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

[John]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o7OSNDq ... re=related

 

[Barbarian]

As I said, it will be along time before you see any evidence. They lied about Sternberg being fired. They lied about him losing his research associate's appointment. And since his letter of resignation was produced, he has admitted he freely resigned from the journal.

"I saw it on YouTube" isn't going to help, either.

 

[BobRyan]

FIRST le'ts hear "substance" on the point from INDEPENDANT reviewers --

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

Exercise for the reader: Define "CAME to the SAME conclusion"

It seems simple enough to read it -- "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

Empty vaccuous "they lied" slander about the content of the Epelled movie is given here with no quote no referencce and NO "indepenant review" -- a purely "transparent" tactic for all to see.

That is what is offered to the unbiased objective reader "by contrast" to what I have given here -- let the reader decide.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

OK, so he lied about being an employee; even a friendly government appointee had to reject his claim because of that. He lied about being "run out of there," because he is still on the rolls as a research associate, and still has an office there.

So, aside from some people saying bad things about him, how exactly was he "run out of there?"

And Bob, if you are a Christian, you owe the Smithsonian an apology for repeating those false accusations.

 

[BobRyan]

FIRST le'ts hear "substance" on the point from INDEPENDANT reviewers --

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

Exercise for the reader: Define "CAME to the SAME conclusion"

It seems simple enough to read it -- "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

Empty vaccuous "they lied" slander about the content of the Epelled movie is given here with no quote no referencce and NO "indepenant review" -- a purely "transparent" tactic for all to see.

That is what is offered to the unbiased objective reader "by contrast" to what I have given here -- let the reader decide.

Bob

I love these little empty atheist darwinst "believer" games.

I ALSO lilke the "quote the perp not an independant reviewer" tactic Barbarian uses as well.

Why not quote the movie Expelled followed by "indepenant review" by some agency not eating the atheiist darwinist "dog food" as they say? Oh wait! I know! "It's because you don't have any".

What a "contrast" for the objective unbiased reader -- eh?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

I love these little empty atheist darwinst "believer" games.

So tell us, Bob; when Sternberg claimed to be an employee of the Smithsonian, was he telling the truth, or was he lying?

I ALSO lilke the "quote the perp not an independant reviewer" tactic Barbarian uses as well.

And tell us Bob, since Sternberg claimed he was "run out of there", did he or did he not have his Research Associate Status renewed by the Smithsonian?

Why not quote...

How about some facts, instead? Did he or did he not lie about those things? Did the Smithsonian fail to renew his Associateship? Was he an employee of the Smithsonian as he claimed? Or did he lie?

Was the "objective observer" you touted, lying when he wrote Sternberg that his complaint was being dismissed because he was not even an employee of the Smithsonian?

You could answer these questions, or you could try to cover in a cloud of "quotes."

Up to you. But people will draw conclusions.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh good - facts!

The facts are that I give INDEPENDANT validation for the statements I am making - you do not.

The facts are that you provide NO quote at ALL of Expelled and then show IT to be false.

The facts are that the Washington post article has debunked your empty attacks against Expelled -- beyond all doubt.

And when confronted with the facts concerning your own empty charges -- having nothing to base them on -- all you do is whine about a "cloud of quotes" that is by contrast to your empty accusations against Expelled?

how "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

I am suprised that the many Christians on here who do actually read science books don't speak up a bit and quit letting people like this embarass the faith.

These people don't have much in common with orthodox Christianity. Every religion has fringe elements. Unfortunately, America has more of them than most places.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a thread for believers in atheist darwinism that also want to believe in the Bible - to "make their case" -- so far that group is too timid and weak to make a case in that area.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&p=377048#p377048


And as the "Junk-science" thread for Darwinism shows - the junk-science methods for atheist darwinism are ubiquitous.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90


Bob

 

[Barbarian]

So Bob, you still need to tell us; was Sternberg fired from his job, or wasn't he? If he was, then Stein was telling the truth. If not, he's a liar.

