1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is all TRUTH scientifically knowable?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Scott J, Jan 18, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 9 of 9
  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When dealing with stuff like this, one has to be careful to mine for facts and recognize when the arguments shift from what was actually observed and recorded to suppositions determined by a TOE bias.

    I posted a refutation from observation that two identical inserts could not independently take place.
     
    #161 Scott J, Feb 7, 2005
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I posted a refutation from observation that two identical inserts could not independently take place."

    No you did not.

    You posted about SINEs, a type of transposon. I was posting about endogenous retroviral inserts.

    You also fail to realize that the same location is only one leg. The others are the same sequence AND the phylogenic trees from the patterns of mutation that consistently match each other and those from disparate means.

    [ February 07, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]
     
    #162 UTEOTW, Feb 7, 2005
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is the proposed source for the inserts?

    Once again, how many of these inserts are shared between humans and apes?
     
    #163 Scott J, Feb 7, 2005
  4. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    BTW, I have read enough on the subject to know that these things aren't the clear and clean proof that you claim they are. You infer that there is a perfectly consistent model expressed in this- that does not seem to be the case from what I have read.

    If you want to believe that a generalization can be made and that provides proof for common ancestory then that is your judgment. I won't follow that course without much better proof.

    BTW, I don't necessarily reject common descent as a mechanism to explain this phenomenon other than in the case of humans. I do reject the notion that this proves common ascent however.
     
    #164 Scott J, Feb 7, 2005
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "What is the proposed source for the inserts?"

    Endogenous retroviral inserts. This is segments of viral DNA that have been inserted during infection.

    "Once again, how many of these inserts are shared between humans and apes?"

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/10.html#000143

     
    #165 UTEOTW, Feb 7, 2005
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then what else explains all the details?

    The exact same inserts.

    The exact same locations.

    And, most importantly, the agreement between phylogenies generated from disparate sourses.
     
    #166 UTEOTW, Feb 7, 2005
  7. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have explained my position. I do not base it on my knowledge since it is not my major, however, I will say that the scientists that I have known over the years have shown me that proof of Old Earth is not necessarily true. Therefore, although SOME evidence seems to point towards old earth, some points towards young earth. So, the side of the fence I take is based on the only witness that we have, the witness we must believe and that is the Holy Scriptures. I do NOT believe they should be reinterpreted just because a scientist thinks he has evidence of a theory called evolution.

    You keep making statements to the effect that evolution is fact and not theory. This is where brain-washing in universities occurs and is a result of such brain-washing.

    God says he made the Earth in six days; I take his word for it and I don't try to reinterpret it to fit the facts.

    Just like I told you earlier. If the science starts showing that Jesus is not the Son of God are you going to go with science or the Bible?
     
    #167 Phillip, Feb 7, 2005
  8. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to the same site Ex 21, ERV's are a type of transposon.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp
     
    #168 Scott J, Feb 7, 2005
  9. Glory2God

    Glory2God New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    De 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

    Science can't even cure the common cold!! Leptons,Bayrons,Quarks,DeoxyribonucleicAcid, BIG DEAL!!!!

    2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    Kinda' reminds me of all the bible correcters on the other threads. [​IMG]
     
    #169 Glory2God, Feb 7, 2005
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the same site Ex 21, ERV's are a type of transposon.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp </font>[/QUOTE]Here is a long page on just transposons. Please go read it.

    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Transposons.html

    You will find that ERVs and transposons are different things. Having said that, retroviruses have a gene called an integrase which is homologous to the transposases of DNA transposons in that it is what allows the insertion to take place.

    You will also find that the SINEs that you posted about are a very special class of very short transposons. So from some SINEs perhaps showing a preference to certain areas you extend that to all transposons and then further to retroviral inserts. Seems a bit of a stretch.
     
    #170 UTEOTW, Feb 7, 2005
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    UT, I am basically willing to let this vein of debate settle with this:

    You are biased toward evolution and naturalism. When it presents possibilities, you tend to favor them over explanations that ultimately rely on supernatural creation (or support creation) even when they are highly improbable or when no more possible than alternatives that don't support evolution.

    I take the opposite tack. I favor Creationism and favor its explanations absent conclusive proof to the contrary... however, I am not dependent on probability but rather divine choice and will.

    The naturalist has a conditioned negative response to answers that do not conform to naturalism. They cannot even be honestly considered.

    I have presented you with alternatives that operating from your presuppositions might seem highly unlikely. That's understandable. However choice/will/design renders a 100% probability.

    I find the things you propose as proofs highly speculative... and totally dependent on very unfavorable probabilities.
     
    #171 Scott J, Feb 8, 2005
  12. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, I hope you never serve on a jury charged with convicting a truly guilty man, because you are capable of explaining away anything!
     
    #172 Paul of Eugene, Feb 9, 2005
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually if you were on trial, you should hope for someone like me... that wouldn't just vote guilty because the prosecutor's theory sounded impressive and fit some of the known facts.

    In fact, I would vote "not guilty" if I knew of an attempt by the prosecutor to suppress the presentation of alternative theories.

    I am not attempting to explain anything away... but I won't be convinced by arguments that use the fallacy of limited alternatives either.

    The Bible says "God created...". Many scientists recognize the characteristics of design throughout creation. Intelligence is the one known source for information/design.

    Yet evolutionists would dismiss all of these things because they don't conform to the presuppositions of naturalism. That would be alot like arbitrarily limiting the suspect list to left handed people then interpretting all of the evidence to fit the assumed limitation... and then mocking anyone who suggests the criminal might be right handed.

    Sorry but if you ever want me to give any more credence to the things you present than I do now... you will have to validate evolution's premise of (or even overwhelming preference for) naturalism. If you want me to "convict" then you will have to validate your premise, present a much more persuasive theory than you do now, then put forth a case of evidence that points to one conclusion to the exclusion of all others.

    Otherwise, I will revert to the one Eyewitness who said He did it.
     
    #173 Scott J, Feb 10, 2005
  14. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would certainly have problems disagreeing with this.

    Scott, have you ever seen my "supernatural variable" vs. "bad science" question answered? :confused:

    I haven't. They seem to run and hide when we debate from the grounds of Spiritualism and not scientific observation.
     
    #174 Phillip, Feb 11, 2005
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Scott, have you ever seen my "supernatural variable" vs. "bad science" question answered? [Confused]

    I haven't. They seem to run and hide when we debate from the grounds of Spiritualism and not scientific observation.    "

    I took a quick glance back through some of the recent threads and found at least a few attempts at answers to your question. So it is not true that no one has tried.

    Ute
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/7.html#000099
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/11.html#000159

    Deacon
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2730/8.html#000108
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2730/18.html#000257

    Craigbythesea
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2710/19.html#000274

    Benfranklin403
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2730/8.html#000106


    And I recently left a question for you.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3044/4.html#000045
     
    #175 UTEOTW, Feb 11, 2005
  16. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appologize UTEOTW, I did will review these answers. and look at your question.
     
    #176 Phillip, Feb 12, 2005
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    There have been several of these threads going on at once, so it is not surprising to have missed a few. Even within each thread, there several different topics going on. The responses might not come immediately or they might be buried in the midst of other topics. And not everyone has responded, either. Just some.

    BTW, congrats on achieving moderator status. Now you have to herd all of these discussions in addition to participate. Good luck and have fun.
     
    #177 UTEOTW, Feb 12, 2005
  18. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you UTEOTW, I appreciate it.
     
    #178 Phillip, Feb 12, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 9 of 9
Loading...