Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:00 pm

="ThatGuy] No.


OK, please try and point me to it. I have a soft spot for Siccar Point, having been there 4 times now.


Well I don't think its online yet. The mag's only just come through (about 2 weeks ago) and I'm certainly not going to type it all out.


Who is the author of the article ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:12 pm

ThatGuy wrote:I've done everything I can for you. Given you the researchers to look up and explained how accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations will eventually wipe the genome.
As you are so knowledgeable, perhaps you will tell us whether this degradation will wipe out human life before or after the Second Coming? We may not reproduce as rapidly as fruit flies, but at 3% per generation Tim LaHaye's scenario must be within your headlights.
You simply haven't understood what was said. Degeneration affects every individual in every generation, regardless of our impeding natural selection by caring for the vulnerable.
This is getting scary! Is Satan plucking at all our genes, in unison?
Nonsense. There are functions today that we have already lost, such as the ability to synthesise vitamin C (we have to ingest it now). Why don't mutations restore these lost functions?
No need, we eat vegetables. Don't you?
Lactose tolerance is attributable to a broken gene.
Really? Citation please, and not just "something you heard from CMI". Give us details of this "brokenness". Exactly how is the ability to digest lactose a degredation?

TRIM5-CypA, has added information.

Has anyone actually seen that happen, or is it just extrapolation again?
Oh dear, not that again. Has anyone seen an electron? Or have you an irrefutable creationist argument against electrons too?
I'm going to eat some potatoes now. to get some Vitamin C, and since I don't fancy inigestion I may well stay away until tomorrow. I'll look at your erudite answers then.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Steve660 » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:24 pm

Well I don't think its online yet. The mag's only just come through (about 2 weeks ago) and I'm certainly not going to type it all out.

Is it Tasman Walker's latest one about the explanatory boards at Siccar Point? If so I am aware of it, but it is behind a pay wall, and I don't want to put money into creationist coffers (besides, I'm a Scotsman and have a reputation to keep up). If it is this one I am very interested in knowing what it says. Does it add anything new to his original "Unmasking a long age icon"? Or does it just repeat the same crap as in the original?
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby ThatGuy » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:35 pm

No, you still miss the point. If evolution is true, then there should have been billions of species. We have only 300,000 fossil species, which is a miniscule fraction of the total evolution says once lived. Therefore, if evolution is true then, in view of the incompleteness of the record, we should not expect to find many transitional series. When the actual number of fossil species is taken into account then, if evolution is true, we should expect a scarcity of transitional series.

The problem with that, is it attributes all the missing fossils to the paucity of the fossil record according to you. You don't attribute it to the possibility that all those transitional fossils never existed.

If there were that many transitional forms, you would have a more complete fossil record. Some of those 300,000 fossil species are very well represented in numbers, so the fossil record is more ubiquitous than you say and would reveal more transitionals if evolution were true.

"Why are there so few transitional fossils? >> because there are so few transitional fossils" is what you appear to say.

Only the creationists seem to think there are not enough links between groups. Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx etc. satisfy all but those wearing Biblical blinkers.

Oh, I think people very readily understand the problems posed to evolution by the abrupt appearance of groups of life such as triolobites, flowering plants. But they don't get to hear that side often.

At least we can explain the general ordering of fossils.

But you have to keep revising that order whenever new species are found in 'the wrong place', so how do you know that order will remain?

It's like I said before, so much of this 'order' is arrived at by discounting examples that challenge the evolutionary timeline. Fossilised amber has been found in the 'carboniferous' rocks with a composition that has only been seen from angiosperms. So do the researchers conclude there were angiosperms in the 'carboniferous era'? No. Why? Because it doesn't fit your order.

You don't even know what the pre-flood world would have looked like. Different life groups may have lived at different levels.

I personally doubt those rock layers represent billions of years. Though the phenomenon of gene entropy has been hotly denied by one individual on this forum, it's what geneticists believe and looking at their works, I think it hard to deny that it is ong-going. Phyla cannot have been around that long for billions of years of evolution to be represented in the rocks.
Last edited by ThatGuy on Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ThatGuy
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:39 pm

ThatGuy wrote:The "were you there" crap means that all court verdicts based on forensic evidence are null and void, unless accompanied by an "eye witness" account.

And no-one is relying on that argument. But evidence from directly witnessable events (gene entropy) has an edge over speculative interpretations of data from past events.


Why?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby ThatGuy » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:43 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:You're remarkably opinionated in that case.


Maybe so. I test ideas, and when people give me attitude they can expect some in return. Challenging you guys has been like pouring boiling water on an ant nest, but your views aren't as strong as you like to think.
ThatGuy
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby ThatGuy » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:48 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
ThatGuy wrote:The "were you there" crap means that all court verdicts based on forensic evidence are null and void, unless accompanied by an "eye witness" account.

And no-one is relying on that argument. But evidence from directly witnessable events (gene entropy) has an edge over speculative interpretations of data from past events.


