Creationists Gather...Dinosaurs Subject of Discussion

The Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | Saturday, July 20, 2002 | Cindy Schroeder

[yankeedame]

Saturday, July 20, 2002

Creationists gather today:Dinosaurs subject of discussion

By Cindy Schroeder, cschroeder@enquirer.com

The Cincinnati Enquirer

UNION — As children create models of dinosaurs, their parents can search for Biblical references to the giant creatures at a weekend conference hosted by a pro-Creationist ministry that vows to “defend scripture from the very first verse.”

The site of the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Boone County is being graded. (Patrick Reddy photo) | ZOOM | Organizers of the program running today and Sunday at Big Bone Baptist Church in Union say the Answers in Genesis family conference is expected to draw between 500 and 600 people within a day's drive of the Tristate. They say it is part of an ongoing series of family conferences that the 8-year-old nonprofit ministry — now building a 50,000-square-foot museum in Hebron — has offered throughout the country to “give (believers) arguments to help debunk evolution.”

Answers in Genesis followers believe the Earth's creatures were created by God and were not the result of an evolutionary process as espoused by scientists such as Charles Darwin.

“Our purpose is to equip Christians to be able to defend Christianity against the evolutionary ideas (or) secular ideas that challenge the Bible,” said Ken Ham, executive director of Answers in Genesis and the conference's keynote speaker. He said organizers will present what they believe is the factual account of the history of the world as presented in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.

Like those who promote Intelligent Design, Answers in Genesis followers believe that all life was the result of a creator. However, they carry that theory further, in that they maintain the creator “is the God of the Bible and you can trust the God of the Bible,” Mr. Ham said.

With the help of the writings of “Scriptural Geologists,” Terry Mortenson, a full-time lecturer with Answers in Genesis who has degrees in theology and geology, will attempt to show that dinosaurs walked the Earth with man.

Arnold Miller, a professor of geology at the University of Cincinnati, challenged participants to “go out and examine the evidence themselves,” rather than allow others to interpret the evidence for them.

“I'm all for Answers in Genesis having every opportunity to say what they want,” Mr. Miller said. “But I would challenge anyone who goes to this conference to demand direct positive evidence that the creation of life took place over six days in 4004 B.C. or whatever they say. People should ask, "What's the evidence? Let's hear it.'

“It's one thing to provide misleading characterizations in scientific debates. It's another to say that the answers (to issues such as how life began) really are in Genesis.”

[gore3000]

Nobel prizes are given for PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, MEDICINE (or physiology), LITERATURE, and PEACE. No prize for biology, except insofar as medicine covers that terrain.

Did not say there was a prize for biology, however, people do get prizes for work in biology as you admit and which is what I said. So we agree so far.
BTW - thanks for the link very interesting.

But in that respect consider the 2001 prize for Medicine . (Chosen pretty much at random, btw, as the first to come up on a google search.) It went to researchers who have elucidated the detailed molecular mechanisms of the cell cycle (the orchestrated process of cell reproduction, it's control and timing, cell death, etc).

This research showed that the basic mechanisms are highly conserved among all eukaryotes (organisms having cells with a separate nucleus). So let's assume these molecular mechanisms are the result of ID. This then would be perfectly consistent with the claim that all eukaryotes are one "created kind". This helps quite a bit with that overcrowded ark!

IOW it is in most cases empty, and logically wrong, to say that some result "supports ID" but doesn't support evolution. ID is, at least logically, potentially consistent with truly huge amounts of evolution having occured, right up at or near the Kingdom level. The specific examples of systems that (allegedly) must have been intelligently designed are most typically ones that are shared by a vast diversity of organisms, often whole Phyla or Kingdoms.

Here is where you are going way wrong. You are correct in saying that just because different organisms have similar structures, it does not prove or disprove either ID or evolution. It would be unreasonable to say that an intelligent designer would constantly 'reinvent the wheel'. Evolution of course requires traits and genetic material to be passed on so conservation of such traits is not a refutation of evolution either.

Let's look a bit at what the prize was for - a description of the process by which cells divide and the genes which facilitate this function:

The engine and the gear box of the cell cycle

The three Nobel Laureates have discovered molecular mechanisms that regulate the cell cycle. The amount of CDK-molecules is constant during the cell cycle, but their activities vary because of the regulatory function of the cyclins. CDK and cyclin together drive the cell from one cell cycle phase to the next. The CDK-molecules can be compared with an engine and the cyclins with a gear box controlling whether the engine will run in the idling state or drive the cell forward in the cell cycle.

Now what the above describes is the process by which cells - once they start dividing - perform their division. This process is of course very important and the prize is highly deserved. However what these discoveries do not tell us is why the process of cell division was started at all:

One of these genes, designated CDC28 by Hartwell, controls the first step in the progression through the G1-phase of the cell cycle, and was therefore also called "start".

