Posted on 01/01/2009 10:56:30 AM PST by CE2949BB
As 2008 drew to a close, the good news for the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was that their creationist propaganda movie was getting a bit of press again. The bad news is that it was in the lists of the worst movies of 2008. The Onion's A.V. Club (December 16, 2008), was quickest out of the gate, commenting, "There are terrible movies, and then there are terrible movies that cause harm to society by feeding into its ignorance. Nathan Frankowski's odious anti-evolution documentary belongs in the latter category. ... Few moments in cinema in 2008 were as shameless and disgusting as the Expelled sequence where Stein solemnly visits a Nazi death camp and unsubtly links 'survival of the fittest' theory to the Holocaust."
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
Too bad he had to fake parts of it, like hiring extras to get “students” in the lecture hall, etc.
That’s as good a theory as I’ve heard yet.
Longstanding Theory Of Origin Of Species In Oceans Challenged
I brought it up because it was another example of the term "theory" being applied to origin speculation, and whe that speculation is found to be in error, it falsely implies that there is something wrong with real scientific theory.
Evolutionists like to then blame creationists for misunderstanding science, but the fault is with those who try to slip their historical reconstruction into the popular culture by mislabeling it "science".
If a real scientific theory had to be re-written every time some new discovery was made, we'd lose all interest in trusting science. True science should wise up and cut the evolutionists off before the evolutionists ruin the public's trust in real science (of course, global warming will do that anyway -- the scientists are looking particularly bad this year since they refused to stand up to people like Al Gore).
You read some things into my post that I did not say. However, if you mean by “different information” that there has ever been a gain in information, then you are mistaken. Some loss of genetic information results in a positive survival potential, like the black moths in a soot laden environment. However, mutation has no means of creating information. At best, like with some bacteria, there can be a sharing of information that greatly strengthens a new strain, but that still does not result in the creation of new genetic information. Can you explain how genetic information came into being? Great mathematicians have determined it to be an impossibility (not improbability)to have occurred from natural causes, even if you assume hundreds of millions of years. Have you read Strobel’s book that I cited in my previous post? It is worth the time.
The “theory” of evolution is a huge glitch.
Evolution is not even a “theory”.
By their own scientific definition, evolution” it is a hypothesis. It is truly tragic to watch science become an atheist propaganda machine that dumbs people DOWN.
BTW, Happy New Year and thanks for the ping.
I truly lack patience for arrogant people that wish to remain dumbed down. Their arguments that Creation is all about “religion” are laughable and worn out. Objective science supports Creation.
One of the main atheists makes no bones about it:
In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion.
He prefers to be like the old Greeks. He worships “knowledge” and wants to play the role a “god”. The true God is his enemy and highlights how dumb down he truly is. All his pompous rhetoric exemplifies he is what he is what he claims others are - it's the same game liberals play - calling OTHERS what they are.
The Onion’s AV Club’s reviews are real.
“Evolution is not even a “theory”.”
I’m going to regret getting involved in this thread, but out of curiosity, how is evolution not a theory?
Sorry. But when people claim that there can't be "new" genetic information they are usually creationists disputing evolution.
However, if you mean by “different information” that there has ever been a gain in information, then you are mistaken.
The term "new information" is a stumbling block here. I realize why it is used--because of an inherent religious belief that evolution can't occur, but otherwise that term is nonproductive. What is the distinction, for example, between new information and different information? The fact that different genetic information can arise and perform different functions makes the term "new information" meaningless.
Some loss of genetic information results in a positive survival potential, like the black moths in a soot laden environment.
So does different information. So does new information. There is no mechanism that I know of that requires there always to be a loss of genetic information. That to me is a religious concept deriving from belief in "the fall."
However, mutation has no means of creating information. At best, like with some bacteria, there can be a sharing of information that greatly strengthens a new strain, but that still does not result in the creation of new genetic information.
New information, different information, it doesn't matter what term you use. There are mountains of evidence to show that genetic change occurs. You are not exactly either of your parents, nor any of your ancestors. Those little mutations add up over the generations. That is change!
Can you explain how genetic information came into being?
Not my field.
Great mathematicians have determined it to be an impossibility (not improbability)to have occurred from natural causes, even if you assume hundreds of millions of years.
Didn't some mathematician also "prove" that bumblebees can't fly?
OK, I know that's not a true tale, but it has enough truth in it that it is useful for an example. Mathematicians are not generally very good at biology, and while their mathematics might be correct this is only meaningful if they have modeled the right variables, and modeled them correctly. Otherwise they have produced mathematically correct nonsense.
Here is another look at mathematics and biology that may be of interest to you:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, online lecture by Biology Professor Garrett Odell, University of Washington.Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Have you read Strobel’s book that I cited in my previous post? It is worth the time.
I have not read that work.
Do you have any evidence to back up your contentions?
Or does your entire argument consist of calling people "dumb" and "morons?"
Who is being called names in that post? not you. And what about your name calling? Scientists pride themselves on accuracy, but your accusations while repetitive become wild and off the mark. So it goes for ‘dr coyote’.
That story really had nothing to do with evolution, except as an analogy to barriers causing species to diverge.
That there is some “mess” and species don’t instantly become isoloated is pretty much common sense.
The story is fairly unremarkable. The scientists were confirming what most of us would have thought anyway.
The problem with your arguments is that they are not arguments.
They are insults masquerading as arguments in your mind.
“I hate you and you are stupid and you are why the country is going to hell” is not an argument.
Yet, that’s the level of argument you can rise to.
Prove me wrong.
Indeed they are:
Inbred Science
Unfortunately, the movie only scratched the surface. See here:
Euvolution
Is that the truth? A simple yes or no will do.
Is that the truth? A simple yes or no will do.
You keep pushing the TRVTH, and you can fight it out with the world's 4,300 other religions each of which also claims to have the TRVTH. (And this doesn't even count the different branches within each denomination!)
Science will content itself by becoming increasingly accurate. That's good enough, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.