[_ Old Earth _] Louisiana Unanimously Passes Academic Freedom Bill

[freeway]

the Barbarian said:
It goes against what you say, but you've rewritten the Bible to suit yourself

looks like someone else is rewriting the bible to suit their needs... shame shame..

. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

I must have missed that memo... No the evidence does not cry common descent... it cries common creator at work...

Although Darwin had no clue at all about genetics or DNA,

like how a DNA happen by "chance"....and I love this one how life came from non life... great odds there...

both have confirmed the same phylogeny he predicted.

No they have not, never has, never will.... sorry.....

And as you saw,

Saw what? what you hope is true! Any true Christian would know the truth... and that is creation not evolution... evolution makes a laughing joke of God.... after all the evolutionist is really trying to get ride of God....

predicted intermediates were later discovered.

Again and Again..... not in the museum where I live..

This is why evolutionary theory is so completely established; such evidence is compelling.

yea, well you just keep on telling yourself that.... hope it works out for you... 8-) 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It goes against what you say, but you've rewritten the Bible to suit yourself

looks like someone else is rewriting the bible to suit their needs... shame shame..

You're not the only one, as you suggest, there are a lot of YE creationists out there, who don't want to accept God's Word in Genesis. As you learned, the YE creationist doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by His Word in Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

I must have missed that memo... No the evidence does not cry common descent... it cries common creator at work...

That argument was demolished by the discovery that DNA and genetic analysis gave the same phylogenies as Darwin on entirely different evidence.

Although Darwin had no clue at all about genetics or DNA, both have confirmed the same phylogeny he predicted.

like how a DNA happen by "chance"....

Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

and I love this one how life came from non life... great odds there...

Sorry you think so. Darwin had no theory for the origin of life; he merely said God did it.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence of The Origin of Species

Scratch a creationist, and you'll find an atheist in training.

Saw what? what you hope is true! Any true Christian would know the truth... and that is creation not evolution...

The vast majority of us, do. Most of the world's Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith.

Barbarian observes:
predicted intermediates were later discovered.

Again and Again..... not in the museum where I live..

We settled that. I challenged you to defend your faith in creationism, and you cut and ran. If you've gotten more confidence now, tell me of two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I'll see if I can show you an intermediate. Assuming you have some confidence in your beliefs, that is.

Barbarian observes:
This is why evolutionary theory is so completely established; such evidence is compelling.

yea, well you just keep on telling yourself that....

Your refusal to put it to a test tells us everything we need to know.

 

[freeway]

man oh man oh man ... how many times do I say..... your the evolutiionist... pick pick pick and don't try to make yourself feel better by saying I cut and run... re read the post.. Pick Pick Pick 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

[Deep Thought]

OK, seeing as you are so reluctant (for whatever reason), I'll choose one for you.

frogs.

 

[freeway]

frogs... yea what about them.. God created them.. Egypt had a problem with them in the old testament... they are green.. very strong rear legs for jumping.. not all are green, some are very colorful and deadly. so...........frogs. 8-) 8-) not sure what else you want me to say... after all I'm the creationist... if I'm still allow to say that on the forum.....

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, frogs. So we can say that stem amphibians are a sister clade to frogs.

Scientists discover "frogamander" fossil
Julie Steenhuysen , Reuters
Published: Wednesday, May 21, 2008

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The discovery of a "frogamander," a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on Wednesday.

Modern amphibians -- frogs, salamanders and earthworm-like caecilians -- have been a bit slippery about divulging their evolutionary ancestry. Gaps in the fossil record showing the transformation of one form into another have led to a lot of scientific debate.

The fossil Gerobatrachus hottoni or elderly frog, described in the journal Nature, may help set the record straight.
An undated artist rendition of Gerobatrachus hottoni. The discovery of a "frogamander," a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on May 21, 2008. Gerobatrachus means elderly frog in Greek.

An undated artist rendition of Gerobatrachus hottoni. The discovery of a "frogamander," a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry, Canadian scientists said on May 21, 2008. Gerobatrachus means elderly frog in Greek. REUTERS/Michael Skrepnick/University of Calgary/Handout

"It's a missing link that falls right between where the fossil record of the extinct form and the fossil record for the modern form begins," said Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary, who led the study.

"It's a perfect little frogamander," he said.

