[_ Old Earth _] See the Movie EXPELLED - atheist darwinism vs God

[Jayls5]

Hint, theistic evolution does not = science. It equals putting God in a test tube. Failed.

Haha, precisely why I made my signature.

I SAW the video. The video did not lie it was dead on.

Awesome, then you must have seen the video response to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJKZPpH ... h_response

If you want to stick to facts and avoid ad hominem attacks on Dawkins, that's a fairly straightforward answer to the question.

 

[BobRyan]

I am ok with facts -- as already posted when it comes to Dawkin's 11 second pause for reflection when he discovers that a serious question will be asked instead of more softballs from some cheerleaders --

- Bob already posted on this thread --

SAW the video. The video did not lie it was dead on.


Dawkins could not even come up with a lame excuse for days. Then the BEST he could come up with was of the form "well I was thinking to myself that I thought these guys were yes-men and they turned out to be independant thinkers that wanted ACTUAL facts instead of more atheist darwinist dogman... how dissappointing. AFter all I envited them into my home -- by all rights they should have been YES-men".

He even proudly proclaims that he WANTED to end the entire interview once he found out these were not the blind-devotees to atheist darwinism that they proclaimed to be.

HOW SAD that Dawkins should give an interview to someone other than YES MEN??!!

How tragic that these independent thinkers would dare to ASK HIM For actual EXAMPLES.

How awful that HE should have to resort to the NON-ANSWER "it was in a book I wrote and STILL I could not come up with even ONE example".

Anyone with an ounce of objectivity is going to view the dodge and weave slippery excuses he gave for what they were -- only a devotee to atheist darwinism could ever have been "moved" by such non-answers.

A word to the devotees to atheist darwinist dogma here -- "allow yourselves the luxury of INDEPENDANT thought" while on this board.

 

[BobRyan]

You guys have been drinking that atheist darwinist coolaid so long you are having an hard time following a train of thought on the point raised.

Notice your non-substantive self-talk when confronted with the "distinctively atheist" argument in darwinism and the WAY it was exposed??

VaultZero4Me wrote:
Hint, theistic evolution does not = science. It equals putting God in a test tube. Failed.

[quote:ad41b]
Haha, precisely why I made my signature.

[/quote:ad41b]

Why are these simple concepts so difficult for you --

When asked WHY I refer to the fact that darwinism came out of the closet as "Atheist Darwinism" when it decided to attack any evolutionist that dared to challenge atheism -- they exposed their true distinctively atheist slant on darsinism.

When a group of compromised christians follwed theiir masters out on that field they unwittingly exposed to the world that they were not only joined to Darwinism they were married to atheist dogma and "proud to oppose" any non-atheist form of evolutionism that should arise.

In so doing - they all earned the title "devotees of atheist darwinism".

Sadly some of them still like to "pretend" no one noticed!

in Christ,

bob

 

[Patashu]

If darwinism is so utterly and thoroughly atheistic, explain the existence of theistic evolutionists, both as scientists and in the general public.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You guys have been drinking that atheist darwinist coolaid so long you are having an hard time following a train of thought on the point raised.

Notice your non-substantive self-talk when confronted with the "distinctively atheist" argument in darwinism and the WAY it was exposed??

VaultZero4Me wrote:
Hint, theistic evolution does not = science. It equals putting God in a test tube. Failed.

[quote:d70b2]
Haha, precisely why I made my signature.

Why are these simple concepts so difficult for you --

When asked WHY I refer to the fact that darwinism came out of the closet as "Atheist Darwinism" when it decided to attack any evolutionist that dared to challenge atheism -- they exposed their true distinctively atheist slant on darsinism.

When a group of compromised christians follwed theiir masters out on that field they unwittingly exposed to the world that they were not only joined to Darwinism they were married to atheist dogma and "proud to oppose" any non-atheist form of evolutionism that should arise.

In so doing - they all earned the title "devotees of atheist darwinism".

