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

[Barbarian]

Bob, since you dodged my first challenge to test your beliefs, let's try a test of this one:

Bob endorses Ben Steins blood libel against science:
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".

Take the best example of a pogrom from the film and tell us about it. We'll see how well it holds up to inspection.

Or dodge yet another test of your beliefs. Either way, it's an effective message about your ideas.

 

[BobRyan]

Is this where you want me to read the text of the movie to you instead of you taking the time to actually allow yourself to SEE something that does not constantly pander to atheist darwinism????

I find your "read the book for me" solution to be "less than genuine" Barbarian.

Ok - so what else is new? ;-)

I guess we all knew that was coming!

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

First hint - THIS THREAD is simply about the "academic freedom" to follow the date where it leads as affirmed in Louisiana instead of insisting on blind pandering to atheist religionists junk science dogma we know of as atheist darwinism. That freedom ALONE is enough to get atheist darwinists and their devoted followers to come to this thread and whine.

Hello - time to wake up!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There's a reason Stein's been flayed in court over that movie.

What in the world are you talking about??

This?

In a 23-page opinion, a federal judge has denied Yoko Ono et al.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against the producers of "Expelled" for alleged infringement of the copyright of the song "Imagine." We have not yet heard from the state court judge but I expect him to follow suit.

Were you worried about "the song"???

His quote mining is an affront

Facts please -- smoke and mirrors does not work here as well as you might have been led to believe by your atheist darwinist training.

Less furry -- more facts.

Less smoke - more fire as they say.

If you're prepared to actually listen to me (Which I doubt

You've been heard.

The Junk science "hoaxes-for-darwinism" thread is already opened on this part of the message board. In fact I started it.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Heh, I figured Bob would cut and run again. He's figured out that trying to defend Stein's lies is a loser's game.

Just checking to make sure, Bob. Meantime, if you think there's even one of Stein's accusations of "pogroms" that isn't a lie, present it here, and we'll see.

BTW, the Anti-defamation Society raked Stein over the coals for making excuses for Hitler:

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.


They know about pogroms. And they know about the people making excuses for them. That's why they denounced Stein.

Would you like to learn where Hitler actually got his plan for the final solution? Someone presented it in detail, years before Hitler. Can you guess who?

 

[Guest]

Turn your TV on.

Turn my TV on? what kind of inane retort is that?! You're the one making outrageous claims that a theory that has been proven for 150 years is a lie (and also a conspiracy from the sounds of things), you need to do the proving.

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.

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".

The way I understand this, you're saying that a receiver, built by man, carrying out it's intended task by selecting the frequency it was designed to receive somehow proves that everything in nature must also be designed. If this is what you're saying then there is a gap a mile wide in your logic.

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.

Well let me answer your quote with a quote from exactly the same source.

I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either.

From reading that I would have to agree with him. He does know nothing about evolution. Someone has mentioned that these quotations are taken out of context and whilst I have no proof to ascertain that, I really wouldn't put it past a fan of Mr Stein, the worlds leading authority on quote mining and distorting peoples statements out of context to fit his own pet theory.

I actually can't begin to fathom what he could possibly be on about with his "evolution conveys no knowledge" business. Evolution conveys the knowledge of how speciaton occurs. That is all the theory explains and it does a very good job of it. To expect it to offer any more insight than that is ludicrous, just like saying that "Because atomic theory doesn't explain how life originated then IT conveys no knowledge and therefore is wrong."

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

Oh this is one for the books! I need to be less defensive and more open to the obvious facts? LMAO!
I'm not the one claiming that Evolution is a religion and that there's a secret cult controlling the direction of scientific advancement.
I'm also not the one who doesn't understand, despite all attempts to enlighten you, that evolution ONLY explains speciation.

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

Ignorant of the means of evolution? Oh boy I could give you chapter and verse on how evolution works. What do you want to know? Ask and thou shalt be answered.

 

[BobRyan]

(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..."

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

Ignorant of the means of evolution? Oh boy I could give you chapter and verse on how evolution works. What do you want to know? Ask and thou shalt be answered.

AGain - that is simply more "antiknowledge" as Patterson calls it.

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

Recall that Patterson already established the fact that STORIES "about HOW one thing came from another... are simply STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but they are NOT SCIENCE".

Circling back to "more story telling" is not the solution you think it is -- given the context.

Allow yourself a moment of objective thought or simply continue to confirm Patterson's statement in the quote above.

Bob

 

[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.

[quote:8df17]
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.
[/quote:8df17]

Turn your TV on.

Turn my TV on? what kind of inane retort is that?! You're the one making outrageous claims that a theory that has been proven for 150 years is a lie

The substantive substance in that reply of yours above - can not possibly be understated.

Would you like another try at it?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Bob, if you don't trust your own beliefs enough to defend them, why would you think any of us would accept them?

 

[Guest]

The substantive substance in that reply of yours above - can not possibly be understated.

Would you like another try at it?

Bob

LMAO!
Would you like another try at English word usage 101?
Substantive means tangible, concrete and objective, which incidentally is somewhat the opposite of almost every 'argument' you have thrown up against me. All the substance in my replies so far has been substantive, and I'm glad you can finally recognise that. If that comment was supposed to be an attack, then you fail rather epically.

AGain - that is simply more "antiknowledge" as Patterson calls it.

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

Recall that Patterson already established the fact that STORIES "about HOW one thing came from another... are simply STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but they are NOT SCIENCE".

Circling back to "more story telling" is not the solution you think it is -- given the context.

Allow yourself a moment of objective thought or simply continue to confirm Patterson's statement in the quote above.

