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

[Patashu]

BobRyan, you have already been told that Mitochondrial Adam and Y-chromosome Eve relate to the biblical characters after which they were facetiously named ONLY in name and in gender. They are the last common ancestor of only parts of the genome not the entire thing, and lived tens of thousands of years ago with thousands of years between them. Please stop using them as an example of evidence for creationism and a young earth. They are not.

Special and general relativity were theorized by Einstein, an atheist (at best a deist and not by any stretch of the term christian). Does that invalidate relativity? No, because despite Einstein's personal dispositions we can experimentally confirm it in the lab and in the universe around us.

The big bang theory was proposed originally by a Catholic. Evolution originally by a Christian. This does not make them wrong or right. However, the evidence we see conforms to these theories better than any other out there.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, you have already been told that Mitochondrial Adam and Y-chromosome Eve relate to the biblical characters after which they were facetiously named ONLY in name and in gender.

You post that like this is some kind of interesting fact. Why are you talking about "the names"????

The point of the post was "makind's decent from a single mother" and "mankind's descent from a single father" -- a detail that the Bible ALSO predicts in it's factual and trustworthy presentation of the historic fact of Adam and Eve.

"The point" was the "common ancestor -- single mother, single father".

The names were never mentioned as "proof of something".

Special and general relativity were theorized by Einstein, an atheist (at best a deist and not by any stretch of the term christian). Does that invalidate relativity? No

True -- Einstein never argued "E EVOLED into e=mc2 over time" he never used atheist darwinian theology in his Math or physics.

Here again you completely missed the point. My post was in response to the wild question that was of the form "Why don't Bible believing Christians doubt actual SCIENCE why do they just doubt the junk-science religion of atheist darwinism?".

I simply pointed out that much of the EXISTING sciences CAME ABOUT because of Christians and that the problem is the junk-science methods of atheist darwinism AS CONTRASTED to the REAL sciences of things like chemistry, physics, calculus etc.

The big bang theory was proposed originally by a Catholic.

It is not at all clear that "the big bang" (the UNIVERSE appearing in an instant of time -- of the form God SAID and IT WAS) is at all opposed to the expected from a Bible believing Christian POV.

As I said - our math and science was given to us in large part by Christians.

Evolution originally by a Christian. This does not make them wrong or right. However, the evidence we see conforms to these theories better than any other out there.

Darwin did recognize that his theories were contrary to the Bible and incompatible with faith in God so eventually he died as an atheist.

However my point was to address the "wild question" about why Christians only doubt the debunked discredited junk-science religion we know of today as atheist darwinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

BobRyan, you have already been told that Mitochondrial Adam and Y-chromosome Eve relate to the biblical characters after which they were facetiously named ONLY in name and in gender.

You post that like this is some kind of interesting fact. Why are you talking about "the names"????

The point of the post was "makind's decent from a single mother" and "mankind's descent from a single father" -- a detail that the Bible ALSO predicts in it's factual and trustworthy presentation of the historic fact of Adam and Eve.

"The point" was the "common ancestor -- single mother, single father".

The names were never mentioned as "proof of something".

Last common ancestor, not only common ancestor. In either 'Adam' or 'Eve''s time there would have been a whole human population; these are just the two humans that are the most recent common ancestor for a universal trait of the genome. Nothing to do with the first male, nothing to do with the first female. No connection to Genesis, no evidence for Genesis.

[quote:b476f]
Special and general relativity were theorized by Einstein, an atheist (at best a deist and not by any stretch of the term christian). Does that invalidate relativity? No

True -- Einstein never argued "E EVOLED into e=mc2 over time" he never used atheist darwinian theology in his Math or physics.[/quote:b476f]
Einstein did not mention God or Jesus once in any of his theories, papers or equations. How is relativity not an atheistic theory?
If not referring to a religion or deity does not qualify as atheistic, what does? Atheism, after all, literally means 'no god' and relativity sure doesn't talk about gods.

[quote:b476f]
Evolution originally by a Christian. This does not make them wrong or right. However, the evidence we see conforms to these theories better than any other out there.

Darwin did recognize that his theories were contrary to the Bible and incompatible with faith in God so eventually he died as an atheist.[/quote:b476f]
Actually, he became an agnostic over what he saw as the senseless loss of her daughter, not because of his theory of evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

Your devotion to the cause of the atheist darwinist argument is admirable for an example of faith and devotion.