Gerobatrachus has a mixture of frog and salamander features, with fused ankle bones as seen only in salamanders, a wide, frog-like skull, and a backbone that resembles a mix of the two.
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology ... 60e21ab7b9

Want to play again? BTW, there still are some transitions we haven't found yet, so you might get lucky. C'mon, what have you got to lose, now?

 

[freeway]

guys do you really want to do this again...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32349

let me see if I can figure this out without cut and paste articles form another web site because barbarian never does that..
looking at the picture or bones.. it tells me ...... nothing.. it a salamander.. do you think just maybe thats all there is to it... a salamander that has gone extinct.. and is a cousin to the ones living now. without trying to write some world breaking missing fossil hopeful notion into it..
look at these..gee is the black and white one turning into a zebra... well if you want to play this game... lets try giraff-a-cat now...or show me a croc-a-duck 8-) 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

The skull, backbone and teeth of Gerobatrachus have a mixture of frog and salamander features--the fossil has two fused bones in the ankle, which is normally only seen in salamanders, and a very large tympanic ear (ear drum). It also has a lightly built and wide skull similar to that of a frog. Its backbone is exactly intermediate in number between the modern frogs and salamanders and more primitive amphibians.

Precisely intermediate between frogs and salamanders. And another predicted intermediate shows up. Ever wonder why we don't see intermediates between organisms that don't have an evolutionary relationship? No frogs with feathers, but lots of reptiles with feathers. Because birds didn't evolve from frogs.

Have you enough confidence in your beliefs to offer one of your own, now?

 

[BobRyan]

Baton Rouge, LA – Yesterday the Louisiana House Education Committee unanimously passed SB 733, an academic freedom bill. The bill requires that Louisiana schools shall "create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The passage followed testimony from four Ph.D. scientists, including three biologists, who testified in favor of the bill.

One biology professor from Louisiana College, Dr. Wade Warren, testified about how during his graduate studies at Texas A & M, the dean ordered him cease discussing scientific problems with students. Another biochemist, Dr. Brenda Peirson, testified about how random mutation and natural selection cannot produce many of the complex biological systems we see in the cell.

One of those scientists, Dr. Caroline Crocker, testified about her experience losing her job at George Mason University after she taught students about scientific arguments against neo-Darwinism. Southern University law professor and constitutional law expert Michelle Ghetti also testified that the bill was “perfectly constitutional.†After the scientists and other educators testified about the scientific problems with neo-Darwinism and the need to protect academic freedom, one LSU Darwinist biologist, Dr. Bryan Carstens, who opposed the bill had the temerity to claim: “let us be clear that there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution.†The glaring weakness in his false argument was not lost upon members of the legislature: he was immediately pressed by one legislator on the committee who asked the following:

In the document you just read and gave to us, in bold print it says, ‘let us be clear there is no controversy among biologists about the fact of evolution.’ Did you hear the testimony of the other professors we had here that were speaking before this committee?

Dr. Carstens then showed his intolerance towards professional biologists who were Darwin-skeptics. Carstens refused to admit their existence and in fact only admitted that faculty who testified against evolution had Ph.D.’s in “chemistry.†Of course only one of the Ph.D.’s was a chemist, and three of them were professional biologists. The truth of the matter is that Dr. Carstens’ entire statement shows the intolerance towards Darwin-skeptics

Good points all - it SHOWS once again that atheist darwinism is nothing more than "bad religion".

Atheist's speaking of scientists that object to the story telling of atheist darwinism frame their argument by "Denying that the opposing scientists exist"???!!!

That is really very funny!!

Still - that blind "sacrifice all science on behalf of efforts to pander to atheist darwinism" will not let the law rest until they have challenged it with every devotee to atheist dogma they can drum up in courts and universities. The "battle is not over" for those who are wanting to restore "Academic freedom" by wresting it away from it's atheist-darwinist propaganda shackles.

Another "continuing trend" among devotees to atheist darwinism is the constant failed tactic of pretending "THIS YEAR we FINALLY escaped our shady junk-science hoax past by discovering an ACTUAL demonstration of a doctrine in evolutionism found in nature to be valid".

That debunked tactic worked for 40 years with Piltdown man and over 30 years with the fossil age dating of Neanderthal man before it was debunked.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Good points all - it SHOWS once again that atheist darwinism is nothing more than "bad religion".

