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

[Patashu]

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.

It doesn't have to suppose many starts for abiogenesis.
For a new species, however, there WILL be a large population to begin with; speciation is a gradual process, not sudden, with the entire population gradually shifting the overall genetic density until a point is reached where the new population shares a universal reproductive trait or traits that is distinct enough from the original population to prevent them from breeding (what iss defined as speciation). So, yes, as a new species emerges it will always have a large population for random mutation and natural selection to act within; unless, of course, it is headed towards extinction.

[quote:c6385]
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".[/quote:c6385]
Nono. I said that X must have come into existence since X exists today, clearly a true statement (the alternative is life existing forever, and no scientific theory proposes this). Your sample argument is that X came from Y because Y exists today which is clearly not of the same type.

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".

That is his opinion unless backed up with evidence.

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

Research is being done into abiogenetic theories as well as artificial creation of a cell; scientists are clearly not afraid of the subject as they are working in these fields every day, even today. You cannot say that we know nothing of it now, because we know much, and more every day. Expect breakthroughs in the next decade or less.

Also, might I suggest that the reason some back away from abiogenesis is because of it being a completely unrelated theory and field to the theory of evolution, which only concerns the patterns in life and species AFTER it has been formed?

 

[BobRyan]

NEXT in "Dawkins defense" HIS argument is that HE ONLY gives interviews to CHEERLEADERS never to someone capable of objective unbiased independant thought that is looking for EVIDENCE and asking for DATA!!

at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera

Again - he SHOWS NOTHING in the video but a simple question as HIS PROOF that Christians are "evil".

He also ADMITS that he is NOT inclined to answer questions that do NOT come from Cheerleaders!!

How sad!

 

[BobRyan]

In the video we have an UNBROKEN sequence -- QUESTION and then befuddlement 11 second pause. NOTHING ELSE even Dawkins admit THIS is the correct sequence -- he just "doesn't like it".

DAWKINS -
When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question

In hindsight it MIGHT have been better to simply ENTHUSIASTICALLY answer the question and THANK them for bringing up a STRENGTH of the atheist darwinist STORY??

Why is this OBVIOUS response that SHOULD have been the "perfect softball for someone who KNOWS there to be good examples that fit the question" so "unlikely"??

It is because in the junk-science religion of atheist darwinism ANSWERS IN SCIENCE are the very thing they DON't have!

The BIGGER question is WHY anyone trying to defend either Dawkins or atheist darwinism would dare point to this response by Dawkins as if "it is a good thing" that objetive, unbiased readers would accept as "good news for Dawkins". He is basically killing his credibility as an objective scientist each time he opens his mouth!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

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"???

It is the way it is phrased. Asking for evidence for evolution is another thing, asking for evidence for evolution using an undefined, non-rigorous metric that no one has an objective definition of is another.

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!

OK, here's the problem. The creationists, when asking their question, used the term 'genetic information'. The term is undefined. If he uses a bite-sized answer and merely provides examples then, when utilizing the footage later, they can make rebuttals saying 'oh this didn't increase genetic information, just re-arranged what was already there etc etc'. He has to carefully define the term first before using it in any sort of answer, something you cannot do in such short time. Again, he was reluctant to merely provide examples since the use of the undefined term 'genetic information' allowed the creationists an out, allowed THEM to define the term later.

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???!!

It's equivalent to me asking for evidence for YECism or creationism or ID using different terminology or metrics that are given undefined and not utilized in the theory itself. Just like the term 'genetic information' it provides me an out unless you make your answer detailed enough to define the term and carefully before responding.

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

Not being able to interview Dawkins is hardly a violation of academic freedom. Not being able to publish scientific, valid, supported papers in a relevant journal would be a violation of academic freedom.

 

[Patashu]

Okay, can we stop talking about Dawkins? His ability or inability to support a theory in any particular instance does not shed light on the theory's validity as a whole. We should look instead to the evidence in all appropriate scientific fields and how well the theory, not just any proponents of it, predicts and matches up with the data.