But seeing that Dawkins, Provine and even Darwin himself admitted to the atheist conclusion for Darwinism -- might as well listen to these well known atheist darwinists.

DARWIN

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus[/b]….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details///

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation[/b]…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].[/i]

[/quote]

Darwin shows the same "consistent embrace" of the religion of evolutionism instead of the Gospels that Richard Dawkings so clearly shows to be "obvious" to the thinking mind. Clearly and obviously and consistenly - evolutionism directs its devotee away from the Gospels.

 

[BobRyan]

In logica pursuit of the answer to the question -- why do Christians only dispute the junk-science of atheist darwinism? Why do they not ALSO reject real science as well? The expansion on that point is made in your argument regarding Einstein AS IF Christians SHOULD also be rejecting his work if they so clearly see the junk-science in "distinctively atheist" darwinism.

Special and general relativity were theorized by Einstein, an atheist (at best a deist and not by any stretch of the term christian). Does that invalidate relativity? No

Bob said -[size =120]
True -- Einstein never argued "E EVOLED into e=mc2 over time" he never used atheist darwinian theology in his Math or physics.

[/size]

In fact while atheist darwinism ATTACKS fellow evolutionists that DO allow for "Design" and even "a DESIGNER" without getting into what that Designer must be.

Einstein's argument NEVER attacks fellow physicists for thinking "God does not roll dice" or any such thing. Einstein leaves his argument at the level of math and science NOT dogma, pograms, censorship etc -- you know the tactics of atheist darwinists.

Einstein did not mention God or Jesus once in any of his theories, papers or equations. How is relativity not an atheistic theory?
If not referring to a religion or deity does not qualify as atheistic, what does? Atheism, after all, literally means 'no god' and relativity sure doesn't talk about gods.

Again you seem to have missed the point entirely.

I would expec that atheists and agnostics might have to imagine that "if an atheist scientist comes up with 2+2 then Bible believing Christians would have to object" -- but I doubt that Christians would need to go down that road to make that case since we all know that the junk-science frauds of atheist darwinism (Piltown man, Nebraska man, Archaeoraptor, Neanderthal ages, Simpson's horse series, Haeckles Ontogeny vs phylogeny exhibit ...) are simply staggering.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Patashu wrote:
BobRyan, you have already been told that Mitochondrial Adam and Y-chromosome Eve relate to the biblical characters after which they were facetiously named ONLY in name and in gender.

Bob said

You post that like this is some kind of interesting fact. Why are you talking about "the names"????

The point of the post was "makind's decent from a single mother" and "mankind's descent from a single father" -- a detail that the Bible ALSO predicts in it's factual and trustworthy presentation of the historic fact of Adam and Eve.

"The point" was the "common ancestor -- single mother, single father".

The names were never mentioned as "proof of something".

Patashu wrote:

Last common ancestor, not only common ancestor.

In either 'Adam' or 'Eve''s time there would have been a whole human population; these are just the two humans that are the most recent common ancestor for a universal trait of the genome.

While it is true that the atheist darwinist "story" is that at the time God said Adam was created - atheist darwinism imagines "a whole human population"

AND atheist darwinism imagines that it is very unlikely that ONLY ONE EVE would have had her descendants survive or only ONE Adam would have had his descendants survive. In fact the "prediction" from the atheist darwinist model is that NO trait for humans should boil down to "JUST ONE" for either mother OR father because it would be like saying "miracle happens here and IN THIS POPULATION only ONE individuals DNA survives".

A massively "improbable result" For atheist darwinism.

But in the Bible model that GOD GIVES -- (As if we on this board are free to consider our creator to be reliable when it comes to history or the origin of LIFE) - the "prediction" is ONE mother and ONE father.

Mitchondrial DNA is ONLY passed on by the maternal contributor -- and as it turns out we can SEE that ALL humans have inherited from the SAME contributor NOT the "same SET" or the "same POPULATION of contributors".

The same is true for y-chromosome Adam. We ONLY inherit from the father and comparison of the chromosomes across all races SHOWS that Humanity ALL inherit from the SAME male donor.