Sadly some of them still like to "pretend" no one noticed!

in Christ,

bob[/quote:d70b2]

You have a hard time grasping what science is. They were not attacked because of being theistic, but because they mixed theism with science. Science does not deal with things that are, wait for it, wait for it.....UNSCIENTIFIC

It is not there to prove a creator. It looks to explain things on their own terms. And so far, its done a great job. When the ID'ers can find a real hole in evolution being a process that is guided by natural causes (God is supernatural right?), then they can step up and challenge evolution.

They didn't, and haven't (can you show otherwise). Now, as a theist, you can make a philisophical claim that they will (but again you don't have to), but personally, I believe they won't.

If you don't like that about science, then don't read about it or learn about it. You choice. But you can't change the definition of science because you don't like it. Doesn't work that way. Science deals with nature. God is supernatural. That realm is for theologians.

A mechanic works on your car with tools and his hands. Would you try to force your mechanic to study the scriptures to fix your car? Or maybe pray for your car? No. The majority likely would not.

What about starting a mechanic school that teaches a course with the topic "Praying for Cars".

Now, that may be taken as me ridiculing, but I honestly am not. Mixing God with science should seem the same to you because they are. In fact, everything that mechanics use to fix your car comes from some branch of science.

Science studies the how the universe works after it all got started. Theology can talk about who started it.

In fact, I will reinerate that evolution talks about the process after life started. Theology can discuss who started.

 

[Heidi]

In the movie Expelled interviews are done with Dr Richard Dawkins and Dr Provine (and others) to show just how explicit the attack on God has become via the tools of atheist darwinism.

The movie also shows how atheist darwinist attempted to co-opt science language in their story telling about how life started and how it changes over time.

There is also a statement from the head of the National Academy of sciences admitting that this attack on God would not have been carried out without mainline protestant and Catholic groups helping them out at every step. I hope the members of those groups see the movie and then get their leaders to stop advancing the cause of atheism. The result of that program in Europe has been a "post Christian culture" where church attendance is abysmal.

The movie gives a small glimps into the depths of censorship that the National Academy employs to shut good science out of the class room if that science dares to expose glaring flaws in atheist darwinism.

A must see movie!!

in Christ,

Bob

The only problem is that unbelief is prophesied to get worse which it will.But nevertheless, the truth must be told so that those who are called will be saved and unbelievers are without excuse. Unfortunately, the latter will find out just how high a price they have to pay for rejecting the only one who can save them from eternal misery. :roll:

 

[VaultZero4Me]

In the movie Expelled interviews are done with Dr Richard Dawkins and Dr Provine (and others) to show just how explicit the attack on God has become via the tools of atheist darwinism.

The movie also shows how atheist darwinist attempted to co-opt science language in their story telling about how life started and how it changes over time.

There is also a statement from the head of the National Academy of sciences admitting that this attack on God would not have been carried out without mainline protestant and Catholic groups helping them out at every step. I hope the members of those groups see the movie and then get their leaders to stop advancing the cause of atheism. The result of that program in Europe has been a "post Christian culture" where church attendance is abysmal.

The movie gives a small glimps into the depths of censorship that the National Academy employs to shut good science out of the class room if that science dares to expose glaring flaws in atheist darwinism.

A must see movie!!

in Christ,

Bob

The only problem is that unbelief is prophesied to get worse which it will.But nevertheless, the truth must be told so that those who are called will be saved and unbelievers are without excuse. Unfortunately, the latter will find out just how high a price they have to pay for rejecting the only one who can save them from eternal misery. :roll:

And post had what to do with the OP?

 

[BobRyan]

The only problem is that unbelief is prophesied to get worse which it will.But nevertheless, the truth must be told so that those who are called will be saved and unbelievers are without excuse. Unfortunately, the latter will find out just how high a price they have to pay for rejecting the only one who can save them from eternal misery. :roll:

I find it interesting that you framed your post in terms of "belief" and "unbelief" this is exactly how the atheist darwinists phrased their own "belief in darwinism" and those who "did not believe in it".

In the movie the point was shown that this is a war of ideology and religion. The myths and fables of atheist darwinism were shown to have infected "watchdog agencies" such that filtering the data, censorship and pogroms organized against dissenting views from Darwinism have become the norm as a way to promote the junk science religion we know today as atheist darwinism.

