that are not typical of moderns birds but more like the supposed ancestor.

If that isn't an intermediate then please define an intermediate for me.

From your description alone I would gather it was a cross between the mammals and marsupials. I still don't get the egg thing.

 

[Stratnerd]

> From your description alone I would gather it was a cross between the mammals and marsupials. I still don't get the egg thing.

Actually, reptiles(!) and mammals. Evolution works by splitting. Each time each path (=population/species) goes on evolving independently of the other paths. In this case, there was a split from reptiles and one group evolved hair and later there was another split and one group evolved live young and later another split that evolved a placenta. But because one group evolved a particular character doesn't mean that another group needs to. Just like with monkeys, apes, humans and our common ancestor. We evolved a particular set of traits because we happen to have those particular mutations at a particular time in a particular context and those set of circumstances are totally unique in space/time and to a particular group.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

From your description alone I would gather it was a cross between the mammals and marsupials.

Marsupials (young spend time developing in pouch) are one type of mammal, and placental mammals (bearing more or less fully developed live young) are another. The platypus, which lays eggs, is unlike either of these types.

I still don't get the egg thing.

Supposedly, mammals evolved from reptiles, most of which lay eggs.

 

[Dimo]

quote:
And what exactly do you think the mechanisms for adaption are?

Ninveh posted:

A different topic.

Dimo:

Adaption is another way of referring to genetic variation and natural selection. So no it not a different topic. You probably call this micro-evolution.

 

[Dimo]

quote:
I really don't think you'ld like to give me credit for anything.

Nineveh posted:

It's obvious you will think as you like

Dimo:

Why should I think as you like?

 

[bob b]

If that isn't an intermediate then please define an intermediate for me.

An "intermediate" is a lifeform which has some characteristics of one classification of lifeforms as well as some characteristics of a different classification of lifeforms: the lifeform is "intermediate" between the two classifications.

These classifications were of course invented by humans as an aid in discussing the myriad numbers of different types of creatures. Unfortunately not all creatures fit nicely into the classifications, although most do.

Technically this has nothing to do with ancestry, although the term "intermediate" has connotations in common usage that frequently cause the general public to assume that it does (probably because some junior evolutionists tell them it does).

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b

Technically this has nothing to do with ancestry, although the term "intermediate" has connotations in common usage that frequently cause the general public to assume that it does (probably because some junior evolutionists tell them it does).

Interesting concept--nothing to do with ancestry--since creationists are always screaming about not seeing any intermediate fossils.

Assume for a moment that you wish to investigate ancestry, without the Bible, and using current scientific technology, what would you suggest as a line of investigation?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Adaption is another way of referring to genetic variation and natural selection. So no it not a different topic. You probably call this micro-evolution.

Look, if you have no information to back up your belief science views "junk DNA" with a "future use", say so. If not quit trying to act like I'm a retard by introducing a bunch of different topics, ok?

Personally, I find it hard to believe natural selection has a characteristic like precognition.

And because you have trouble with the one post idea:

Originally posted by Dimo
Why should I think as you like?

Because my intention was praise. The problem is, you are viewing my intention through your pompous attitude.

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Boy do these threads tend to take on a life of their own!

Your original post on this thread was touting Coral Ridge's 4000 year old mammoth bones from FL. When I spoke with Tom DeRosa it was clear that the scientific investigation they undertook was sadly lacking in method and results. Yet I have not seen anyone suggesting that perhaps Coral Ridge should back off on its claims unless and until they can better substantiate them. Instead we get a list of hoaxes and fabrications put forth by "evolutonists".

I don't think that really is the point. Garbage is garbage whether it comes from creationists or evolutionists and should be exposed for what it is. Those in the main stream scientific community seem to have less difficulty in exposing fraud (or simple mistakes) than creationists.

Are you still willing to suggest that the Coral Ridge FL mammoth bones are only 4000 years old?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Boy do these threads tend to take on a life of their own!

Your original post on this thread was touting Coral Ridge's 4000 year old mammoth bones from FL. When I spoke with Tom DeRosa it was clear that the scientific investigation they undertook was sadly lacking in method and results. Yet I have not seen anyone suggesting that perhaps Coral Ridge should back off on its claims unless and until they can better substantiate them. Instead we get a list of hoaxes and fabrications put forth by "evolutonists".

Do you really want to compare your issue with SCI's dating methods to museums displaying hoax archaeoraptor "fossils"?

Didn't OEJ already travel down this road of concern with you?

I don't think that really is the point. Garbage is garbage whether it comes from creationists or evolutionists and should be exposed for what it is. Those in the main stream scientific community seem to have less difficulty in exposing fraud (or simple mistakes) than creationists.

And that is why the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children?

Are you still willing to suggest that the Coral Ridge FL mammoth bones are only 4000 years old?

Not because of "dating" methods

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: No, if the science is wrong then it is wrong. So if the archeoraptor is a hoax--expose it as such and get rid of it.

Without dating methods, are you still willing to suggest that the FL mammoth bones are 4000 years old? If so why? If not why? And if the science is no good then why should Coral Ridge or CSI put it forth?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia
Nineveh: No, if the science is wrong then it is wrong. So if the archeoraptor is a hoax--expose it as such and get rid of it.

The archeoraptor is on display, or did you miss the links? If so, page page back. Those mammoth bones are really mammoth bones. They are presented as mammoth bones, not presented as a "missing link" for the theory-of-the-day. You may not like the dating method, sorry I can't help you with that any more than OEJ could.

Without dating methods, are you still willing to suggest that the FL mammoth bones are 4000 years old?

Yes, about that I wager.

If so why?

One reason is because erosion would have wasted them in the amount of time evo suggests. The best info I could get through a search suggests 2-5 million years.

And if the science is no good then why should Coral Ridge or CSI put it forth?

What you are really meaning to say is: If I don't like the dating method then they should be held accountable according to a method of dating I find to be better.

Did you bother to tell the gent you called any of this? If so, what was his reply?