Nothing to do with the first male, nothing to do with the first female. No connection to Genesis, no evidence for Genesis.

Again - your blind faith statements no matter what science reveals are truly impressive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

So your problem is not atheism nor darwinism (whatever that is) in scientists but the tactics you percieve them to use. Would this be a correct view of your position?

Would you then object to christian, catholic, muslim or any other source of censorship of evolutionary theory? How about death threats sent to professors teaching the theory of evolution? Not an acceptable tactic, right? I can show you sources for all of these.

The problem with Expelled is that it tries to focus on the censorship of just one theory while it should focus on the problem in general.

 

[BobRyan]

So your problem is not atheism nor darwinism (whatever that is) in scientists but the tactics you percieve them to use. Would this be a correct view of your position?

I do not think it is "coincidence" that they relied on hoaxes for so many years. (and who knows what 40 year hoax is NOW in only it's 20th year yet to be revealed about atheist darwinism given it's history??). Even today they maintain their position through a combination of censorship and pograms against fellow atheists who convinced by the science data - start to question darwinist doctrines.

Would you then object to christian, catholic, muslim or any other source of censorship of evolutionary theory?

If Christians of any denomination said that "no data can be published that casts doubt on the Genesis account" I would be against it.

If Christians tried to railroad fellow scientists out of jobs because those scientists found data that was not apparently in favor of the Gensis account -- I would be against it.

If Christians behaved in any way similar to atheist darwinists today - I would oppose it.

Expelled BEGINS with the argument for "ACADEMIC FREEDOM" and ENDs with the argument "Let scientists have the FREEDOM to go where the data leads them"

EXPELLED NEVER argues "Dawkins should be censored, silenced" etc. In fact Dawkins is given time in interview to expose his true agenda -- it comes across very clearly in the film. Go see it before you complain about it. Allow yourself some intellectual freedom.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

While it is true that the atheist darwinist "story" is that at the time God said Adam was created - atheist darwinism imagines "a whole human population"

AND atheist darwinism imagines that it is very unlikely that ONLY ONE EVE would have had her descendants survive or only ONE Adam would have had his descendants survive. In fact the "prediction" from the atheist darwinist model is that NO trait for humans should boil down to "JUST ONE" for either mother OR father because it would be like saying "miracle happens here and IN THIS POPULATION only ONE individuals DNA survives".

OK, it took me a while to figure out what you were saying. Here's how 'only one eve or only one adam would have her descendants survive':

Note that the traits these two are most recent common ancestors for are only passed on through one gender. Consider all of those dots one female and you will see that, eventually, a female-only trait will either be universal throughout the human population or go extinct (barring for eventual mutations which will themselves either go towards universality or go extinct)

Mitchondrial DNA is ONLY passed on by the maternal contributor -- and as it turns out we can SEE that ALL humans have inherited from the SAME contributor NOT the "same SET" or the "same POPULATION of contributors".

The same is true for y-chromosome Adam. We ONLY inherit from the father and comparison of the chromosomes across all races SHOWS that Humanity ALL inherit from the SAME male donor.

Yep, and the diagram shows that eventually, even with a full human population, a male or female only trait will either become universal with a most recent common ancestor or go extinct.

It's from here if you're up for some reading: http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/ ... ver_go.php

 

[Patashu]

So your problem is not atheism nor darwinism (whatever that is) in scientists but the tactics you percieve them to use. Would this be a correct view of your position?

I do not think it is "coincidence" that they relied on hoaxes for so many years.

The theory of evolution does not rely on hoaxes; they are uncovered as frauds, by scientists, and then no longer considered evidence of anything.

(and who knows what 40 year hoax is NOW in only it's 20th year yet to be revealed about atheist darwinism given it's history??).

Any piece of evidence COULD be a hoax. The theory of relativity could all be a hoaxes. The question should be, is it? Or how can we tell? The more evidence that stacks up for a theory from independant sources and even fields of study the more plausible it is unless you're willing to call conspiracy conspiracy.

Even today they maintain their position through a combination of censorship and pograms against fellow atheists who convinced by the science data - start to question darwinist doctrines.

What censorship? Dawkins let Ben Stein into his house to interview him, didn't he? ID has its own journal, ISCID, and that is not censored by anyone. I hear ICR (I think it's ICR) is getting a new creationism science journal too, is that being censored?