Why?


Because you really can observe the process going on and realise its implications.

Evolution relies too much on speculation. You find one type of animal and then another, and assume that one came from the other.
ThatGuy
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:48 pm

ThatGuy wrote:Even if the age of the earth could be proven, old earth creationism or ID would be a more likely scenario than your position.

I am an observer in the creation/evolution debate. I think YECs have the better arguments and I've seen nothing from you to change my mind.


Science doesn't prove anything and I can only conclude from your statement that you are scientifically illiterate. But, wait a minute, what on earth makes you think anyone here is trying to change your mind? All of us have the experience to know that we cannot change the minds of fundamentalists and ideologues. It is not the purpose of the BCSE to do so either.

But if you say that the YECers have "better arguments" it is up to you to demonstrate it. IN particular as the creationists claim to have a superior explanation of the differences between species, all you have to do is start by telling us what is the scientific theory of creationism and how can it be tested with the scientific method. This is really simply basic stuff which shouldn't take you more than five minutes and a paragraph to provide. If you don't you'll be wide open to well deserved ridicule.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:52 pm

ThatGuy wrote:
Brian Jordan wrote:You're remarkably opinionated in that case.


Maybe so. I test ideas, and when people give me attitude they can expect some in return. Challenging you guys has been like pouring boiling water on an ant nest, but your views aren't as strong as you like to think.


That's wishful thinking on your behalf. You're simply not that clever.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:53 pm

ThatGuy wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
ThatGuy wrote:The "were you there" crap means that all court verdicts based on forensic evidence are null and void, unless accompanied by an "eye witness" account.

And no-one is relying on that argument. But evidence from directly witnessable events (gene entropy) has an edge over speculative interpretations of data from past events.


Why?


Because you really can observe the process going on and realise its implications.

Evolution relies too much on speculation. You find one type of animal and then another, and assume that one came from the other.


A meaningless reply.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby ThatGuy » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:17 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:That's wishful thinking on your behalf. You're simply not that clever.


If I'm not, then you've got problems, because even I can see where your arguments are usually flawed.
ThatGuy
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:19 pm

ThatGuy wrote:Maybe so. I test ideas, and when people give me attitude they can expect some in return. Challenging you guys has been like pouring boiling water on an ant nest, but your views aren't as strong as you like to think.
At the risk of choking on my chips... who according to your analogy is "giving attitude" - the ants or the one pouring the boiling water? Nobody provoked you - you came out of the blue a week ago, into a discussion that started 8 months ago about a meeting that took place 8 months ago, that you happen to have attended. Hypersensitive, or what?
Now please excuse me - my chips are going cold and I need to stay near the loo in case the lactose in my Horlicks gets my inadequately degenerated metabolism.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby ThatGuy » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:27 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
ThatGuy wrote:Maybe so. I test ideas, and when people give me attitude they can expect some in return. Challenging you guys has been like pouring boiling water on an ant nest, but your views aren't as strong as you like to think.
At the risk of choking on my chips... who according to your analogy is "giving attitude" - the ants or the one pouring the boiling water? Nobody provoked you - you came out of the blue a week ago, into a discussion that started 8 months ago about a meeting that took place 8 months ago, that you happen to have attended. Hypersensitive, or what?
Now please excuse me - my chips are going cold and I need to stay near the loo in case the lactose in my Horlicks gets my inadequately degenerated metabolism.


All this crap about how few YECs have the courage to post on here, the Billy Gruffs are going to get you and so forth...

Right, I'll bow out on here now, so thanks for all the chat.

I've got work to apply for, housework to do, and other stuff to sort out.

Have a nice life.
ThatGuy
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby cathy » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:33 pm

Depends what you mean by "early" but it's probably better to focus on simplicity than function anyway.

No lets focus on function as that is what you originally raised in respect to enzymes - the need for specific order of monomers to form polymers - to give it functionality. You raised functionality you can't move the goalposts.

Steve has already mentioned templates and catalysts which negate the needs for DNA and enzymes. So now you tell me why a simple proto life set of chemical reactions would require an enzyme specifically to progress? What function would it have?
The smallest protein enzyme today is just some 62 amino acids long. Calculations by Yockey would suggest even the chance formation of this small enzyme could be considered a virtual impossibility.


We're not tallking about the chance formation of this small enzyme tho are we. We are talking about evolution from something even simpler via the very non chance funnel of natural selection. That is what all your chance calculations are leaving out - natural selection and long periods of time.

So when we factor in simpler catalysts in far simpler organisms or even in things that aren't quite life - how are you calculating chance? This small enzyme is required for something equally complex that has evolved. Neither had to evolve so what use are chance calculations. When is the chance say compared with the odds of any viable protein arising?

Their own report admits that the RNA enzyme they assembled is too complex to be something that would have been found naturally occurring.

No but neither did they say they assumed it was the first such chemicla replicating system.