I'm always surprised that ID/creationists think of religion as a bad thing. It relates to their envy of science, I suppose. It's OK to be religious, Bob. God wants you to. But I doubt if he wants you confusing religion and science like that.

The "battle is not over" for those who are wanting to restore "Academic freedom" by wresting it away from it's atheist-darwinist propaganda shackles.

Even the guy who invented ID, Phillip Johnson, admitted that the Dover case was a "train wreck" for creationist attempts to get their religion in public schools. Not only did the evidence show that ID is simply creationism with a shave and clean clothes, it featured IDer Michael Behe admitting that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

Another "continuing trend" among devotees to atheist darwinism is the constant failed tactic of pretending "THIS YEAR we FINALLY escaped our shady junk-science hoax past by discovering an ACTUAL demonstration of a doctrine in evolutionism found in nature to be valid".

Confirmation of Darwin's predictions began almost at once; Archaeopteryx, for example was predicted to exist before it was found, based on anatomical similarities between birds and dinosaurs. An there have been countless others since.

No point in denying them, Bob. Of course, we don't know who faked Piltdown man, but we do know evolutionists debunked it. And as you know, the guy who was faking Neandertal remains was caught by evoutionists.

Isn't it time for you to come to terms with God and creation, the way He actually did it?

 

[Guest]

There is no such thing as "Academic Freedom". It is a dark day indeed when people can confuse the scientific method with freedom of speech. Science speaks one language only and that language is evidence. You can say what you want upon the academic stage but if you have no evidence to support it, you will get torn down for being an idiot. This is not a violation of your rights, this is how science advances. The wheat is separated from the chaff in a merciless, ruthless environment. When you make a claim it has to stand on its merits or it will go down in flames and take your reputation with it. This is not discrimination or persecution because it happens to everyone else who is wrong.
If you or these scientists can prove their case to a degree that can withstand the storm of the scientific method then they can make whatever claim they want, but until they have proof, they will be laughed off the stage time and time again.
Darwinism has been subject to over a hundred years of the exact same scrutiny that everything else gets and yet it still stands.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no such thing as "Academic Freedom".

Well not in the minds of the devotees to atheist darwinism bent on snuffing it out.

But for the rest of us -- that freedom exists.

Sorry to have to disabuse you of that tiny notion.

Academic FREEDOM is all about the FREEDOM to apply the scienctific method EVEN IN AREAS of science that are not forced to pander to atheist dogman. To "follow the data where it leads" EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that is not first censored by demands of atheist darwinist doctrine.


Sadly for those blinded by the religionists of atheist darwinism - we DO have proof that ID works -- because we HAVE the ability to discriminate intelligent design "electronically" when it comes to sciences NOT BEING censored today by atheist darwinist religionists -- sciences dealing with electromagnetic wave forms.

Sorry to inform you that that horse is already out of the barn -- but it is so.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Sadly for those blinded by the religionists of atheist darwinism - we DO have proof that ID works

Sounds interesting. Want to put your new religion to a test? Let's see if it works or not. I'll give you two things to look at, one random, one natural. If you're right, you should be able to tell the difference.

Ready?

 

[BobRyan]

Too late - my Radio already CAME ON and was able to filter out the background noise!

oops - there goes my W-CDMA cell phone.

You know electromagnetic wave forms "that rocks can generate" kinda "background noise".

You see - the "deny-all" compromise is not working for you as well as you supposed.

wake up and smell the coffee atheists the morning has already been spent!

Bob

 

[Guest]

Well not in the minds of the devotees to atheist darwinism bent on snuffing it out.

But for the rest of us -- that freedom exists.

Sorry to have to disabuse you of that tiny notion.

Academic FREEDOM is all about the FREEDOM to apply the scienctific method EVEN IN AREAS of science that are not forced to pander to atheist dogman. To "follow the data where it leads" EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that is not first censored by demands of atheist darwinist doctrine.


Sadly for those blinded by the religionists of atheist darwinism - we DO have proof that ID works -- because we HAVE the ability to discriminate intelligent design "electronically" when it comes to sciences NOT BEING censored today by atheist darwinist religionists -- sciences dealing with electromagnetic wave forms.

