Any Canadian theatres showing Expelled?
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

#42 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Domesticated cows, flying frogs and flying squirrels are examples of speciation. You seem to be labeling the non-evolutionary processes as evolution again.
Madame/Mr. Creationscience, I hate to have to point this out, but speciation IS evolution.
CreationScience wrote:
Tuskless elephants. That is interesting. But, that's actually quite anti-evolutionary isn't it? However, it's still adaptation!
Again, adaption due to environmental pressures (in this case man made pressures) IS evolution.
CreationScience wrote:
Never found a huge boat? Well, considering it was made of wood and on the top of a mountain, I would expect it to be pretty much eroded away by now, would you? Unless there was some evidence of wood once being up there, maybe fossilized or petrified?
Well, there seems to be plenty of wood (tool handles, toys, furniture, etc.) from around that same time, such as in Egypt, China, India that hasn't rotted away.

For instance:
http://www.elisabethmorrow.org/classroomnews/...

An ancient Egyptian board game from around 2600BC.

And these are relatively small pieces of wood, not the massive timbers and beams that would be required to build a wooden boat the size of a small aircraft carrier. So why exactly why would massive timbers and beams rot away and small wooden board games remain?

Further, the tops of mountains are excellent environments for preserving things. Cold dry air is superb for preservation, just look at the Peruvian mummies pretty much just left out in the open preserved for thousands of years.

So, no I would NOT expect all of the wood to be rotted away.
CreationScience wrote:
I also love when evolutionists claim that creationists never do anything.
I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".
We've got:
(Physics) Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
(Chemistry) Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
(Biology) Ray Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
(Geology) Buckland, Cuiver, Steno, Woodward, Kepler
(Astronomy)Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
(Mathematics) Pascal, Leibnitz and Euler.
I apologize in advance for saying this, but this is "kind" of a silly list. They may have been Christians, but that doesn't make them "creationists". Many of these scientists knew nothing about evolution, but being scientists most would probably have agreed with the evolutionary conclusions that the EVIDENCE points to.
CreationScience wrote:
Currently practicing scientists include:
Humphreys (nuclear physics)
Baumgardner (plate tectonics)
Boudreaux (physical chemistry)
Giertych (Genetics)
Damadian (invented the MRI)
Raymond Jones (bacterial symbiosis studies)
Gish (Biochemistry)
"Kind of a meager list, and what, exactly, have they contributed to "creation science"? What earth shattering discoveries have they brought to light?

Has Humphries figured out the physics for a variable speed of light yet?

Has Baumgardner figured out the energy dampening fields required to keep the tectonic plates from ripping the earth apart when they go flying off at supersonic speeds during the flood?

Has Boudreaux successfully shown a dirt to flesh chemical pathway yet?

Has Giertych mapped out Adam's genome yet?

Has Gish bothered to admit to all of the mistakes in his "creationism" lectures yet?
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

#43 Mar 27, 2008
Oh, my bad. That is actually Hovind that never admits to the scientific mistakes in his "creation" lectures (not that he's giving to many lectures at present).
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#44 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Domesticated cows, flying frogs and flying squirrels are examples of speciation. You seem to be labeling the non-evolutionary processes as evolution again.
Tuskless elephants. That is interesting. But, that's actually quite anti-evolutionary isn't it? However, it's still adaptation!
Never found a huge boat? Well, considering it was made of wood and on the top of a mountain, I would expect it to be pretty much eroded away by now, would you? Unless there was some evidence of wood once being up there, maybe fossilized or petrified?
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news...
I also love when evolutionists claim that creationists never do anything.
I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".
We've got:
(Physics) Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
(Chemistry) Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
(Biology) Ray Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
(Geology) Buckland, Cuiver, Steno, Woodward, Kepler
(Astronomy)Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
(Mathematics) Pascal, Leibnitz and Euler.
Currently practicing scientists include:
Humphreys (nuclear physics)
Baumgardner (plate tectonics)
Boudreaux (physical chemistry)
Giertych (Genetics)
Damadian (invented the MRI)
Raymond Jones (bacterial symbiosis studies)
Gish (Biochemistry)
"Speciation" is just a creationist term to escape the reality of the evolutionary process. You're simply trying to "rename" evolution as something else, and pretend that evolution doesn't exist.