Would you then object to christian, catholic, muslim or any other source of censorship of evolutionary theory?

If Christians of any denomination said that "no data can be published that casts doubt on the Genesis account" I would be against it.

Okay, how about this. Check out AIG's statement of faith:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

You need to believe in all of that to work for AIG. Can you name and show any scientific establishment that requires you to be an atheist to work with them?

If Christians tried to railroad fellow scientists out of jobs because those scientists found data that was not apparently in favor of the Gensis account -- I would be against it.

So you would oppose, say, this?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... -in-c.html
If so, good, we're finding common ground.

P.S. I'm unable to actually see Expelled; it's not out here in Sydney, Australia where I live, and I'm not even sure if it's coming here. I have to go off what other people say about it.

 

[BobRyan]

Note that the traits these two are most recent common ancestors for are only passed on through one gender. Consider all of those dots one female and you will see that, eventually, a female-only trait will either be universal throughout the human population or go extinct (barring for eventual mutations which will themselves either go towards universality or go extinct)

This is a perfect illustration of my objection to the lack of reason and thought that goes into atheist darwinism. You simply provide diagram "for the miracle" of having only ONE ancestor. But NOTHING about that diagram "SHOWS" that this this "miracle" is the "most likely scenario".

you simply "diagram the miracle" as if drawing it makes it "more likely".

It does not.

The fact is that evolutionism HAS to suppose MANY 'starts" for abiogenesis and many "starts" for each species (just as you do in your diagram) -- not ONE LUCKY PAIR. So it is easy to see that the STARTing scenario fits what atheist darwinism EXPECTS.

But now to explain why the RESULTS do not REFLECT it!!>?????

The more the stories end up with "one luck pair's descendants survive" at each of those steps the more incredible (scientifically and statistically UNLIKELY) the result!!

Imagine a world populated by 10 million hominids where suddenly in ALL parts of the world ALL descendants of ALL progenators BUT ONE (no matter how they have mixed and dispersed) ALL DIE of disease and starvation and predation -- either in a generation or a million generations -- the statistics only get worse the longer you let it go and THEN try to filter down TO ONE set of descendants because of the way they mix we do expect that some may die out -- but atheist darwinist "predicted they ALL would die out but one" UNTIL they found that this is what the data shows today for Eve and Adam.

What bible believing Christian would not "notice this"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Even today they maintain their position through a combination of censorship and pograms against fellow atheists who convinced by the science data - start to question darwinist doctrines.

What censorship? Dawkins let Ben Stein into his house

[/quote]

Your faithful devotion to the lock-step support you have for atheist darwinist is impressive. I have never doubted you on that -- and your statement above is living proof.

1. Dawkins COMPLAINED when he saw the movie that he only LET Ben talk to him because he expected a more favorable outcome on BEHALF of atheist darwinism.

2. Dawkins did the SAME thing for the team that came to his home from Australia as soon as they asked him for ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE SUPPORTING the atheist darwinist claim of INCREASED genetic information inserted into a species due to darwinian undirected random breeding - or natural selection. He complained that HE WOULD NOT allow them in had He known they were not simple cheerleaders and yes-men.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If Christians of any denomination said that "no data can be published that casts doubt on the Genesis account" I would be against it.

Okay, how about this. Check out AIG's statement of faith:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

You need to believe in all of that to work for AIG. Can you name and show any scientific establishment that requires you to be an atheist to work with them?

You need to get out more I think.

In the Dover Pensylvania trial the whole REASON that the school board was put on trial is that they had a ONE PARAGRAPH statement in an otherwise PURELY ATHEIST DARWINIAN science class. And the ONE paragraph statement said that although the students would be brainwashed with pure atheist darwinism dogma non-stop and no matter what the science data -- during that semester "There EXISTS other theories to answer the same questions" and in fact "There EXISTS IN THE LIBRARY" a book that students are free to check out on their own initiative "OF Pandas and People".

The RANK censorship is of the form " you can't let them know the book EXISTS or that there are competing solutions"!!!

I think it is truly sad that followers of atheist darwinism do not even BLINK at such horrible tactics.