Sorry to inform you that that horse is already out of the barn -- but it is so.
Bob

Since you do not seem to understand what the scientific method is, I shall endeavour to explain it to you in terms that you might understand.
The scientific method comprises three parts:

1) Freedom of Speech
2) Physical Evidence
3) Conformity to what is known to be true from previous experience

Once you have all three parts, your theory is ready to be put on display to the academic community. Sadly the opponents of evolution tend to ignore the last two parts and then scream "Persecution" when their theory is debunked.
The theory of evolution has all three parts completely intact and for over a hundred years with the smartest humans on the planet have been scrutinising it and conducting experiments attempting to prove or disprove the theory, and so far there has been no genuinely examined scientific experiment that has gone against the principles of evolution. This is not because people haven't been allowed to try, but because no one has yet succeeded. Evolution has been witnessed in action by multitudes of studies under laboratory conditions and unless you can find and evidentially sustain an argument that not only proves a flaw in the fundamentals of evolution but explains the results of these tests assuming evolution to be wrong, then you are doomed to failure.

If you or anyone else can design an experiment that does just that, providing evidence against evolution and conforming to the observations made in prior experiments, then no-one will laugh at you. If your experiment is repeatable and genuinely shows that evolution is wrong then people will repeat it and inevitably find that you are right. Evolution will be destroyed and you'll win a nobel prize.

Until that day comes however, evolution remains at the pinnacle of biological knowledge as the objective truth as to the origin of species. You can say that god used evolution to create humanity, because that is a claim you can make without evidence, but if you're going to decide that 150 years of facts and research are all wrong, then you'd better come prepared with a truckload of evidence.

PS I am interested to hear this thing you mention about waveforms proving evolution to be wrong? Your paragraph is barely coherent enough for me to understand it, but if such a thing were to be true, then it would send a shockwave through the biological community. Do share. If it really is this groundbreaking and no-one's published it to the scientific community yet, perhaps I can steal the method, take credit for it and become immortalised as the man who disproved evolution. In fact, why haven't you done that yet?

 

[BobRyan]

Well not in the minds of the devotees to atheist darwinism bent on snuffing it out.

But for the rest of us -- that freedom exists.

Sorry to have to disabuse you of that tiny notion.

Academic FREEDOM is all about the FREEDOM to apply the scienctific method EVEN IN AREAS of science that are not forced to pander to atheist dogman. To "follow the data where it leads" EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that is not first censored by demands of atheist darwinist doctrine.


Sadly for those blinded by the religionists of atheist darwinism - we DO have proof that ID works -- because we HAVE the ability to discriminate intelligent design "electronically" when it comes to sciences NOT BEING censored today by atheist darwinist religionists -- sciences dealing with electromagnetic wave forms.

Sorry to inform you that that horse is already out of the barn -- but it is so.
Bob

Since you do not seem to understand what the scientific method is, I shall endeavour to explain it to you in terms that you might understand.

Since you don't seem to see the proven science already demonstrated regarding our ability to discover "design in nature" (take the case of the 4 basic forces in nature) I will help you along.

Electromagnatism is one of the four basic forces in nature - USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND the "freedom to follow the data where it leads" (i.e in the absence of patently blind atheist dogma dictating the limits of scientific endeavor) we have already demonstrated our ability to DETECT DESIGN in nature down to the commercially viable level of electronics that can discriminate for specific electromagnetic wave forms SHOWING design vs -- simply "background noise that rocks can generate given sufficient time mass and an energy source".

The scientific method comprises three parts:

1) Freedom of Speech
2) Physical Evidence
3) Conformity to what is known to be true from previous experience

Once you have all three parts, your theory is ready to be put on display to the academic community.

As soon as the atheist dogmatists shut down scientific endeavor as they are doing in certain fields of science today - you then SEE the value of "freedom to follow the data where it leads" that yo euphamistically call "free speech".

Obviously.

Hint - watch the movie EXPELLED. SEE the tiny-minded "pogroms" being conducted against scientists that dare to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does NOT pander to the narrow-minded atheist dogma of religionists who insist "there is no god".

Frankly I expect the atheist dogmatist religionists here to respond in a "deny-all" attitude to facts and a "sacrifice-all" attitude toward actual science in their defense of the junk-science religion we know today as atheist darwinism.