So the discovery determined what happens when the 'start' gene gets activated. However, what has not been found or determined yet is what starts or activates the start gene. This is the problem which evolutionists have and where the evolutionary explanation of organisms totally breaks down. Yes, genes are important. But what we keep finding is that genes are just the active agents of an organism, not the controlling agents of an organism. In other words, genes perform the work they are ordered to do, but they do not give the orders to perform the work. In addition to which, genes often perform more than one function, make more than one protein. This again occurs due to receipt of different orders from elsewhere in the organism.

So in my view, this discovery rather than support evolution, supports intelligent design. The cell cycle is controlled through genes, not by genes. In fact, we already know that one of the reasons for cancerous growth is that some of these genes are expressed (told to make proteins) in excessive amounts by some defect in the controlling DNA:

It is likely that such chromosome alterations are the result of defective cell cycle control. It has been shown that genes for CDK-molecules and cyclins can function as oncogenes. CDK-molecules and cyclins also collaborate with the products of tumour suppressor genes (e.g. p53 and Rb) during the cell cycle.

The findings in the cell cycle field are about to be applied to tumour diagnostics. Increased levels of CDK-molecules and cyclins are sometimes found in human tumours, such as breast cancer and brain tumours. The discoveries may in the long term also open new principles for cancer therapy. Already now clinical trials are in progress using inhibitors of CDK-molecules.

The above shows that the control of the genes is elsewhere in the DNA, in the DNA that controls the expression of these genes.

Unless IDers are willing to offer some specific suggestions about HOW and WHEN these "designs" are brought into actualization by the "designer" in real living organisms, ID doesn't really contradict the major part of textbook evolution.

The designs are brought about with the creation of each new "kind". I know that the term "kind" seems vacuous, but evolutionists have really mangled the term "species". What I mean by "kind" is a species which has new traits, genes, and is more complex than a previous one. The reason for the increased complexity being a necessary agent for this determination is the basic problem which evolutionists have had with their theory since day one and why it has always been rejected by thoughtful individuals:

All organisms consist of cells that multiply through cell division. An adult human being has approximately 100 000 billion cells, all originating from a single cell, the fertilized egg cell. In adults there is also an enormous number of continuously dividing cells replacing those dying. Before a cell can divide it has to grow in size, duplicate its chromosomes and separate the chromosomes for exact distribution between the two daughter cells. These different processes are coordinated in the cell cycle.
All items in green above are from the article cited by Stultis which is here.

The above is what I would call the miracle of life. The miracle of how from one cell, 100 trillion different cells are produced in exactly the correct order, in exactly the correct amount, in exactly the correct places. This is clearly a very involved program, not subject to random change, but a very exact process which has to be 'reinvented' each time a new "kind" is created.

Of course the reason for this is that ID is vacuous. This is also the reason it is scientifically useless, so far any way.

No, and in fact, all the above disproves your statement. ID predicts the total interrelatedness of organisms. Evolution predicts a stochastic organization of the life functions. The interrelatedness of the different functions of the organism shows that the main point of ID, which Behe calls 'irreducible complexity' or that you cannot have one function without other complementary functions is correct (note above that the cell cycle uses many genes to both move the engine as well as others to 'control' the engine - p53 and rb - in order to accomplish the task properly). In fact, perhaps all the biological research being done since the discovery of DNA is indeed about finding just what these complementary functions are.

[medved]

One other thing I should mention: Greek, Roman, Chinese, and other sources mention people and animals surviving the flood here and there on high places and/or anything capable of floating for a year. I do not see an essential contradiction between those tales and the story of Noah. The people who survived with Noah probably were not aware of anybody else surviving and wrote it down that way.

[ChuxsterS]

First of all, I apologize for any offense. I know I got fairly sarcastic.

Second, I don't know how to say this, so I'll just say it... I think you and I are so far apart on so many issues, I think there's no profit in us discussing anything.

I don't intend to reply to any more of your posts, and ask that you not waste the effort to reply to any of mine. I think any further exchange is bound to be but another exercise in futility yielding only frustration and exasperation for both of us, while wasting bandwidth for everyone else.

Please believe that my apology for the sarcasm is sincere.

[gore3000]

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt."

Yes indeed. It is way to complex to have arisen by chance.



The picture above shows the mechanism necessary to transcribe DNA into proteins. The article below shows just how ridiculous it is to think that this could have arisen by chance:

Berkeley scientists have obtained the first good picture of a major chunk of the machinery that turns genes on and off.

With the help of electron microscopy and a relatively new technique called single particle image analysis, the researchers reconstructed a three-dimensional picture of the heart of the machine -- the part that binds to DNA and starts the process of gene transcription.