NOTHING of that sort can be found by Christian groups -- filing suit in public court and attacking school boards for ADMITTING THE EXISTENCE of competing ideas or the EXISTENCE of a book in the library.

BUT IMAGINE for a moment if Christiand today DID SUCH A THING??!!!

Now - your post also gets to another interesting level - you presume in the statement above that all Christian institutions are evil.

Don't you "at least" have to be Christian to engage in this?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

Note that the traits these two are most recent common ancestors for are only passed on through one gender. Consider all of those dots one female and you will see that, eventually, a female-only trait will either be universal throughout the human population or go extinct (barring for eventual mutations which will themselves either go towards universality or go extinct)

This is a perfect illustration of my objection to the lack of reason and thought that goes into atheist darwinism. You simply provide diagram "for the miracle" of having only ONE ancestor. But NOTHING about that diagram "SHOWS" that this this "miracle" is the "most likely scenario".

you simply "diagram the miracle" as if drawing it makes it "more likely".

It does not.

If you read the link I provided you can experiment with the idea yourself. It's not a 'miracle', it is simply statistically likely that one of the traits will become universal given enough time. It's not like he doesn't tell you how he constructed these diagrams, because he does.

The fact is that evolutionism HAS to suppose MANY 'starts" for abiogenesis and many "starts" for each species (just as you do in your diagram) -- not ONE LUCKY PAIR. So it is easy to see that the STARTing scenario fits what atheist darwinism EXPECTS.

Evolution doesn't say anything about abiogenesis; it starts from the assumption that at some point life existed, which is clearly true since it exists today.

These diagrams depict a situation way, way into the history of life; this isn't something you'd get the instant you have a simple replicator on Earth, this is after sexual reproduction has been established. It's not so much multiple starts as the large population of a species available in any given generation. Nothing to do with abiogenesis.

But now to explain why the RESULTS do not REFLECT it!!>?????

The more the stories end up with "one luck pair's descendants survive" at each of those steps the more incredible (scientifically and statistically UNLIKELY) the result!!

Imagine a world populated by 10 million hominids where suddenly in ALL parts of the world ALL descendants of ALL progenators BUT ONE (no matter how they have mixed and dispersed) ALL DIE of disease and starvation and predation -- either in a generation or a million generations -- the statistics only get worse the longer you let it go and THEN try to filter down TO ONE set of descendants because of the way they mix we do expect that some may die out -- but atheist darwinist "predicted they ALL would die out but one" UNTIL they found that this is what the data shows today for Eve and Adam.

As the diagram shows, all the bearers of differing traits do not have to die out all at once; even if it is staggered the trait will become universal. Did you even look at it before posting? I am not proposing that all but one or two humans died all at once, because for a trait that passes only along the female or only along the male this does not have to happen.

Your objections would be completely correct, IF that was my view.

 

[BobRyan]

If you read the link I provided you can experiment with the idea yourself. It's not a 'miracle', it is simply statistically likely that one of the traits will become universal given enough time. It's not like he doesn't tell you how he constructed these diagrams, because he does.

I suppose your devotion to atheist darwinism at this point demands such a response.

Your argument is of the form "IF humanity should survive for 10 millionyears the ONLY people left on the plant will ALL happen to be descenants from a couple living today in Japan working a sheep farm".

The odds against that "being the result" are staggering -- but not too staggering for true believers in atheist darwinism "no matter what science shows".

By CONTRAST let's consider the model that God gave.

"If that couple in JAPAN are the ONLY humans on earth then even thousands of generations later it will turn out that ALL the humans on the planet are STILL just descendants of that one couple".

Which one is more "statistically obvious"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

Bob said
Even today they maintain their position through a combination of censorship and pograms against fellow atheists who convinced by the science data - start to question darwinist doctrines.

[quote:0b720]
What censorship? Dawkins let Ben Stein into his house

[/quote:0b720]

Your faithful devotion to the lock-step support you have for atheist darwinist is impressive. I have never doubted you on that -- and your statement above is living proof.

1. Dawkins COMPLAINED when he saw the movie that he only LET Ben talk to him because he expected a more favorable outcome on BEHALF of atheist darwinism.