Nothing new there - as a the hoaxes-and-blunders of Junk-science atheist darwinism thread has demonstrated in triplicate.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953&start=0#p374752

Basically with amassing of such junk-science confirmed frauds propping up atheist darwinism -- is it any wonder people are starting to demand intellectual freedom and honesty by contrast?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However - I don't mean to imply that it is only objective well-reasoned Christians that see the glaringly flaws in the blunder-infested religious history of atheist darwinism --

We have well-known well-accepted atheist darwinists bemoaning the lamentable ANTI-Knowledge of atheist darwinism!

Let's take a look at an actual Atheist Darwinist who IS capable and willing to freely express his own discoveries about the weaknesses in THE religious system that he MUST cling to "at any cost to science and reason" --

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

"...I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing you think is true?'
"I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.' "...It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

(Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the "pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm" was "'...not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none'" and suggested ")...It must seem to you that I'm either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.

"...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge-I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. "...

What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it.

"Well, here we all are with all our shelves full of books on evolution. We've all read tons of them, and most of us have written one or two. And how could it be that we've done all that, we've read these books and learned nothing from them? And how could I have worked on evolution for twenty years, and learned nothing from it?

"...There is some sort of a revolution going on in evolutionary theory at the moment...It concerns the possible mechanisms that are responsible for the transformation...natural selection is under fire, and we hear a rash of new and alternative theories..."

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Frair provides his own testimony as a front-row attendee of this talk by Patterson

Dr Frair:
I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him.

Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My God, how can he be doing this to us."

Oh if only we had actual Christian devotees to atheist darwinism that were as honest and objective as the comitted atheist darwinist Colin Patterson!


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian challenges Bob to test his ideas about design)

(Bob changes the subject, reposting a dishonestly altered statement by Colin Patterson)

Heh, they talk big, but when you ask them to substantiate their claims, they cut and run.

 

[Guest]

Since you don't seem to see the proven science already demonstrated regarding our ability to discover "design in nature" (take the case of the 4 basic forces in nature) I will help you along.

Electromagnatism is one of the four basic forces in nature - USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND the "freedom to follow the data where it leads" (i.e in the absence of patently blind atheist dogma dictating the limits of scientific endeavor) we have already demonstrated our ability to DETECT DESIGN in nature down to the commercially viable level of electronics that can discriminate for specific electromagnetic wave forms SHOWING design vs -- simply "background noise that rocks can generate given sufficient time mass and an energy source".

Ok steady tiger. I don't "see the proven science already demonstrated" because you haven't actually given it to me yet. Could I respectfully request that you slow down on spewing your anti-atheism spiels just long enough to provide some actual evidence or explanation? I still have no idea what you're on about.

What have you detected in waveforms that conclusively demonstrate design? And further, what on earth does this have to do with discrediting evolution?

Hint - watch the movie EXPELLED. SEE the tiny-minded "pogroms" being conducted against scientists that dare to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does NOT pander to the narrow-minded atheist dogma of religionists who insist "there is no god".

Frankly I expect the atheist dogmatist religionists here to respond in a "deny-all" attitude to facts and a "sacrifice-all" attitude toward actual science in their defense of the junk-science religion we know today as atheist darwinism.

Nothing new there - as a the hoaxes-and-blunders of Junk-science atheist darwinism thread has demonstrated in triplicate.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953&start=0#p374752

Basically with amassing of such junk-science confirmed frauds propping up atheist darwinism -- is it any wonder people are starting to demand intellectual freedom and honesty by contrast?

Bob

*facepalm*
I am somewhat offended that you would degrade me to the point of suggesting I watch such a sorry excuse for a documentary. Ben Stein seems to belive that his crass lack of any knowledge on the subject of the theory of evolution constitutes a conclusive proof against it. There is no such thing as "Darwinism". Ben Stein is correct in one thing, "Darwinism" does not explain the meaning of life, it does not explain where life came from and it does not explain anything to do with waveforms of light. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RELIGION.

There is no Darwinism. There is only the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution in no way states that there is no god. It simply states that speciation occurs when adaptive pressures effect a change in allele frequency resulting eventually in a new species. How is this a religion? Last time I checked, a religion had to have some aspect either for or against the existence of a god. If you were to get down to it, evolution IS compatable with a God. What if it turned out that all evolutionary scientists were part of a secret cult that worshipped a god that created man by first creating a single celled organism and forcing it to evolve into the complex animals present today? This ludicrous theory is no less likely than your paranoid theory of an "Atheist agenda".