The picture shows for the first time how the proteins are arranged, and gives clues to the inner workings of the machinery that transcribes genes -- the complex of proteins that latches onto and copies DNA into an RNA blueprint for building proteins.

...

The entire machine that transcribes a gene is composed of perhaps 50 proteins, including RNA polymerase, the enzyme that converts DNA code into RNA code. A crew of transcription factors grabs hold of the DNA just above the gene at a site called the core promoter, while associated activators bind to enhancer regions farther upstream of the gene to rev up transcription.

Working as a tightly knit machine, these proteins transcribe a single gene into messenger RNA. The messenger RNA wends its way out of the nucleus to the factories that produce proteins, where it serves as a blueprint for production of a specific protein.

The new detail is of the proteins forming the very large complex that binds DNA.

...

Tjian and Nogales admit that the picture now revealed is the first step in a long-term project to determine the three-dimensional arrangement of all the proteins in the machine, in enough detail to see the individual amino acids that make up each protein.

"The resolution we have now is good enough for learning about how things happen in the cell, but drug design comes with atomic modeling at a much finer resolution -- about 10 times better than we have now," Nogales said.
From: UC Berkeley - First Pictures of Transcription Machine

The above is one of the many reasons why the only 'scientists' actively promoting evolution the last 50 years have been two atheist non-biologists by the name of Gould and Dawkins.

[gore3000]

I have no desire to give you a course in biochemistry, even if I were qualified to do so.

Truly Clintonian! Contradicting yourself in the same sentence! You need to understand biochemistry to understand evolution but you do not understand biochemistry yourself! And you put someone down for not knowing what you yourself do not know! Amazing, truly amazing.

Since you are claiming ignorance I guess you cannot explain how the process of transcription of DNA shown in my post above arose by evolutionary means eh?

[gore3000]

I don't know if DNA tests were conducted on the remaining teeth. I'm not even sure that is a relevant question as the great apes genetically are very close to us, with only a few differences in their genetic code.

The answer is no. It is very rare to find any kind of usable DNA in fossils and the oldest limit for it seems to be about 50,000 years ago. So no, there is no DNA to all those fossils the evolutionists cackle about and no, you do not have the education you claim to have or you would know that.

[Stultis]

To associate bumbling fools to those who believe in Christ is an insult

Yes, it is. But will you apologize for it?

[John Locke]

On the other paw, the gathering should provide excellent background info for the next BBC documentary series, Walking with Creationists.

[Stultis]

I will never allow to go unchallenged any insult toward God. You may say he doesn't exist

I can't certify this 100 percent. I haven't read the entire thread, but I have read most of it. I've seen no one insult God, or claim he does not exist. Now there are some evolutionists here who do not believe in God, I'll grant you that, but there are also some here who do believe. Your failure to appreciate this is part of what people are trying to discuss with you, but you don't seem to realize this.

One thing I'm pretty sure of. Even among those evolutionists here who happen themselves to be atheists, not one has accepted or expressed the notion that evolution outright contradicts the doctrine of theism. It is always and always the creationists here telling those who accept evolution that they are logically correct to be atheists, and if they're not atheists they should be (and possibly that they might just as well set forth immediately on a rampage of rape and destruction).

You are the one setting false dilemmas before your brethren (and sistren). You are the one suggesting that the truth or falsity of a hundred and fifty year old scientific theory should decisively override the testimony of their hearts, their individual awe at the majesty of God's creation (whatever the details of its history), their reason, experience, hope, conjecture, insight, or whatever combination thereof brought them into belief. But you're standing there in the path to God, and to your Christ, with a clipboard and a copy of the Institute for Creation Research's statement of faith (or one like it) demanding that all those who would be called "Christians" must sign.

[Stultis]

The above is one of the many reasons why the only 'scientists' actively promoting evolution the last 50 years have been two atheist non-biologists by the name of Gould and Dawkins.

Oh, my, that's a keeper, an instant classic. LOL! Can somebody save that quote?

[Stultis]

It's probably true that the Pope felt insulted, and probably for good reason. And as you point out elsewhere, Galileo did have his supporters.

I think there was a clique within the conspiracy that felt it was time to roll out the heliocentrism deception, and another that felt the time was not yet ripe. Galileo was only slapped down for jumping the gun.

