Posted on 04/17/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by Aristotelian
I confess that when the producers of Ben Stein’s new documentary “Expelled” called, offering me a private screening, I was less than excited.
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.
I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics – experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).
That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds.
(Excerpt) Read more at mrc.org ...
“...other than pointing out your dishonesty for conflating proteins and amino acids”
Neither dishonesty nor conflating taking place, only discomfiture on your part in proving Ben Stein`s point.
Now that we`ve conclusivley proven that you neo-darwinists dare not debate how life could evolve without the first protein let us now disassemble the simplistic theory using their own words.
According to Darwin`s own theory, millions and millions of transitional fossils should have been discovered, yet there is none.
As Darwin himself admitted,” The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
If continual morphing were occuring EVERY fossil would demonstrate change with many more showing bizarre useless growths leading to nothing since mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction,cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
Neither dishonesty nor conflating taking place, only discomfiture on your part in proving Ben Stein`s point.So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins?Now that we`ve conclusivley proven that you neo-darwinists dare not debate how life could evolve without the first protein let us now disassemble the simplistic theory using their own words.
According to Darwin`s own theory, millions and millions of transitional fossils should have been discovered, yet there is none. As Darwin himself admitted,” The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
If continual morphing were occuring EVERY fossil would demonstrate change with many more showing bizarre useless growths leading to nothing since mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction,cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
“So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? “
So far most of your assumptions have been false. The line from Bozell`s column:
“One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens”
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
So far most of your assumptions have been false. The line from Bozell`s column:I don't see any proteins in your quote, just "organic matter". So you admit your were lying?“One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens”
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
Discomfiture on your part, proving Ben Stein`s point and more.
So far most of your assumptions have been false. The line from Bozell`s column:
“One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens”
“So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? ...I don’t see any proteins in your quote, just “organic matter”. So you admit your were lying? “
Alright? See your problem yet with your total confusion?
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
What you mean "we," White Man?
I trust the Lord didn't plant false evidence on earth. I trust the Lord didn't make men curious to dig into the physical past liars and evildoers in opposition to Him; indeed I trust the that scientists of many disciplines are like us all made in His image, and He gives us free will and permission to explore our world and He gifts us with many things -- music, curious natures, pursuit of knowledge, all of which are vital ingredients if we want to thrive as He wants us to.
Some of all humans are flawed and wicked just like some of us non-scientists are flawed and wicked. One who would pit scientists against God and call it "truth" is engaging in falseness. I also trust the Lord when he says that truth is right and good, and if truth is that natural selection brought us to where we are today, I know that God designed it.
Harumph. "As for me and my house ..." What self-righteous prattle! Listen, ye who thinks yourself so much holier than me, the bottom line of evolution (which has nothing to do with the origin of life) is that adaptation leads to survival; fail to adapt leads to extinction, in the most hardened physical sense. We are made in God's image. God makes it very clear that either we adapt to his immutable laws or we perish, and history proves it out. I love God for showing us, telling us, through Christ and through His plain love, and for His book. And He shows us in another way, as well. Your belief that evolution somehow negates God is your own illusion.
Interesting especially in the context of this discussion, because the purpose of those words is very much like an ape trying to express dominance by standing up, beating his chest, and looking fierce. He feels the need to do so .. it is part of his apeness!
(Standing on the chair whistling and cheering and throwing fist up in the air in agreement) --- BRAVO!!!
I think the conventional Right's anti-evolution agenda is the yin to the conventional Left's global warming yang. Both are ridiculous and vain, and and appeal to gullible ignorance.
You’re correct on this.
Sadly.
Oh please....
You guys are slamming TD just for linking an article that so far no one has refuted that makes some of Stein's claims questionable.
Discomfiture on your part, proving Ben Stein`s point and more.Polly want a cracker? Yes or No.So far most of your assumptions have been false. The line from Bozell`s column: “One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens”
“So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? ...I don’t see any proteins in your quote, just “organic matter”. So you admit your were lying? “
Alright? See your problem yet with your total confusion?
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
(Standing on the chair whistling and cheering and throwing fist up in the air in agreement) --- BRAVO!!!Yup. Thanks for the backup :)I think the conventional Right's anti-evolution agenda is the yin to the conventional Left's global warming yang. Both are ridiculous and vain, and and appeal to gullible ignorance.
The fossil record clearly supports that once there were no hoofed or winged mammals. Where do you suppose they came from?
austrolopithocine is a bipedal ape and even if you think it a dead end product of ape evolution and not an ancestor, is it not itself fossil evidence of evolution supporting Darwin's theory, even if ‘only’ ape evolution?
Beautiful post.
“One who would pit scientists against God and call it “truth” is engaging in falseness.” Finny
The Word, of course is Jesus. God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, are all one and were at the beginning. They were the beginning.
Just thinking...
What I mean is that much of the touted “evidence” for evolution, especially genetic, is not empirically so, but only “becomes” so when filtered through the philosophical pre-screen of evolution.
You've got to be kidding me! You're actually pointing to the Miller-Urey experiment as "proof" for abiogenesis? Maybe you need to learn a little bit, especially about racemic mixes of amino acids and how they would be impossible to use to create bionecessary proteins.
You've got to be kidding me! You're actually pointing to the Miller-Urey experiment as "proof" for abiogenesis? Maybe you need to learn a little bit, especially about racemic mixes of amino acids and how they would be impossible to use to create bionecessary proteins.Uuum... I'm not saying anything snoogums. I'm just pointing out that the previous moron doesn't even understand the strawman he thinks he's knocking down.
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.