And if you want to look for academic freedom, look in the scientific journals; inability to conduct interviews with your favourite or lease favourite scientist has no bearing on your academic freedom and I'm honestly sorry I even brought it up.

And on a sidenote I'm going to bed, it's 2:32 am here.

 

[BobRyan]

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"???

The question is SO BLAND one would EXPECT it to be on EVERY test in EVERY class on evolutionary morphology!!

It is the way it is phrased. Asking for evidence for evolution is another thing, asking for evidence for evolution using an undefined, non-rigorous metric that no one has an objective definition of is another.

1. Dawkins NEVER complains about the WAY it is asekd - in fact in the video we HAVE NO SUCH THING as "we know you have no answer for this because it is a hole in Darwinism but just in case here is a really tough one for you" -- there is NO "hold your mouth right when you ask me that question so I will have the right answer" ANYWHERE in the video OR Dawkins answer.

2. The question is THE MOST BASIC to the salient BOOTSTRAP argument for evolutionism -- it is CENTRAL to the argument IN FAVOR of atheist darwinism -- claiming that is OFF LIMITS is an extreme form of faith - but not science.

3. BTW - The fact that you feel the need to hedge when an objective standard is raised speaks volumes.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay, can we stop talking about Dawkins? His ability or inability to support a theory in any particular instance does not shed light on the theory's validity as a whole.

I am not the one that brought up that revealing insight into Dawkins that we find him making in his own defense AS IF it is "a good thing". But I told you early on that it is of the form "They were not cheerleaders so I wanted to shut down the interview".

However - an open objective mind reading in an unbiased manner INSTANTLY sees the core problem that the Movie EXPELLED is exposing as soon as they read Dawkins reponse in that Link you provided.

Dawkins SHOWS the EXPELLED censorship problem in HIS OWN response and Promotes it like "he is doing himself a favor"!!

Read him carefully AND objectively for just one second and tell me what you see.

A good nights sleep to you in the mean time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And if you want to look for academic freedom, look in the scientific journals; inability to conduct interviews with your favourite or lease favourite scientist has no bearing on your academic freedom and I'm honestly sorry I even brought it up.

And on a sidenote I'm going to bed, it's 2:32 am here.

Get Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" read it objectively.

NOTICE the incident HE highlights that was published in the journal of Nature where the Paleontologists at the British Museum of Natural history TRIED to come clean on at least SOME of the gaps in atheist darwinism -- and were rabidly shut down.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

Well, how about you define "information" and provide a metric how we can quantify it.

 

[BobRyan]

Genetic information- new features needed for the atheist darwinist story telling of "descent with modification" such that a tree-dweling hyrax eventually becomes a modern horse capable of taking armies into battle.

You know -- atheist darwinist "story telling" where simple life forms (single celled organisms) eventually evolve into human brains. Something that Isaac Asimov admits would require "A MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy" -- "obviously"

Have at it.

 

[jwu]

I don't see an actual definition in your post, neither a metric which helps us to measure how much information something actually contains.

 

[BobRyan]

Hint - even atheist darwinists admit that the presence of enzymes and proteins activates/deactivates specific genes AND that the genetic combination provides for changes -- minor adaptation.

The question is can atheist darwinism show that "it goes beyond that to CREATE mamals"

Anyway -- go where the data leads -- forget the censorship of atheist darwinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

--- Remember? -- 2

 

[Rick W]

I haven't followed this thread so I'm not about to attempt to add much except the usage of the word "science".
Science produces data. That's all science does. The scientist produces the conclusions. Science does not say evolution is right or wrong. Science doesn't say how old the earth is or how old the universe is. The scientist says that, it's him/her that produces the conclusion.
Science is not against God.
Science is the God-given gift to man that he may stand in ever-increasing awe of His glory and power.
But many don't do that. Instead the gift is used to "prove" there is no giver... that man, through his wisdom, made it for himself. And it's through that arrogance that man strives to become god.