There's a reason Stein's been flayed in court over that movie. His quote mining is an affront to all intelligent journalism everywhere. Baseless claims that the evolutionists are lying do not hold up under the peer literature review. You need to have evidence. Evolution has evidence, hence why it prevails in all the major educational establishments globally.

If you're prepared to actually listen to me (Which I doubt, seeing as you quote a film who's primary argument is the "I don't understand it therefore it must be wrong" tactic), I can link you several videos mounting an objective retort to said documentary.

 

[BobRyan]

Since you don't seem to see the proven science already demonstrated regarding our ability to discover "design in nature" (take the case of the 4 basic forces in nature) I will help you along.

Electromagnatism is one of the four basic forces in nature - USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND the "freedom to follow the data where it leads" (i.e in the absence of patently blind atheist dogma dictating the limits of scientific endeavor) we have already demonstrated our ability to DETECT DESIGN in nature down to the commercially viable level of electronics that can discriminate for specific electromagnetic wave forms SHOWING design vs -- simply "background noise that rocks can generate given sufficient time mass and an energy source".

Ok steady tiger. I don't "see the proven science already demonstrated" because you haven't actually given it to me yet.

Turn your TV on.

Could I respectfully request that you slow down on spewing your anti-atheism spiels just long enough to provide some actual evidence or explanation? I still have no idea what you're on about.

In nature there are four fundamental forces in nature -- the weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnatism and gravity.

That is the basics.

I am simply pointing out that in the area of one electromagnetic wave form evaluation we have the "science" down to the point of being able to "discriminate" for design over background noise.

What have you detected in waveforms that conclusively demonstrate design?

Every time the TV or cell phone or ... "tunes itself" it is actually selecting FOR a strong consistent signal and against "background noise". There several layers to the process so I will not go into that nor into the W-CDMA science for things like Cell-phones but suffice it to say in the case Code Division Multiple Access signals as well as muc simpler AM and FM signals we can "detect ID".

And further, what on earth does this have to do with discrediting evolution?

It is simply the more basic and obvious point that "detecting design" is already a fundamental part of science -- for some fields of science not impacted by the blind-censorship of atheist darwinist religionists.

As for the active program of censorship

Hint - watch the movie EXPELLED. SEE the tiny-minded "pogroms" being conducted against scientists that dare to follow the data where it leads EVEN if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does NOT pander to the narrow-minded atheist dogma of religionists who insist "there is no god".

Frankly I expect the atheist dogmatist religionists here to respond in a "deny-all" attitude to facts and a "sacrifice-all" attitude toward actual science in their defense of the junk-science religion we know today as atheist darwinism.

Nothing new there - as a the hoaxes-and-blunders of Junk-science atheist darwinism thread has demonstrated in triplicate.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953&start=0#p374752

Basically with the daily amassing of such junk-science confirmed frauds propping up atheist darwinism -- is it any wonder people are starting to demand intellectual freedom and honesty by contrast?

Bob

*facepalm*
I am somewhat offended that you would degrade me to the point of suggesting I watch such a sorry excuse for a documentary.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Ben Stein seems to belive that his crass lack of any knowledge on the subject of the theory of evolution constitutes a conclusive proof against it. There is no such thing as "Darwinism".

Read Colin Patterson's statement in "EvolutoinISM" here?
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32600&p=387748#p387633

It is easier to find on this threa than you might have at first thought.

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

It is far beyond simple "darwinISM"

Ben Stein is correct in one thing, "Darwinism" does not explain the meaning of life, it does not explain where life came from and it does not explain anything to do with waveforms of light. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RELIGION.

Your TV is not a function of "Religion"
The existence of the four forces in nature was not a "religious statement.

You need to be less defensive and more open to the more obvious facts.

As Patterson points out the atheist believers simply "claim ignornance regarding the means while affirming the fact" .

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

You demonstrated Patterson's point "once again" in your response above.

If you're prepared to actually listen to me (Which I doubt, seeing as you quote a film who's primary argument is the "I don't understand it therefore it must be wrong" tactic), I can link you several videos mounting an objective retort to said documentary.

You should have allowed your mind to SEE the movie before blindly telling stories about it AS If that kind of revisionist history carries weight in discussion with someone who is not already a "duped devotee" to atheist darwinism. (Borrowing the term "duped" from Colin Patterson of course).

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32600&p=387748#p387633

Bob