[Stultis]

Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time

Funny that hardly anyone in his own time, and familiar with him or his work, thought this. Consider, for instance, the creationist Adam Sedgwick, one of the greatest geologists of the 19th century, and a real creation scientist:

For one summer of his work in Wales which was to lead to this controversy [the great Devonian controversy], Sedgwick made a fateful choice of field assistant: a young Cambridge graduate named Charles Darwin. Darwin had passed his examinations for the Bachelor of Arts degree in January 1831, and began attending Sedgwick's geology lectures, which he found fascinating. That summer, the two men explored the rocks of north Wales; Darwin got a "crash course" in field geology from Sedgwick, an experience that would stand him in good stead over the next five years, on the round-the-world voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. During this voyage, Darwin sent rocks and fossils from South America back to Sedgwick, as well as descriptions of the geology of South America. These impressed Sedgwick, who wrote in a letter to Darwin's family:

He is doing admirably in S. America & has already sent home a Collection above all praise. -- It was the best thing in the world for him that he went out on the Voyage of Discovery. . .

In November 1835, before Darwin had returned to England, Sedgwick read some of Darwin's work on South American geology to the Geological Society of London. This greatly improved Darwin's reputation as a scientist; he was inducted into the Society shortly after his return. The two stayed friends until Sedgwick's death, but Sedgwick was upset and disappointed by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. After reading The Origin of Species, Sedgwick candidly wrote to Darwin on November 24, 1859:

If I did not think you a good tempered & truth loving man I should not tell you that. . . I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous-- You have deserted-- after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth-- the true method of induction. . .

Sedqwick cleary was unhappy with Darwin's evolutionary theory, but I find no hint he considered Darwin a dummy. No hint that anybody did, for the matter of that.

[John Locke]

In fact Darwin's work can arguably be considered the final and definitive nail in the coffin of polygenist anthropology (although there would be various attempts at revival over the years, the last being Carlton Coon in the 60's).

And don't forget its revival by the theosophist W Scott Elliot, which formed the basis of Hitler's racist anthropology. Combine it with Hoerbiger's Welteislehre, and you have pretty much the whole Nazi doctrine of the individual special creation of successive "Root Races" of mankind, and their successive destruction.

In this thread, we have several creationists who seem to be reviving Nazi doctrine, for instance their insistance that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis could not have shared a common ancestor is exactly what the Nazis believed.

You see, guilt by association is a game two can play.

[PatrickHenry]

Galileo was only slapped down for jumping the gun.

When the Inquisition decided to "slap you down" it was a bit more serious than a fine and some points on your driver's license. All those religious fanatics are roasting in hell, and will do so forever. If not then there's no justice.

[medved]

Funny that hardly anyone in his own time, and familiar with him or his work, thought this.

That's understandable. The little things about Chuck's BS getting 100 million people killed and turning Europe into a pig pen from end to end came a bit later.

[medved]

Second, I don't know how to say this, so I'll just say it... I think you and I are so far apart on so many issues, I think there's no profit in us discussing anything.

Too bad. You might have learned something...

[gore3000]

The above is one of the many reasons why the only 'scientists' actively promoting evolution the last 50 years have been two atheist non-biologists by the name of Gould and Dawkins. -me-

Oh, my, that's a keeper, an instant classic. LOL! Can somebody save that quote?

I am glad you like since I will certainly keep it. I do notice that you cannot refute my post showing that the 2001 Nobel Prize did indeed favor ID and contradict evolution. Gould and Dawkins did not have a scientific bone in their bodies. Real scientists know way too much to put out the garbage they did. And here's another one you can keep - evolution is pseudo-science for morons.

[gore3000]

Funny that hardly anyone in his own time, and familiar with him or his work, thought this.

Funny that to defend him you should pick a quote that says:

"parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous-- You have deserted-- after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth-- the true method of induction. . . "

The big problem with Darwin is not his intelligence, but his honesty and his totally unscientific methodology. He did not do experiments. He was still a collector of curiosities. Of course he was also very much a selector of those curiosities which fit his theory while ignoring those that did not. In short he was a charlatan. A very good charlatan, but a charlatan nevertheless.

[Scully]

The answer is no. It is very rare to find any kind of usable DNA in fossils and the oldest limit for it seems to be about 50,000 years ago. So no, there is no DNA to all those fossils the evolutionists cackle about and no, you do not have the education you claim to have or you would know that.

You just proved the YEC's to be wrong. If DNA is totally degraded in remineralized bones after about 50,000 years or so, then we shouldn't have any trouble recovering sufficient amounts of testable DNA from fossils of all types if the earth was only about 6000 years old.

BTW, not all fossils are completely remineralized. DNA fragments can be recovered from some partially remineralized fossils (most notably in the teeth), and in organisms preserved in amber. The following links may provide you with some interesting reading:

Neandertal DNA

Ancient DNA

As far as attacking my education, forget it. I have the sheepskin to prove it.

[Scully]

you're standing there in the path to God, and to your Christ, with a clipboard and a copy of the Institute for Creation Research's statement of faith (or one like it) demanding that all those who would be called "Christians" must sign.

You noticed that too, huh? Interesting tactics for converting the masses.