You might read up on "ring species", too...but I'm sure that's just "speciation", too:)

There are transitional forms between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and mammal, dino and bird...like it or not!

One can not escape the fossil record...incomplete though it is, the sequence that it reveals of life over the last 3+ billion years is quite clear.

As for "your" scientists, it's ludicrous to put Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc., in THAT group. Stick to those alive AFTER Evolutionary Biology was theorized... You DO understand that there are THOUSANDS of names to counter EACH of those (legitimate) names you have listed up there???

As for "the flood"... WHAT flood? There is no geological record of a global flood.

Period.
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

#45 Mar 27, 2008
BTW, if God is such a good designer, why didn't he just give the flying squirrel, the flying snake, the flying frog and the flying lizard wings? It's not like he didn't know about either the animals or wings?

Instead, He made them LOOK like they were evolving existing body parts into UNIQUE and USEFUL new body features.
The Dude

London, UK

#46 Mar 27, 2008
>>>"I also love when evolutionists claim that creationists never do anything. I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".

You mean the one that accepts evolution? Oops, Bob got their first.

>>>"Currently practicing scientists include: Gish (Biochemistry)"

Gish, the developer of the "Gish Gallop?" Currently practicing? Isn't he dead yet?

As for the others, it is quite dishonest to claim that scientists of the past, just because they believed in God, does not make them creationists (at least not in the sense you're talking about). Modern creationism (as you espouse it) has only been around for just over a century. You see, French and German scholars during the 16th and 17th centuries researched the Bible and its validity as a historical document, to see how much of it could be confirmed as fact. They did of course find evidence things that pertained to actual historical events, like the Roman occupation for example. But as for the more fantastical elements of it (the Ark, the Flood, Jesus's miracles etc) they could find no evidence whatsoever. Now, they didn't give up their beliefs, they were still practicing Christians, but like the theistic 'evolutionists' of today, they were able to look at the Bible with a critical and objective eye. Around aobut this time, the split within the church occurred which gave rise to modern Catholicism and Protestantism. As society moved on, atheists became more widespread. And along came Darwin, who came up with the theory of evolution - a theory which, if correct, meant that history as we know it did not match up to the stories of Special Creation found in the Bible. Darwin's theory gradually gained acceptance, and the rest is history. Now, in the US in the late 19th century/early 20th, a group of protestants decided to get together and come up with a counter theology to all this (what they saw as) "Godlessness", and they set up a bunch of principles that they thought defined 'Christianity'. Of course, cheif among these was 'Biblical Literalism' and the rejection of evolutionary science, and thus modern Creationism was born.

So you see, just because scientists believe in God, does not automatically make them creationists. As for the dead ones, we can't speak for them all and say for definate that they would all accept evolution had they been born later, but given the evidence for evolution, as well as the world's evolving society and culture, I would place money that more would accept evolution than wouldn't.

Bob

>>>"for there are NO reputable scientists in creationism."

To be fair to our resident fundie, there are scientists who believe in creationism. The problem for him (and them) is that the majority of them aren't qualified to critique evolution, NONE of them are doing any research in 'Creation Science'(whatever that is) and ALL of them reject evolution on theological grounds.
The Paul

Regina, Canada

#47 Mar 27, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Godwin's Law?
I'm not familiar with that term.
I believe it's something like, "As the length of time an argument has gone on approaches infinity the probability one side will resort to comparing the other to Nazis approaches 1."
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

#48 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
We've got:
(Physics) Kelvin
(
Madame/Mr. Creationscience, besides the Francis Collins fiasco, your citation of Lord Kelvin is also extremely detrimental to your cause. William Thomson - Lord Kelvin was a huge figure in 19th century science. Best known for introducing an absolute temperature scale, he was also instrumental in developing the 2nd LoT and had 600 published papers and 70 patents to his name.

Unfortunately for "creationists", who always seem to cut and paste "creations" website lists that include his name, he was of the opinion that the earth was MUCH, MUCH, MUCH older than "creationists" would readily admit.

From his understanding of the science of his day, specifically his knowledge about heat, he calculated that the age of the earth was up to 400 million years old. He thought it was somewhere around 100 million years old.

While he thought that 100 million years too short a time span for evolution to be feasible (no doubt the reason why "creationists" think he is one of them), it was pretty clear from his calculations that he was unafraid to follow the evidence where he thought it led, which was to an age that flat out CONTRADICTED the "creationist" 6000 year old earth.