By contrast the rational "good science" arguments were quoted in the movie as "grant the academic freedom to follow the data wherever it leads".

How instructive that the Dawkin Delusion should be so spell binding to some Christians and yet these appeals to "good science" should fall on deaf ears among atheist darwinism's faithful.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

size=120] Bob said

Why are these simple concepts so difficult for you --

When asked WHY I refer to (the term Atheist Darwinism) I point to the fact that darwinism came out of the closet as "Atheist Darwinism" when it decided to attack any evolutionist that dared to challenge atheism -- they exposed their true distinctively atheist slant on darsinism.

When a group of compromised christians follwed their masters out on that field they unwittingly exposed to the world that they were not only joined to Darwinism they were married to atheist dogma and "proud to oppose" any non-atheist form of [\b]evolutionism that should arise.

In so doing - they all earned the title "devotees of atheist darwinism". (though these Christians would in some other contexts prefer to endorse the God of the Bible - presumably)


Sadly some of them still like to "pretend" no one noticed!

You have a hard time grasping what science is. They were not attacked because of being theistic

Again it is YOU that has not followed the point -- and it is eseential to do so in order to frame an argument either for or against. Nevertheless I am willing to help you so you can make your case.

Let's do this one more time. The point is that in attacking the "INTELLEGENT DESIGN" arguments of evolutionists these people have exposed to the world the fact that their interest is LESS about EVOLUTION and MORE about "There IS NO GOD".

The ID supporters (especially those related to the Discovery Institute) endorse evolution but enjoy pointing to the fact that we STILL see DESIGN in nature at very specific points - the data supports DESIGN (like the example of a plane flying over an island and seeing a message for help written in the sand).

But REGARDLESS of the host of specific examples -- the "instructive" part is that for Darwinists THAT ARE ATHEISTS -- NO evolutionist SOLUTION can be tolerated that ALLOWS for a Designer SEEN IN the data - SEEN IN nature.

Some other Darwinists MIGHT in fact be comfortable with intelligent Design SEEN IN nature since presumably "some" Darwinist evoutionists are also Christian. (a point that has yet to be proven here -- but still you have to admit that it is possible).

But when BOTH groups of Darwinists come out OPPOSED to INTELLIGENCE seen IN nature - EVEN in opposition to evolutionists that ADMIT to that data showing intelligent design, they expose themselves as devotees of the ONE principle in dispute - atheism vs a DESIGNER for "THE THINGS that have been MADE".

The title "devotees of atheist darwinism" sticks.

The term "Science" deals with the material world (universe included). The atheist argues that this by definition excludes God since there is no God and everything in the known world "happened by itself".

The objective OBSERVER on the other hand says "I don't know where it all came from or if it was designed -- I WILL FOLLOW THE DATA WHERE IT LEADS".

When you find sticks in the shape of an arrow on the beach -- it could just be the random process of the ocean washing up debris or it COULD be that someone has placed that there.

The atheist starts with his statement of blind faith "there is NO SOMEONE to place it so no matter how complex the data and design there can be no SOMEONE".

The objective scientist looks at the sticks and says "I don't know the origin for this - I will study the related facts to see where the data leads me". It is only the Christian that can accept the data either way. For example the Christian has no problem looking at a chemical reaction with precipitant and saying - that is an interesting fact of nature, science, chemistry. At the same time he has the academic freedom to say "yes but look at the placement of our planet and the kinds of chemical reactions that just so happen to take place here in favor of life. The number of variables for this biosphere to work are very large -- too large for chance".

Devotees to atheist darwinism are "stuck" with "no matter how complex the design -- no DESIGNER".

Obviously.

That is not even in debate. The question being debated is whether that form of junk science will completely infect our public teaching institutions or whether private science foundations and teaching institutions will be the last defense for actual objective data-driven science.

For the atheist darwinist ANY appeal to a designer -- exludes their faith based approach to science and MIGHT AS WELL be called "Creationism".