 

[BobRyan]

(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.

You are getting close to the problem -- EXACTLY!

Einstein is using "REAL" science it WAS updated with Quantum Physics but the science is "hard science" the math is not "fraudulent" it is testable, verifiable, repeatable. It's arguments may be updated or corrected but the DATA is not "fraudulent".

In the case of atheist darwinism the DATA ITSELF is fraudulent.

Please look at the examples carefully to see how they got the data.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rick W]

Data.
Observation is basic.
The fish Christ created to feed the multitudes...
If you were given one of these fishes and not knowing where it came from how old would one say it is? 6 months? A year maybe? By all the data one could collect from the fish one would be compelled to conclude an age much greater than an hour, a few hours or even a day.
The process by which it would have come to being would "prove" it's age. Digestion of other organic matter is a process that can produce the meat, over time, that one is about to eat. By all the data available the age of that fish would have to be in accordance to all the natural things around us. The data would literally "scream" an age of months or a year or more. One sees it, feels it, smells it, tastes it... yes, this fish definately has age.
But the truth is that the wrong conclusion was made.

 

[BobRyan]

I haven't followed this thread so I'm not about to attempt to add much except the usage of the word "science".
Science produces data. That's all science does. The scientist produces the conclusions. Science does not say evolution is right or wrong. Science doesn't say how old the earth is or how old the universe is. The scientist says that, it's him/her that produces the conclusion.
Science is not against God.
Science is the God-given gift to man that he may stand in ever-increasing awe of His glory and power.
But many don't do that. Instead the gift is used to "prove" there is no giver... that man, through his wisdom, made it for himself. And it's through that arrogance that man strives to become god.

This raises a good point. Science includes the ability to collect data and then to use some kind of "guess" to interpret the data. The various models yield different interpretation of the same data and or different predictions about what data you should be able to fine in the future.

But take the case of the fraudulent horse series as an example -- actual fossils "real data" were found and then "arranged into a sequence" as if the "sequence" was also "data found". If this had been real science the one with the fossils would have said "we have these fossils but have no evidence that they are in this specific sequence. However if it ever turned out that they ARE confined to this specific sequence THEN it lends credibility to what darwinism would have expected". THEN when that sequence "That never happened in nature" according to Atheist darwinist today -- was of course 'never found" we would have 'no harm no foul" just an "interesting prediction" of a sequence we should one day " EXPECT to find in the rocks" that never worked out in favor of atheist darwinism. It would at least have been "science" even if it was in service to an erroneous theory.

INSTEAD that made up SEQUENCE was touted as "Fact" as "the best evidence for evolutionsim" and then memorialized in the Smithsonian AND in children's text books for decades!!

Only in the realm of true junk-science to these kinds of frauds surface year after year in efforts to make it appear acceptable and then when they are exposed -- the followers of that myth try to get people to ignore what this says about the junk-science system that "produced it".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rick W]

Yeah, I remember those horse charts in science class back in the late 60s. All nice and tidy, from step to step, up to the horse of today.
But unless I miss my guess it's been found that such isn't the case.

 

[BobRyan]

That is true. The "Sequence was contrived" and shortly after Simpson's book was published even atheist darwinists were going on record admitting that the sequence had been faked "it never happened in nature" is their exact quote.

In fact atheist darwinist now flatly deny that "smooth transitional sequences" even happen - though fraudulently portrayed in that horse series in children's text books and at the Smithsonian.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

We have not observed any evolutionary sequences, no, but the fact is that the evolutionary explanation for the fossils we see is the BEST explanation for them. Evolution predicts a twin nested hierarchy, that is what we find. Evolution predicts intermediates between ancient and modern species, that is what we find. Creationism does not predict these nor does any other established theory.

You cannot just collect data, you must then ask 'What known theory best explains all this data under a related consistent framework?'