So tell us. Was he fired, as Stein claims, or was he not?

 

[Jayls5]

So Bob, you still need to tell us; was Sternberg fired from his job, or wasn't he? If he was, then Stein was telling the truth. If not, he's a liar.

So tell us. Was he fired, as Stein claims, or was he not?

I understand your motivation for continuing discussion with Bob... that is, not give the appearance to others that there is no good opposition to his assertions... but at a certain point you should really ask yourself, "If people are stupid enough to fall for that, are they not a lost cause anyway?"

He has no interest in legitimate discussion. Ever since I ignored him, the board has looked a LOT cleaner. It's quite nice really. :wink: Ignoring is SO much easier than arguing against brick wall with a rhetorical loudspeaker.

 

[BobRyan]

As long as atheist darwinists are willing to "pretend not to understand the discussion" we are not going to get anywhere - please try to focus.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31852&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=expelled&start=15#p372834

open your minds -- let the light of truth come in.

Be willing to SEE Dawkins give his views in Expelled. SEE Provine do it -- and then SEE all those scienctists who argue that they SEE blind dogmatic censorship on behalf of darwinist orthodoxy being practiced every day!

SEE the truth of Patterson's claim --

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

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

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Begin to adopt some principles of actual "objectivity".

for a change.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Since Bob's seen (more than once) Patterson's own statement that the creationists dishonestly presented his statments, he really has no excuse, peddling this fraud. It seems that's all he's got left.

Pity.

 

[BobRyan]

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

They NEED a "fixer" each time atheist darwinist "stories about how one thing came from another" are left with "gaps in fact".

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) – to fellow atheist Darwinist Theunnissen on Patterson’s letter to Sunderland.

Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes .
The passage quoted continues
[quote:36b73]
"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

[/quote:36b73]

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob quotes Patterson here -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31852&p=389343#p389337

A quote for which Patterson has NO STATEMENT at all saying that it is dishonest or fraudulent --

But this does not stop atheist darwinist devotees from "imagining"

Since Bob's seen (more than once) Patterson's own statement that the creationists dishonestly presented his statments, he really has no excuse, peddling this fraud. It seems that's all he's got left.

Pity.

Interesting bait-and-switch by Barbarian in giving a reference to a Patterson statement about ANOTHER incident entirely -- and trying to wrench it over to the quote I gave above AS IF that transparent attempt to compromise-all regarding facts and history by Barbarian "is very compelling for some group of readers" -- must be atheist darwinist devotee readers ;-)

AS for the reference BARBARIAN is brining up -- notice what Patterson said in Barbarian's reference?

Read it for the first time -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31852&p=389343#p389342

Patterson said that the creationist quote of him (a specific instance he referrs to )

"WAS ACCURATE AS far as it goes" is spun and respun by atheist devotees to "peddling fraud" and "dishonest" when nothing of the kind is found in that reference to Patterson -- who HIMSELF argues we need to PAY ATTENTION to his point that STORIES about "how one thing came from another are STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP but they are NOT SCIENCE".

Patterson complains that NOT ENOUGH attention is given to that part of his statment -- and sadly the atheist darwinist devotees content themselves with IGNORING IT still to this very day!!

How sad that their compromise-all, deny-all, sift-and-filter all solution is not working for them as well as they had hoped!

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So Bob, you still need to tell us; was Sternberg fired from his job, or wasn't he? If he was, then Stein was telling the truth. If not, he's a liar.

So tell us. Was he fired, as Stein claims, or was he not?

I understand your motivation for continuing discussion with Bob... that is, not give the appearance to others that there is no good opposition to his assertions... but at a certain point you should really ask yourself, "If people are stupid enough to fall for that, are they not a lost cause anyway?"

He has no interest in legitimate discussion. Ever since I ignored him, the board has looked a LOT cleaner. It's quite nice really. :wink: Ignoring is SO much easier than arguing against brick wall with a rhetorical loudspeaker.