Anyway you seem to forget it was brought up in the context of your claim of the irreducible complexity of the relationship between DNA, enzymes, proteins and cellular machinery, not as an example of the very earliest replicator. Your claim is that replication required those complex interactions, this research shows that clearly it doesn't.

Stop moving the arguments from one thing to another and deal with the point. How can replication depend on irreducibly complex relationships when this system which, in involving RNA enzymes, is clearly something that could be on the way to that complex relationship, is replicating and evolving quite happily?

Misses the point. Protein enzymes cannot just evolve in stages. They have to be fully formed in order to serve a purpose.

They have to be fully formed to serve a particular purpose, less formed to perform other purposes and less or differently formed to serve some completely different purpose.

So can you prove, test or even draw up anything remotely like a hypothesis for your claim - that would of necessity support they hypothesis that the purpose they currently serve having always been required and that they could not have evolved? Given the organism needed that function didn't always exist either. Things do not always have to serve the same purpose they eventually serve. Nor was the function they currently perform always necessary.

So what you need to do is propose a test to show conclusively that they could not have evolved - not sure how. Also to find some way of showing they have always existed in their current form and have always served their current function. You can't do it by mathematics alone without factoring in a hell of a lot of the chemistry you seem to be ignoring, assuming certain starting conditions (beyond genesis) and comparing genes for them and explain away any that look like probable evolution and factor in things that aren't mathematically possible given the number of unknowns. I also think you need to look at more of the research being done looking at evidence of their evolution, beyond the deceptions written in things like the ID/creationist rag the journal of biological complexity. Go to some of the newer stuff on the evolution of enzymes -stuff that hasn't been thru the ID lie filter.

So I'll look forward to your linking to real research from the ID mob rather than waffle about the research of others.

No, because their construction would draw energy from the 'proto-cell' with no advantage.

When did the proto cell come into it? We were talking about enzymes. What makes you think the proto cell had enzymes? Stop changing the subject.

It makes no odds; they still have to form.

It does make odds because quite simply they don't HAVE to form. They don't have to exist at all and neither does life. Their formation can be slow and alongside that of early life. They can perform different functions at different stages in that evolution. There is nothing at all that says biological catalysts are required for early life, nothing that says they can't form from simpler catalysts and nothing to say they can't change function as the biochemistry they're invoved in changes function. In short they don't have to arise fully formed because the organisms in which they reside didn't.

I'm not doing all that work for you. Look up Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho who makes these points. I thought you knew all about the bacterial flagellum and so would be able to inform me.

Scott Minnich is an ID proponent and therefore of dubious honesty. I think you'll find at Dover trial his so called peer review on this point, was rather minimal and not really up to scratch and published by the ID/creationist Discovery Inst. If you can point me to some proper peer reviewed stuff, reviewed by scientific peers than we can proceed.

Can you explain how your study of the genome tells you macro evolution cannot happen?

I've done everything I can for you. Given you the researchers to look up and explained how accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations will eventually wipe the genome.

Well I struggling to find your explanation. Are you claiming the genomes of every single living thing is degenerating and always has been? If so you need to provide evidence? Plus as new functions evolve certain others will degenerate as they no longer become useful. And you'll need to show how that degeneration effects the pheontype.

Anyway what about the degeneration of the MYH1 gene? Is the fact that gene has degenerated to a non functional state evidence that smaller less primate like jaws allowing bigger skulls and bigger brains is evidence of the genotype degenerating or the phenotype or both. Cos from here it looks like genotype degeneration is leading to macro evolution and some kind of evolutionary improvement of the phenotype. Unless you think surviving to numbers of 7 billion whilst our heavier jawed ancestors died out or our cousins face extinction is better as their genomes haven't suffered this particular degeneration?

Lactose tolerance is attributable to a broken gene.

Ah so information is the gene? It is an net increase or change in the information in that it allows a new skill.

Has anyone actually seen that happen, or is it just extrapolation again?

Well it wasn't there and now in some it is! What is your alternative explanation for its appearance in part of the population? Magic?

Changes to hox genes can produce dramatic effects, but have any been found to add new beneficial information to DNA?

Well if your definition of information above is genes - yes they add to the genome. If it is in what they code for - yes they code for increasingly complex body systems. So if you consider more complex bodies conferring an advantage beneficial then yes. If you don't then no. But if no you'll have to explain why you don't think the addition of more complex bodily systems conferring an advantage is beneficial. Which should be interesting.

It didn't duplicate a gene.
Sorry you missed the word 'just' from that statement. It didn't just duplicate a gene it changed the information on it. I've read the creationist refutations by the way, and how those refutations were misleading, inaccurate and downright dishonest.

Now can we have your alternative scenario complete with evidence.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Creation Ministries International talk, Bath

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:52 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Nobody provoked you - you came out of the blue a week ago, into a discussion that started 8 months ago about a meeting that took place 8 months ago, that you happen to have attended. Hypersensitive, or what?
Actually, checking back, it was a discussion that had finished 8 months ago,
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron