Monday, December 1, 2008

The Gel of our Joints

This is a non-scientific faith article. I had a bump, a perfectly round, tight, growing blister on my middle finger --near the nail. My husband called it I don't remember what. Said it has to do with arthritis and joints. He said they aren't really fixable but he could relieve the pressure as it was getting tighter, bigger and painful. He numbed my finger first and then pierced the blister --as I closed my eyes and looked away. But the numbing spray hurt/burned worse than the "surgery."

He pierced the blister and then told me to look and see the gel that is the lubricant of our joints.

The gel was perfectly clear and sparkly - no pus, no blood --like a fine clear lubricant we might get from a tube. I thought how amazing --part of our design, this clear lubricant for our joints. Mine must be leaking into this blister-like container --(part of the curse of the fall --illness/malfunction--I had injured this finger with a knife a few years back and it affected nerves and all) --but the idea that such a lubricant exists is remarkable to me. We are designed --wonderfully, marvelously made.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

39 comments:

Jeanette said...

And some try to tell us this is all random. Look at the complexities of the human body and convice me it is random and continued to happen exactly the same way for thousands of years randomly.

Barb said...

Yes, and we are still supposed to be evolving--but seems our kids are just like us --generation after generation. (Even thought they sometimes exceed OUR character and achievement and even our health habits --but they are basically no more "evolved" than we are --no farther or closer to some ape-like common ancestor)

Jeanette said...

I knew a girl who looked sort of like a monkey but her brothers and sisters did too. Her parents weren't handsome so I think it was the genes. Her children have no monkey faces. LOL

Rob R said...

but seems our kids are just like us --generation after generation.

Gaud, I hope I'm NOT like you! I am much more tolerant than you for one thing.

matthew said...

Rob,

Your mom should wash your mouth out with soap.

kateb said...

Ok, that was funny.

We are wonderfully made, I was looking at the trees today, they were so green a full just a few weeks ago. Like the planet cycles, so do we!

But the detail. The detail - it just takes your breath away when you get a little look into it like that, doesn't it?

I have the joy right this second :-) I'm going to go and make my neighbor some homemade spaghetti.

Barb said...

I don't believe that was Rob, Matthew --see the gray icon? Rob would have an orange blogger one.

I don't think he would write, "Gaud," either. Such a person should have his mouth washed out with soap.

we have a troll impersonating anyone he wishes --two things to watch for --the gray icons--and the links to profiles created in November. Either of those are impersonations. Well, not all the gray icons --but those with names of our blog family.

Must be a slow day near the botanical gardens today.

matthew said...

Barb,

Yes, I've noticed the trolls and wondered if the "Rob R" comment belonged to one of the bottom dwellers.

I didn't think that seemed like Rob's style. Thanks for pointing out the gray icon. Now I'll know how to sniff out the less obvious counterfeits.

matthew said...

Oh, and regarding the point of the post...

Your husband, the good doctor, could confirm but I bet this joint gel is present in babies even before certain blogging imposters would like to abort them. Not exactly blobs of whatever they call it.

Christian Apologist said...

This is just a joke so I hope you can take it in that light.

I love that the medical practice has advanced so much since the middle ages but when it comes to things the docs cant fix they still resort to cutting the patient open to get the bad stuff out.

Barb said...

Right! sometimes if thy finger, offends thee, thou must excise!

Masoni said...

Are you saying you guys don't believe in evolution in these comments? The idea shocks a die-hard evolutionist like myself.

Masoni

Barb said...

Some of us here do not believe in evolution per se --yes, natural selection and adaptation within species --but not common descent from other organisms --not all the evolutionary principles of Darwin who assumed all life evolved by unguided naturalism from a one-celled creature after a big bang. It takes faith to believe this.

Many Christians believe we are products of design --as evidenced in the irreducible complexity of DNA--and considering that genes actually transition from complex to more simple in the process of natural selection --rather than simple to more complex.

And since I believe in the resurrection of Christ and his instantaneous miracles, why would such a God need billions of years of gradual transitions from simple to more complex creatures in order to evolve all the life forms? Christ spoke a man out of the grave and God spoke things into being at creation "let there be light!" Sort of like we can produce images instantly from the stored intelligence of a computer. Of course, I'm not a scientist but nevertheless, greater minds than mine have rejected Darwin's theory. My husband is a scientist and does not believe in DArwin's theory.

Read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, PhD in molecular biology, LeHigh U. or Phil Johnson's book --the Berkeley law prof --Darwin on Trial. And I'm sure there are newer works at Answers in Genesis and ICR --and the Discovery Institute of ID scientists featured in Ben Stein's film "No Intelligence Allowed."

Christian Apologist said...

Masoni said...
Are you saying you guys don't believe in evolution in these comments? The idea shocks a die-hard evolutionist like myself.

Masoni

I cant speak for anyone else here but I for one am a proponent of evolution. Though I differ in that, what Darwin calls accident and chance, I call purposeful manipulation of the genome.

Masoni said...

"yes, natural selection and adaptation within species --but not common descent from other organisms"

These are actually exactly the same thing. As we "adapted" as you put it, different species became distinguishable and grew apart from each other. If humankind adapts a little bit, as you suspect, over time, then you have two different species!

And it's a myth that scientists reject Darwin. Your husband may be the exclusion, but scientists agree that evolution is backed up entirely by empirical evidence.

Masoni

Masoni said...

@Christian Apologist:

Yours is the only rational Christian evolutionist standpoint.

Congratulations, sir or ma'am. I consider you insightful.

M.

Barb said...

Masoni --do you see any creatures evolving to the point of producing new kinds of creatures today? If evolution is true, something should be new! Bacteria and viruses mutate and form new strains rapidly --with lightning speed --but they are still bacteria and viruses. No matter what mutations and cross-breeding, adaptation/natural selection take place, dogs are still dogs; cats, cats; apes, apes; and humans, humans.

I never said that all scientists dispute evolution--I said some of them do, as my husband does. As do many other credentialed scientists with PhD's and MD's from secular uni's.

they are like the little boy who said, "But the emperor is naked!!!" The theory is contradicted by what we actually know about the amino acids (for one example) of DNA.

There is obviously intelligent design behind our bodies --not a mere series of fortuitous accidents of nature. There is no Mother Nature who says, "O, people need eyes to see color --they'll just evolve over millions of years of gradual transitions because those kind of eyes would be superior and help people survive better."

CA/Aaron believes God did it by Darwin's method. The God of miracles and resurrection wouldn't need Darwin's slow, tedious method of creation. The Bible says He needed only 6 days --to speak everything into being --to fashion man from the clay -- Our God can do anything --and science hasn't disproven Him yet.

I'm not firmly committed to 6-day creationism --but I think it's possible with the God of the universe. Infinite knowledge and power are not limited at all by the nature He created.

Jeanette said...

Does an amoeba have a soul? How about a dog? A monkey? No, they do not. They do not know right from wrong. Dogs and other domesticated animals are changed by behavior training. Otherwise they just do their thing.

Man has a soul and has had a soul since Adam was created. Not evolved, but created.

You cannot take a soul less creature and all of a sudden he evolves and has a soul and is responsible for his own actions.

Barb said...

I also realize the Bible says that with God a thousand years is as a day--so the timetable isn't important to me --but I do think evolution as I understand it lacks evidence --either from the past or observed today. Extinct creatures bearing features of two modern creatures do not prove the claims to be common ancestors --any more than Fords and Chevies gave birth to one another. We do share genes with the animal kingdom -- that can be evidence of the Designer they shared --not ancestors. You can't prove otherwise.

Jeanette said...

Barb,

The Bible says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. He could have created everything is six days but were they thousands of years days or 24 hour days?

The point you and I are trying to make is that we cannot put God in a box. He said He did it in six days and rested on the seventh. He didn't say He did it in six consecutive days or six twenty-four hour days. This could explain dinosaurs etc. It doesn't change the fact He created it all and He did it in six of His days.

Remember He lives outside of time and space.

Jeanette said...

We seem to be following each other with the same message. :) Maybe the Spirit has something to do with this?

Christian Apologist said...

Who says anything about what God needs to do Barb? Theres is nothing in creation that God needs.

The point as I see it is that God took his time creating the universe because he takes pleasure in not just the end result but also in the creative process itself. I think we have so many galaxys in the universe because God enjoyed the process of creation so much that he just said to himself 'Hey lets do that again!'

Could God have created the earth in 6 days 10,000 years ago? Certainly! Did he? I think not. The evidence based on our perception of nature shows us that the universe is very old; based on isotope dating methods, the fact that we can see stars billions of light years away, a gradual increase in complexity in the fossil record, etc.. The only question left is whether our senses are reliable.
Romans 1:19-20
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

This scripture pretty plainly asserts that our perceptions about nature can be trusted, otherwise we make Paul out to be a liar, and the bible just a mere book.

Anton said...

I'd like to make a point here, not to be polemical, but just to clarify what seems to be a misconception on the part of several (though not all) of the posters here concerning evolution.

In several posts it is asserted that evolution is something "random;" this is a mischaracterization of legitimate evolutionary theory. Mutations occur because replication is imperfect, and mutations are retained in accordance with their relative use; evolution is thus not a "random" process but follows distinct formulae.

If by "random" you mean "without a First Cause or God," you are only partially correct. One can assert the truth of evolution by natural selection (which is scientifically supported) and hold either a theistic or atheistic worldview; evolution and theism are not necessarily exclusive.

I hope I've served to verify these points somewhat.

Also, on the point of "irreducible complexity" -- this pseudoscientific postulation is only plausible if one is unable to demonstrate evolutionary pathways, that is, ways in which supposedly "irreducible" things could have evolved, which computer models have actually been able to demonstrate. I am unfamiliar with any evolutionary biologist who supports such theories.

Ben Stein is not a scientist, by the way.

Christian Apologist said...

Anton, thanks for your post it was a very good clarification. I wholheartedly agree with what you said except I would like to add on 2 points.

Another problem with the Irreducable complexity is that it relies on proving a negative.

You say that Ben Stein is not a scientist, but I would contend that most of the people in that movie werent either.

Barb said...

You don't have to be a scientist, Masoni, to know that there isn't evidence for evolution from one kind of creature to another in the past record (fossils) or observeable in the present -- nor do you have to be a scientist to expect that the process should be observeably ongoing if it ever happened acc'g to Darwin. Something should be noticeably transititioning.

Fossils of extinct creatures with features of two present-day creatures do not prove common ancestry. They only prove their own unique existance.

The rest is all speculation and theorizing --and evolution is the sacred cow of the atheist. He has a lot riding on his theory.

Barb said...

We know Ben Stein was not a scientist --but he's not stupid either --and he knows a sacred cow when he sees one --or an emperor wearing no clothes. He talked to some real scientists who verified that evolutionists are religious in their faith in Darwinian theory --to the point of discriminating against well-credentialed, knowledgeable scientists who do not believe Darwin is proven. Who, in fact, see real problems for Darwinists in the human genome.

Anton said...

"Observably ongoing"? True, my dog has not noticeably evolved for as long as we've had her. But microorganisms have been shown to evolve under controlled scientific conditions, yes.

And yes, fossils of similar creatures do not in themselves prove a progression. But age and depth characterize the rock, and thus the fossils. We do not have the entire fossil record, certainly; but even with the gaps, if we view the dates and arrangement of fossils we can see a progression (not necessarily "steady," of course, though that's a common mischaracterization of evolution).

Barb, there are certainly some scientists who dispute the Darwinian model of evolution. But are they evolutionary biologists? Without specialization, it's really not relevant. Is it more rational to trust neurosurgery to a neurosurgeon or to a dentist? They are both doctors, after all.

Christian Apologist said...

Barb said...
You don't have to be a scientist, Masoni, to know that there isn't evidence for evolution from one kind of creature to another in the past record (fossils) or observeable in the present -- nor do you have to be a scientist to expect that the process should be observeably ongoing if it ever happened acc'g to Darwin. Something should be noticeably transititioning.


Actually one would not really expect to see any significant specieation in the 6000 years of recorded history that we have since it has taken nearly 3 billion years to get to the point we are at. Macro evolution is slow.

Barb said...

Prove it, CA. You cannot.

No microorganism has transitioned in millions of mutations, etc. --to be something other than what it started out to be --as with viruses and bacteria.

No cat has conceived anything other than a cat. Why should we believe it happened billions of years ago if it doesn't happen now??? it takes faith, fellahs. And Darwinists have great faith.

I really can't 100 percent insist that God didn't take billions or more years to evolve all life forms at his direction (plant and animal life from the same one celled creature) --but you can't prove that He did --and of course, to suggest as atheists do that there was no designer or controlling hand, only chance mutation based on adaptation/natural selection --that takes even MORE faith in the absurd.