For the Bible believing Christians the I.D evolutionist arguments are not an acceptable approximation to what the Bible says happened in "SIX evenings and mornings" regarding all life on this earth.

But the atheists should find in the I.D argument aspects of evolutionism so necessary to atheism and the Bible believing Christian Creationists should be objective enough to see in the I.D Arguments enough of a basic acknowledgement of design so necessary for Bible Creationism.

As it turns out - only the Christians have the academic freedom to admit to the strength of the I.D argument while still complaining about it's evolutionist context.

Atheist darwinists simply have nowhere to go on this one -- and sad to say their followers seem to tag along behind them like sheep.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Let's do this one more time. The point is that in attacking the "INTELLEGENT DESIGN" arguments of evolutionists these people have exposed to the world the fact that their interest is LESS about EVOLUTION and MORE about "There IS NO GOD".

Dead wrong. Where you are going astray is your conclusion that since evolution makes no claim pro or negative for a designer, it must necessarily be a negative. Bad logic.

I reiterate, it is not sciences business to step into super natural (be it pro or con). Evolution neither denies or points towards a super natural being.

The ID supporters (especially those related to the Discovery Institute) endorse evolution but enjoy pointing to the fact that we STILL see DESIGN in nature at very specific points - the data supports DESIGN (like the example of a plane flying over an island and seeing a message for help written in the sand).

again this is why they were laughed at. They claimed they see design, yet showed no evidence for this design. They used argument from ignorance (ie. ID didn’t know how the immune system could evolve on its own) and were embarrassed because of their faulty logic. The papers were presented listing out peer reviewed papers from years prior produced regarding that very topic – no one at ID HQ bothered to look up info on the immune system. Want kind of scientist fails to look up research (hint: biased).

But REGARDLESS of the host of specific examples -- the "instructive" part is that for Darwinists THAT ARE ATHEISTS -- NO evolutionist SOLUTION can be tolerated that ALLOWS for a Designer SEEN IN the data - SEEN IN nature.

Wrong again. Nothing to do with tolerating or not tolerating. Its not the business of science to step out of nature into supernatural (im hoping by sheer repetition this will sink in for you).

Some other Darwinists MIGHT in fact be comfortable with intelligent Design SEEN IN nature since presumably "some" Darwinist evoutionists are also Christian. (a point that has yet to be proven here -- but still you have to admit that it is possible).

Philosophically yes (assuming they do not allow this to bias their work).

Scientifically no.

But when BOTH groups of Darwinists come out OPPOSED to INTELLIGENCE seen IN nature - EVEN in opposition to evolutionists that ADMIT to that data showing intelligent design, they expose themselves as devotees of the ONE principle in dispute - atheism vs a DESIGNER for "THE THINGS that have been MADE".

Again I hope scientist always come out on bad science. You need to learn what science is. You are severally lacking in the constraints of science.

The objective OBSERVER on the other hand says "I don't know where it all came from or if it was designed -- I WILL FOLLOW THE DATA WHERE IT LEADS".

When you find sticks in the shape of an arrow on the beach -- it could just be the random process of the ocean washing up debris or it COULD be that someone has placed that there.

The atheist starts with his statement of blind faith "there is NO SOMEONE to place it so no matter how complex the data and design there can be no SOMEONE".

The objective scientist looks at the sticks and says "I don't know the origin for this - I will study the related facts to see where the data leads me". It is only the Christian that can accept the data either way. For example the Christian has no problem looking at a chemical reaction with precipitant and saying - that is an interesting fact of nature, science, chemistry. At the same time he has the academic freedom to say "yes but look at the placement of our planet and the kinds of chemical reactions that just so happen to take place here in favor of life. The number of variables for this biosphere to work are very large -- too large for chance".

Devotees to atheist darwinism are "stuck" with "no matter how complex the design -- no DESIGNER".

By objective observer do you mean ID? Come now. What sort of finances did they receive? Shall we look into it?
A true scientist does follow the data. As long as the data stays in nature. ID was bad and lazy “scienceâ€Â.

But think about it this way. Science explains everything through nature and natural laws. If you belief is that God created the universe and natural laws, then he is the creator by default.