2. Dawkins did the SAME thing for the team that came to his home from Australia as soon as they asked him for ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE SUPPORTING the atheist darwinist claim of INCREASED genetic information inserted into a species due to darwinian undirected random breeding - or natural selection. He complained that HE WOULD NOT allow them in had He known they were not simple cheerleaders and yes-men.

in Christ,

Bob[/quote]

Hmm, let me try this again.

The reason Dawkins is not fond for interviews with creationists is because of his personal experience and track record of interviews with creationists. He has found that in the past they are prone to spinning, misrepresenting or misleadingly editing the footage that they get. In fact, the very example in your point number 2 HAS been edited to make it look like Dawkins has no answer for the question. In addition, he could in deed answer the question, as he has done so in full depth here: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
The reason he paused is because he was 1. surprised by the fact that these creationists had lied to him and mislead him to get into his house for an interview, and 2. because he didn't want to rush the answer. There's so much to go over and a bite-sized attempt would be easy to misinterpret.

Maybe that wasn't a good example though. How about the fact that Gentry's original work on polonium halos was published just fine in a scientific journal? ID and creationism's own scientific journals that cannot be censored by atheism?

 

[BobRyan]

The fact is that evolutionism HAS to suppose MANY 'starts" for abiogenesis and many "starts" for each species (just as you do in your diagram) -- not ONE LUCKY PAIR. So it is easy to see that the STARTing scenario fits what atheist darwinism EXPECTS.

Evolution doesn't say anything about abiogenesis; it starts from the assumption that at some point life existed, which is clearly true since it exists today.

That bit of circular reasoning is like saying "WE all came from easter bunnies -we KNOW this to be true since bunnies exist today".

This is why Colin Patterson could say that telling stories about "how one thing came from another is simiply STORIES EASY enough to tell but they are NOT science".

God created just as he said in Gen 1-2:3 and in Exodus 20:8-11 and given that NOT ONLY do we have single-celled organisms but ALL of the diversity of life we see today.

The only reason that atheist darwinists (at least some of them) back away from abiogenesis is that this is the SIMPLEST UNIT of life and should be the MOST susceptible to "evolutionary process manipulated and manufactured in the lab". Yet it is "infinitely beyond our technology" EVEN at this MOST BASIC level.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

If Christians of any denomination said that "no data can be published that casts doubt on the Genesis account" I would be against it.

[quote:0c720]
Okay, how about this. Check out AIG's statement of faith:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

You need to believe in all of that to work for AIG. Can you name and show any scientific establishment that requires you to be an atheist to work with them?

You need to get out more I think.

In the Dover Pensylvania trial the whole REASON that the school board was put on trial is that they had a ONE PARAGRAPH statement in an otherwise PURELY ATHEIST DARWINIAN science class.[/quote:0c720]
Germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, quantum physics, relativity. All of these do not mention God or religion. Are they atheistic theories? Is a science class that includes all of these an atheistic science class? Does that give an excuse to include Hindu theories about the creation of the earth and universe?

And the ONE paragraph statement said that although the students would be brainwashed with pure atheist darwinism dogma non-stop

Atomic theory and chemistry are pure atheist darwinism dogma non-stop? I'm sorry, but a scientific theory does not have to make a reference to christianity every other sentence. There is no religious requirement.

and no matter what the science data -- during that semester "There EXISTS other theories to answer the same questions" and in fact "There EXISTS IN THE LIBRARY" a book that students are free to check out on their own initiative "OF Pandas and People".

Okay, the problem is this:
In science class, you teach the scientific consensus. Why? Because this is what all the scientists of the relative field, who have done tests, gathered and interpreted evidence such so that the most accurate and predictive theory is brought forth, have concluded is the most accurate theory.
In the science of biology, the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is correct. The scientific consensus is also that intelligent design is not science, has no theory and has no predictive power ergo no ability to explain phenomenon nor be used to design or apply..
So, just like a science classroom doesn't reach hindu creation stories, geocentricism, flat earthism or intelligent falling as plausible alternatives to the scientific consensus, so too should it not teach intelligent design.
If proponents of intelligent design wish for their theory to be treated as science and furthermore as more accurate, reliable and with more predictable power with evolution they should not try to confuse school students into accepting a theory scientifically when it does not yet have scientific merit; they should go out and do the research, write the scientific papers, formulate the hypotheses of intelligent design and present the evidence that support these hypotheses BETTER than evolution and whatever other theories ID tries to supercede.
Yet they do not. They even have their own journal to publish in, ISCID, if mainstream journals actually are being censored, but they don't even publish there; it has been lifeless for years.
If ID is science where are the publications? Where are the applications? Would you teach an idea as a plausible scientific theory in high school science class if it has shown no plausibility, no applications, no merit and no worth?
By the way, books are no substitute for scientific papers.