I'm willing to let God be God and create anyway He wishes --I'm just betting he didn't do it Darwin's way --but more as a designer/producer/creator would --with intelligence and deliberateness --and our God wouldn't NEED the method of one celled beginnings and the infinitely slow process --His infinite intelligence allows Him to speak creatures and miracles into being --to tinker with their DNA in his celestial lab --mathematically/scientifically/ from His vast and perfect MIND.

Barb said...

Acc'g to my layman's understanding: In natural selection, the info being passed to the next generation of genes has to already be in the first generation --so tell me again that a one celled amoeba grandfathered all the life forms on the earth??? going from simple to more complex.

OR there has to be a mutation for new gene markers --but there is no evidence that a survival-need causes a mutation --and mutations are nearly always BAD in results --something you don't want to pass on. Survival of the fittest refers more to normal, not mutated, genes that survive to become dominant because creatures with the genes that made them vulnerable to certain disease, or antibiotics, e.g., died off and didn't pass on their weak selves --thus allowing the stronger genes for that environmental situation to prevail.

Like the gypsy moth example --which was fabricated by pinning gypsy moth bodies to a tree trunk and photographing them to demonstrate how the mottled moths survived over other colors/species, blending better into the trees for protection.

A Lamarckian example was used in school text books even in the 90's --demonstrating that giraffes' long necks evolved out of need to survive by reaching the food high in the trees. But why just the giraffe? Other creatures survived close to the ground --and the giraffe also used his long neck to reach the food on the ground. So his long neck had nothing to do with survival of the fittest --or more creatures should have had the same need.

Barb said...

NOt to mention the absurdity of need affecting genes. Another example used by evolutionists --man evolved to walk upright so he could carry his food through the tall savannah grasses. Why didn't dogs do the same thing?

This was more Lamarckian than Darwinian --but text book biologists didn't know the difference --and evolutionists Patterson and Gould were embarrassed by such recent misunderstandings taught in our schools.

crusader09 said...

"In natural selection, the info being passed to the next generation of genes has to already be in the first generation"

Now, I am NOT a scientist, and not really even that great of a science student. BUT, I am in a Biology class just now that started out with the theory of evolution and, while this seems to be logical, Barb, it is not what the Theory of Evolution claims. It claims that the traits that one generation possesses will be "weeded through" by the natural selection process so that only those with desirable genetic traits will survive to reproduce. When they say generation, they don't mean you to your children. They mean "these organisms over this several thousand year period of time" to be passed on in the next several thousand years. Also, the strongest surviving members of any generation will begin to develop new survival traits that, if they are successful and those organisms live to reproduce, will be incorporated into the next generation.

I find this logically absurd, but this is what we're being taught...

Barb said...

My husband tells me that genes cannot develop new traits except by mutation --and those are usualy bad in results.

He says you cannot create new better genetic info in the next generation of genes. The info has to be there in the parent genes to be passed on.

Yes, the survivors are the ones whose genes are passed on. People who die due to vulnerable genes for a particular environment (or vulnerable to antibiotics in the case of bacteria) --those people or bacteria who don't survive --their vulnerble genes can die with them. The stronger genes in the survivors win out.

are we saying the same thing?

the point, to the creationist, (at least to me with my layman's understanding) is, that you can't possibly get new info for all the varieties of life forms --out of the first one celled amoeba.

Mating brings new info into the genes of the offspring --new combos --traits from ancestors --but not genes for new creatures because those genes were never in the parents going back trillions of generations--no matter how many "mutations" occur over millions and billions an trilllions of years.

kateb said...

You don't really have to have this debate anymore. There now exists software that makes different models based upon supposition of evolutionary theory.

For instance Sudhir Kumar has been Director of the Center for Evolutionary Functional
Genomics in The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State Universty since the early 2000's.

Here's a clip and a link:

"MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment
Sudhir Kumar
Director of the Center for Evolutionary Functional Genomics in The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University since 2002. His research interests include development of software, statistical methods and computational tools for comparative sequence analysis. He and Koichiro Tamura are joint first authors of the MEGA3 software. "

http://bib.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/150

He and Tamura are developers of software for the research of molecular evolutionary genetics analysis and sequence alignment.

I've been following this and other efforts. Sadly the evolutionary theory doesn't seem to be holding up well in modern science.

But feel free to research - you can get to quite a few university and developer sites if you yahoo or google search for things like evolutionary models or sequencing.

Interesting reading.

Barb said...

Sadly the evolutionary theory doesn't seem to be holding up well in modern science.