ID is saying that God could not design the world to function on its own. He has to get his hands involved every so often to make it function.

If God designed a car, do you think it would be one he would have to stop every 20 miles and adjust the brakes, adjust tire pressure, and adjust the spark plugs? Wouldn’t it be a car that he just turned on the ignition and let it go on its own?

Seems to me philosophically and theologically ID is weaker than evolution. Evolution would mean he started the process and set up the laws so that it all functions great on its own.

That is not even in debate. The question being debated is whether that form of junk science will completely infect our public teaching institutions or whether private science foundations and teaching institutions will be the last defense for actual objective data-driven science.

if its so junky, where is your substantive attack on it? I showed you the ways in which ID was destroyed for bad science. Destroy evolution. You have yet to post a single flaw. Ill check back often today in hopes that you do!

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Ill start a thread on this one and link it, but I always have been confused as to why evolution has been singled out.

Why not quantum physics? Why not relativity? Why not anatomy?

All of these to me seem to have a greater philisophical and theological impact and are taught in HS.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Some readers may wanna help campaign for freedom of speech via Yahoo Answers:-

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... ANutKj&r=w

Its format has allowed me to answer each reply in my intro, inc many handy links

Ian

 

[Quasarsphere]

Some readers may wanna help campaign for freedom of speech via Yahoo Answers:-

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... ANutKj&r=w

Its format has allowed me to answer each reply in my intro, inc many handy links

Ian

Yup, read it, replied. I'm Lucan on Yahoo Answers.

I think it's hilarious that creationists are completely unable to challenge evolution on its scientific merits, so they have to try other tactics, like calling it a "freedom of speech" issue. The hilarious irony there is, you're the ones trying to force science teachers to teach non-science.

The claims made in this movie collapse with the slightest scrutiny. Sternberg, for example, was not fired for speaking out in favour of ID. He had already given notice six months earlier, and his final act as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was to abuse his position as editor by slipping an article in without submitting it to the proper peer review process. He knew it was the only way to get it in there.

There's nobody in the world trying to stop you from saying God created the universe. But until you can find a way to make that a testable, falsifyable scientific hypothesis, it has no place in a scientific discussion.

What part of that do you not understand?

Oh, and the guy who answered your question immediately before me was right - when you lie for Jesus, you're still lying.

 

[John]

I think it's hilarious that creationists are completely unable to challenge evolution on its scientific merits, so they have to try other tactics, like calling it a "freedom of speech" issue. The hilarious irony there is, you're the ones trying to force science teachers to teach non-science.

Not true, we just want the lies out of the text books, i have already told you school do not need to teach evolution, mine does not and the kids do fine, in fact i think they could care less.

Oh, and the guy who answered your question immediately before me was right - when you lie for Jesus, you're still lying.

If jesus said he did it, then.... hmmm how am i lying.

 

[jmm9683]

I think it's hilarious that creationists are completely unable to challenge evolution on its scientific merits, so they have to try other tactics, like calling it a "freedom of speech" issue. The hilarious irony there is, you're the ones trying to force science teachers to teach non-science.

Not true, we just want the lies out of the text books, i have already told you school do not need to teach evolution, mine does not and the kids do fine, in fact i think they could care less.

[quote:1d731]Oh, and the guy who answered your question immediately before me was right - when you lie for Jesus, you're still lying.

If jesus said he did it, then.... hmmm how am i lying.[/quote:1d731]

What you are saying is that you don't want the most up-to-date scientific evidence for the diversity of life on this planet to be taught. All of modern biology is based evolution. I'm sure a lot of kids don't care about physics either, according to your logic we should take that out of schools too.

 

[John]

What you are saying is that you don't want the most up-to-date scientific evidence for the diversity of life on this planet to be taught. All of modern biology is based evolution. I'm sure a lot of kids don't care about physics either, according to your logic we should take that out of schools too.

o no, the schools still teach bio diversity, but they don't teach evolution.
Evolution is not needed in school . period.