Anti-knowledge? What is anti-knowledge? I think that contends for the prize for lamest defence I've ever heard. Patterson doesn't HAVE a point. He hasn't made an objective statement in that entire paragraph. Using a made up term to dismiss evidence is the sort of behaviour that I would expect from a pre-schooler who's been caught out stealing crayons.

This is not a solution to ANY problem, no matter the context.

Story-telling? What defines story telling? He doesn't actually explain this nor actually provide any EVIDENCE to support his point. I think story-telling used in his context is simply the 150 years worth of knowledge and research that he has deliberately gone out of his way to ignore because it conflicts with his pet theory, and I think the definition is exactly the same as the one you're using.

You know what, I think I have actually been duped here. From other replies you seem to be getting it does seem that I, a new member on this forum have been duped into feeding a notorious troll, you.

So far you have yet to properly address a single request I have made, nor provide any evidence to either back up your arguments or attack mine. You dodge the subject whenever it gets too hot for you to handle and make ad hominem attacks in an attempt to change the subject.
Until you see fit to get educated on the subject and actually make an objective defence of your theory, I don't see a lot of point in continuing this discussion.

I leave you in your ignorant bliss.

~XolotlOfMictlan

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, if you don't trust your own beliefs enough to defend them, why would you think any of us would accept them?

you seem to have no end of vaccuous non-substantive posts as you wait to come up with a point.

My question for you -- why do that? Why not just make an actual point in the discussion "instead"?

This should not be as hard for you as you are making it out to be.

And remember - pretending not to understand the discussion -- is not working in your favor as much as you might have imagined.

Try again.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I want to thank the one atheist darwinist with text in this thread - that actually had something to say.

(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..."

Thank you Dr Patterson -- senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History -- (dead Darwin's memorial-in-museum).

You insights are honest and objective as compared to the blind orthodoxy of many of the atheist darwinist devotees posting recently.

Patterson elabarates a bit more on his summation of the problem he mentions in the quote above.

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."

Wow - blind darwinist orthodoxy is being addressed by Patterson in an open honest and objective way. Who could have guessed that an atheist darwinist believer was capable of such honesty!


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian challenges Bob to name the most convincing case of oppression against IDers in the film "Expelled")

(Bob declines to do so)

Barbarian chuckles:
Bob, if you don't trust your own beliefs enough to defend them, why would you think any of us would accept them?

you seem to have no end of vaccuous non-substantive posts as you wait to come up with a point.

Just noting that you dodged yet another challenge to substantiate your claims.

My question for you -- why do that?

It's rather obvious. You don't have any confidence in any of the claims, and don't want them examined.

Why not just make an actual point in the discussion "instead"?

I think it's because you have a suspicion that the "evidence" would fall apart on examination.

This should not be as hard for you as you are making it out to be.

Well, we can test that. Give us the best example of oppression in that film, and we'll see what evidence we can find for it.

And remember - pretending not to understand the discussion -- is not working in your favor as much as you might have imagined.

We'll see, when you present your case. If you have enough confidence it it to risk a discussion of it.

 

[BobRyan]

More "fictitious Barbarian" revisionist history.

(Barbarian challenges Bob to name the most convincing case of oppression against IDers in the film "Expelled")

(Bob declines to do so)

An entire thread was dedicated to that point where you were shown your error 'in triplicate" -- you simply walked away from it and now want to "pretend" that your lack of response and substance on that point "did not happen"?

you were SHOWN that with INDEPENDANT reviewers -- the truth of the charge of censorship was PROVEN --
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31852&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p375881

You could not master the objectivity of finding independant reviewers so you simple did the foxhole retreat appealing to darwinist devotees to blindly assert "we see nothing ... we hear nothing..." AS IF such deny-all responses from the perpetrators themselves is "objective" to the unbiased objective reader!!

How sad.

And of course we all "see" that EVEN NOW your own response above is to blindly stuck in that censored domain inside the atheist darwinist shell (not even allowing yourself to SEE the video of Dawkins or Provine or the scientiests that gave their own first-hand account of the censorship being practiced in academia) that you need someone to TELL you what the movie SHOWED them saying rather than allowing even yourSELF the freedom to SEE IT first hand!

How sad.

As much as you may think that your "deny-all" in terms of objectivity and reason is serving your argument -- it is apparently -- not.

;-) :wink: :-D

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian challenges Bob to name the most convincing case of oppression against IDers in the film "Expelled")

(Bob declines to do so)

An entire thread was dedicated to

...

(Bob declines once again)

Not surprising. He's learned that they were all scams, and he's a little leery of being made to look foolish again.

No amount of persuasion will convince Bob to put himself in that position. He's clearly realized that the stories are all bogus.

Bob, if you don't trust your own beliefs enough to defend them, why would you think any of us would accept them?

 

[Guest]

Thank you Dr Patterson -- senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History -- (dead Darwin's memorial-in-museum).

You insights are honest and objective as compared to the blind orthodoxy of many of the atheist darwinist devotees posting recently.

Patterson elabarates a bit more on his summation of the problem he mentions in the quote above.

I don't actually think you're gonna listen to me, but for those others who may be reading this thread for whom logic is a reasonable concept, I felt it only honest to share what the very first hit on Google for your good friend Mr Patterson is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

If you will take the time to read this link, the author of the page has written to Mr Patterson about the quotations you use and it turns out that as expected, the creationists have misquoted him, in one situation using an illegal hidden tape recorder.

Dr Patterson agrees with every other sane biologist that evolution is a genuine fact and that transitional forms exist.

If may finish my post with a quote from Patterson himself, I would supply the following:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

No matter how you interpret that, there is no two ways about it. This is not someone else's interpretation, this is the man himself, the only person on the planet who could know precisely what he meant.