Sadly? Really?

kateb said...

Ok, I was being sarcastic. But in my defense, I was very hungry at the time.

Rob R said...

I don't really intend to get deep into this discussion but there were three statements by Antoni on which I had to critique.

Barb, there are certainly some scientists who dispute the Darwinian model of evolution. But are they evolutionary biologists? Without specialization, it's really not relevant.

If experts of the highest skill level in various areas of biology cannot rationally understand a view from a somewhat slightly different but highly related field enough to be qualified in criticizing a concept which that other field deals with, then they certainly cannot rationally accept it either. And if scientists, even biologists who hold university positions, do research and have phD's do not have relevent opinions on the matter of evolution, Well, Antoni, I can't think that you can either. And if you are an evolutionary biologist, there's no use in speaking to us laymen because whether we agree with you or not does not matter because we aren't qualified to agree with you let alone disagree.

Interestingly, it is only the opinion of a small minority of scientists that matters by this logic and yet we are supposed to be impressed with the scientific consensus. You can't have it both ways. Either a wide variety of scientists of a wide range related fields and varying qualifications are qualified to agree (and disagree) with evolution or the consensus doesn't matter and we all just have to accept it by faith that the evolutionary biologists aren't pulling our legs even though they are the only ones who can authoritatively see it.

Secondly, for what you are saying to be true, I would have to think that evolutionary biologists are some sort of super scientists who have mastered every area of biology for which evolution is relevent. I don't find that notion credible at all. Most evolutionary biologists are probably just like any other specialized biologist who have to depend upon the research of many other scientists in other fields as well as their own to do their work. So evolutionary biologists make claims in genetics, cell biology, anatomy, physiology, zoology, statistics, chemistry, biochemistry and so on and you know, experts in any one of those fields are qualified to look at what they evolotionary biologist has done and say "uh no sir, I'm the expert in this field and your ideas as far as they extend here are flawed." There is no such thing as an independent field of science where the scientists are the absolute experts on every single aspect that is within and relevent to there field.

Is it more rational to trust neurosurgery to a neurosurgeon or to a dentist? They are both doctors, after all.

I'm going into nuclear medicine technology (it's a type of medical imaging) and it is not unheard of nor is it rare for a guy in my field with a bachelors degree or even an associates degree to note that the reading radiologist is wrong in his diagnosis. There are situations where the nuc med tech can appeal to the specific doctor, depending upon the relationship with the doctor and sometimes they get a different doctor to reread the study. Several of the techs that I have trained with have these stories. And you know, doctors depend on other doctors for the full range of diagnosis and treatment, and different doctors in different fields can treat the same conditions in different ways. You could go to a physician for a thyroid problem and he might send you to a nuclear medicine doctor or a thyroid specialist to have a nuclear medicine treatment (performed by the techs like me of course). Or you could go to a surgeon and he might lop out your thyroid for the same result.

On this comment.

Also, on the point of "irreducible complexity" -- this pseudoscientific postulation is only plausible if one is unable to demonstrate evolutionary pathways, that is, ways in which supposedly "irreducible" things could have evolved, which computer models have actually been able to demonstrate.

I'm very skeptical of this claim. I know there are computer simulations of evolution but they follow preprogramed rules by the programmers which are not necessarily true to the real world. There is an issue about how well sometimes the experiments in the lab reflect the real world and the issue is no less the same for computers.

Secondly, however good some of these simulations may be, I won't buy it for an instant that the developement for every single biological system and every system that has been claimed as irreducibly complex has been succesfully simulated to be gradualistically, functionalistically reduced. Look, the current world's greatest supercomputer (as far as I know... popsci article on it is linked below) is dedicated to working on vaccine administration, climate simulation and brain mapping. evolution is not simpler than any one of these but too many people are impressed by little programs that some college proffessors have on their computers. And I'm sure they are more than that but the point is I think it is highly questionable to think that these computer simulations of demonstrated it and have solved all of the problems of evolution.

Maybe one day we will have this capability, I just don't find it realistic to think that we are there yet. Perhaps the evolution of SOME systems have been demonstrated in this way, but that is a far cry from debunking all claimed and and yet undiscussed examples of irreducible complexity.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-06/most-powerful-computer-earth

Barb said...

Rob --it is Anton --not Antoni--and Masoni for a guy named Mason. I know --confusing.

Rob R said...

0op sorry.