According to your logic, i would take one look at any thread and refuse to debate it because Richard Dawkins was cited :

 

[Quasarsphere]

I think it's hilarious that creationists are completely unable to challenge evolution on its scientific merits, so they have to try other tactics, like calling it a "freedom of speech" issue. The hilarious irony there is, you're the ones trying to force science teachers to teach non-science.

Not true, we just want the lies out of the text books, i have already told you school do not need to teach evolution, mine does not and the kids do fine, in fact i think they could care less.

[quote:80719]Oh, and the guy who answered your question immediately before me was right - when you lie for Jesus, you're still lying.

If jesus said he did it, then.... hmmm how am i lying.[/quote:80719]

Alright. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say you "want to get the lies out of the textbooks", I suspect what you mean is, you want to get your religion into the textbooks. But what, specifically, are the lies to which you refer? And can you prove that they are indeed deliberate lies?

i have already told you school do not need to teach evolution, mine does not and the kids do fine, in fact i think they could care less.

So your kids have no interest in biology. That's fine, not everyone does. However, with evolution being the very cornerstone of biology, those who do have an interest in it will need to learn about evolution. As long as they attend a school other than the one you refer to, they should be grand.

But you're right, you don't need to know about evolution to be an accountant, or a lavatory cleaner, or a lawyer (Ben Stein proved that very nicely) but you do need to know about it to be a biologist.

You also need to know about evolution if you wish to try and debate it.

 

[jmm9683]

o no, the schools still teach bio diversity, but they don't teach evolution.
Evolution is not needed in school . period.

Wow, you said "period" I guess it's over... Basically because it doesn't fit a literal interpretation of the Bible it should be taken out, good reasoning.

According to your logic, i would take one look at any thread and refuse to debate it because Richard Dawkins was cited :

Hmm, well Dawkins actually has scientific credibility so that's your own problem if you refuse to listen to him.

 

[John]

Alright. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say you "want to get the lies out of the textbooks", I suspect what you mean is, you want to get your religion into the textbooks. But what, specifically, are the lies to which you refer? And can you prove that they are indeed deliberate lies?

no i don't believe my religion should be forced upon anyone thats just not right.

So your kids have no interest in biology. That's fine, not everyone does. However, with evolution being the very cornerstone of biology, those who do have an interest in it will need to learn about evolution. As long as they attend a school other than the one you refer to, they should be grand.

But you're right, you don't need to know about evolution to be an accountant, or a lavatory cleaner, or a lawyer (Ben Stein proved that very nicely) but you do need to know about it to be a biologist.

bad science yield bad results. as does a bad foundation.

You also need to know about evolution if you wish to try and debate it.

i know enough about evlution to debate it, remember is was indoctrinated in school :wink:

 

[Quasarsphere]

Alright. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say you "want to get the lies out of the textbooks", I suspect what you mean is, you want to get your religion into the textbooks. But what, specifically, are the lies to which you refer? And can you prove that they are indeed deliberate lies?

no i don't believe my religion should be forced upon anyone thats just not right.

[quote:878ce]So your kids have no interest in biology. That's fine, not everyone does. However, with evolution being the very cornerstone of biology, those who do have an interest in it will need to learn about evolution. As long as they attend a school other than the one you refer to, they should be grand.

But you're right, you don't need to know about evolution to be an accountant, or a lavatory cleaner, or a lawyer (Ben Stein proved that very nicely) but you do need to know about it to be a biologist.

bad science yield bad results. as does a bad foundation.

You also need to know about evolution if you wish to try and debate it.

i know enough about evlution to debate it, remember is was indoctrinated in school :wink:[/quote:878ce]

Oh yeah, I know all about indoctrination in schools. In maths class, for example, they indoctrinated us with that nonsense about how, in a right angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

In history class, we were indoctrinated to believe that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066.

In chemistry class, they indoctrinated us to believe that a molecule of water consists of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. But this is clearly false, because the Bible simply says, "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2). Nothing about hydrogen and oxygen there! It doesn't say "God created hydrogen and oxygen, mixed them together, and saw that it was wet".

You're absolutely right. It is all indoctrination. All science is evil and should be stopped immediately.