I think I will make use of that nice feature myself

 

[Barbarian]

I know that it would be pleasant to avoid Bob entirely. But the important thing here is education, and although Bob is sometimes tedious in repeating foolish ideas endlessly, he serves a useful purpose in that lurkers and others who have not made a decision on the matter can see Bob's behavior, and the facts that he attempts to cover over, and are thereby better informed as to the issue and the nature of creationism.

And that's a very good thing. It requires a great deal of patience, but I'm a very patient guy. And Bob is a very, very useful fellow for evolutionists to have on the board.

 

[Guest]

I know that it would be pleasant to avoid Bob entirely. But the important thing here is education, and although Bob is sometimes tedious in repeating foolish ideas endlessly, he serves a useful purpose in that lurkers and others who have not made a decision on the matter can see Bob's behavior, and the facts that he attempts to cover over, and are thereby better informed as to the issue and the nature of creationism.

And that's a very good thing. It requires a great deal of patience, but I'm a very patient guy. And Bob is a very, very useful fellow for evolutionists to have on the board.

Agreed. A bit like that Hovind guy and Venomfang X on Youtube. Good poster boys to outline the general behaviour of the creationists. I've long since realised that he's dogmatically set in his ways and that no amount of reasoning is going to change it. Case in point is this Patterson thing. Using only quotations is third hand evidence at best, especially when the validity of the statements has any level of doubt cast upon it. I am a little surprised he doesn't drop the Patterson thing though, that argument has been utterly shot to pieces over the last few threads and yet he continues to cling to it, using ignorance of how evolution actually works to back up his false interpretations. Can be somewhat frustrating.

*sigh*
I suppose you can't save everyone...

 

[BobRyan]

So Bob, you still need to tell us; was Sternberg fired from his job, or wasn't he? If he was, then Stein was telling the truth. If not, he's a liar.

So tell us. Was he fired, as Stein claims, or was he not?

Ok good - Barbarian is interested in the facts from an independant reviewer!!

FIRST le'ts hear "substance" on the point from INDEPENDANT reviewers -- Regarding the historic pogrom launched against STERNBERG

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19

-

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

Exercise for the reader: Define "CAME to the SAME conclusion"

It seems simple enough to read it -- "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

Empty vaccuous "they lied" slander about the content of the Epelled movie is given here with no quote no referencce and NO "indepenant review" -- a purely "transparent" tactic for all to see.

That is what is offered to the unbiased objective reader "by contrast" to what I have given here -- let the reader decide.

Bob

I love these little empty atheist darwinst "believer" games.

I ALSO lilke the "quote the perp not an independant reviewer" tactic Barbarian uses as well.

Why not quote the movie Expelled followed by "indepenant review" by some agency not eating the atheiist darwinist "dog food" as they say? Oh wait! I know! "It's because you don't have any".

What a "contrast" for the objective unbiased reader -- eh?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I know that it would be pleasant to avoid Bob entirely. But the important thing here is education, and although Bob is sometimes tedious in repeating foolish ideas
.

In Barbarian's "ceaseless efforts to avoid independant reviewers" on topics that HE raises -- as he can only read reviewers that pander after the atheist darwinist POV -- he continually seeks to ignore the independant review so embarrassing to his wild accusations about Sternberg.

I think it annoys Barbarian - that I do not bicker with him over his rabbit trail misdirections -- I just point to INDEPENDANT REVIEWER's conclusions and leave those conclusion to be READ "as an exercise for the reader".

Barbarian then employs the "pretend not to understand" solution for the "concept of independant reviewer" and even the concept of "objectivity" -- while accusing those who do understand these concepts as having "foolish ideas".

Sadly - such is the result of what Patterson called the "Anti-knowledge" impact of Dariwnism.

Thankfully Barbarian is very willing to make this claim -- repeatedly for all to see.

Bob