The RANK censorship is of the form " you can't let them know the book EXISTS or that there are competing solutions"!!!

It would be perfectly okay to have the books available in the library but not to go further and say that it is equally as valid as the theory of evolution when they clearly are not.

I think it is truly sad that followers of atheist darwinism do not even BLINK at such horrible tactics.

NOTHING of that sort can be found by Christian groups -- filing suit in public court and attacking school boards for ADMITTING THE EXISTENCE of competing ideas or the EXISTENCE of a book in the library.

BUT IMAGINE for a moment if Christiand today DID SUCH A THING??!!!

Now - your post also gets to another interesting level - you presume in the statement above that all Christian institutions are evil.

Don't you "at least" have to be Christian to engage in this?

in Christ,

Bob

If, say, a christian school did not teach evolution in science class, would you say this constitutes as censorship? Just as an example.

 

[Patashu]

If you read the link I provided you can experiment with the idea yourself. It's not a 'miracle', it is simply statistically likely that one of the traits will become universal given enough time. It's not like he doesn't tell you how he constructed these diagrams, because he does.

I suppose your devotion to atheist darwinism at this point demands such a response.

Your argument is of the form "IF humanity should survive for 10 millionyears the ONLY people left on the plant will ALL happen to be descenants from a couple living today in Japan working a sheep farm".

I have not argued this. The traits in question descend only through the male or through the female, they are most recent common ancestors only of those kinds of traits.

Could you try to stay on argument here?

 

[BobRyan]

1. Dawkins COMPLAINED when he saw the movie that he only LET Ben talk to him because he expected a more favorable outcome on BEHALF of atheist darwinism.

2. Dawkins did the SAME thing for the team that came to his home from Australia as soon as they asked him for ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE SUPPORTING the atheist darwinist claim of INCREASED genetic information inserted into a species due to darwinian undirected random breeding - or natural selection. He complained that HE WOULD NOT allow them in had He known they were not simple cheerleaders and yes-men.

Hmm, let me try this again.

The reason Dawkins is not fond for interviews with creationists is because of his personal experience and track record of interviews with creationists. He has found that in the past they are prone to spinning, misrepresenting or misleadingly editing the footage that they get. In fact, the very example in your point number 2 HAS been edited to make it look like Dawkins has no answer for the question. In addition, he could in deed answer the question, as he has done so in full depth here: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

Now for "the truth" from the mouth of Dawkins minus the propaganda and spin-doctoring that fellow atheist darwinist try to do for him to "save him from himself".

From YOUR website for Dawkins

they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask

What kind of blind mindwashed perspective does one have to have to think that "asking for EVIDENCE" or in fact even "ONE CASE" of evidence IN FAVOR of blind atheist darwinism -- is "a truculent challenge"???

How much BETTER to have immediately jumped in with "OH YES very happy to do this out of the millions of examples I can think of 4 immediately. This is an EXCELLENT example of just how rock solid atheist darwinism is established in science. First we have archaeoraptor and then the debunked horse series simpson published in the 1950's let me show you just how wonderful these examples are" -- ok maybe he would hide the blunders -- but still IF HE BELIEVES in his system he should be EXTATIC to put it on display where it is THE STRONGEST!

But instead to even ASK for hard evidence is "TRUCULANT"???? - What kind of devotee - following would you NEED to get such a statement published and then accepted as "YEAH! RIGHT clobber du bums!" as the response???!!

When someone complains "We have no academic freedom" you have only to go Dawkins OWN STATEMENT above for "living PROOF".

And THEN the icing is that ANYBODY would be soooo proud of that followup BLUNDER that they would actually PROMOTE it in Dawkins' defense!!

Shocking!!

You have to know that we have readers here capable of independant objetive thought! Why would you want to promote such utter failing by Dawkins as "a defense"???

in Christ,

Bob