Lord Kelvin lived from 1824-1907 so he was fully aware of Bishop Ussher's Biblical genealogy calculations of 1650. Knowing that most Christians would cite Ussher's 6000 years as the age of the earth, and that he was disagreeing with generally accepted intepretations of Genesis, Kelvin STILL did what any good scientist does, go where the evidence points.

Lord Kelvin didn't know about the radioactivity of the earth's mantel and core. If he did, given his scientific honesty, he probably would have agreed with the possibility of the earth being billions of years old, and he would, therefore, in all likelihood have been an "evolutionist".

So you may want to reconsider Lord Kelvin in your cut and paste list. He does your argument no good.
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

#49 Mar 27, 2008
The Dude wrote:
French and German scholars during the 16th and 17th centuries researched the Bible and its validity as a historical document, to see how much of it could be confirmed as fact. They did of course find evidence things that pertained to actual historical events, like the Roman occupation for example. But as for the more fantastical elements of it (the Ark, the Flood, Jesus's miracles etc) they could find no evidence whatsoever.
Mr. The Dude, fascinating. I have never heard of these scholars. Do you have a citation? Where they an order of monks? Do you have any names that I can reference?

What's enlightening is that Biblical literalism has been debunked since the 16th and 17th centuries, with no real harm done to the Christian faith, yet we have people here in the United States making arguments that could have come straight out of the 14th and 15th centuries, thinking that their arguments are somehow new and valid.
The Dude

London, UK

#50 Mar 27, 2008

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#51 Mar 27, 2008
The Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it's something like, "As the length of time an argument has gone on approaches infinity the probability one side will resort to comparing the other to Nazis approaches 1."
Aaaah. Thank you.

I rarely use that one-- except perhaps for rabit zealots, when they talk about how everyone is bound for hell.... and then, in as a sarcastic tone I can muster.

Unfortunately, sarcastic tones are hard to write in black-and-white terms.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#52 Mar 27, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Godwin's Law?
I'm not familiar with that term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#53 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Domesticated cows, flying frogs and flying squirrels are examples of speciation. You seem to be labeling the non-evolutionary processes as evolution again.
Tuskless elephants. That is interesting. But, that's actually quite anti-evolutionary isn't it? However, it's still adaptation!
CS...you need to study what ToE really says, because these are PRECISELY the sort of things it talks about. In fact adaptation and speciation are what the theory is about, and the mechanisms by which they happen.
CreationScience wrote:
I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".
LOL, considering that Collins is a theistic evolutionist. Yes, he "believes" that God was involved, but he does accept the science of ToE.
CreationScience wrote:
We've got:
(Physics) Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
(Chemistry) Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
(Biology) Ray Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
(Geology) Buckland, Cuiver, Steno, Woodward, Kepler
(Astronomy)Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
(Mathematics) Pascal, Leibnitz and Euler.
Well, consider that almost all of these guys died BEFORE Darwin's book was published. So it is extremely disingenuous to claim them as being on your side of the argument when they never even had a chance to even KNOW there was another side.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#54 Mar 27, 2008
Gillette wrote:
Bullsh!t. It's pretty disingenuous to claim scientists that lived years (or centuries) before Darwin and before the era of modern science were "Creationists."
Ah, I posted a reply to CreationScience before I read this. GMTA

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#55 Mar 27, 2008
The Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe it's something like, "As the length of time an argument has gone on approaches infinity the probability one side will resort to comparing the other to Nazis approaches 1."
See the Wiki article I posted above.

Just to add, Godwin's Law also states that whoever brings up the Nazis first is automatically the loser of the debate.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#56 Mar 28, 2008
>>>>MIDutch
Mr. The Dude, fascinating. I have never heard of these scholars. Do you have a citation? Where they an order of monks? Do you have any names that I can reference?

>>>>Gillette
You can start here and branch out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

And also, given your wonderful and distinctive posting style, do I know you from another website, like Bnet?:)
Bud

Tallahassee, FL

#57 Mar 28, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Wow I had never actually seen that!
\

But it is SO true.
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

#58 Mar 28, 2008
Gillette wrote:
>>>>MIDutch
Mr. The Dude, fascinating. I have never heard of these scholars. Do you have a citation? Where they an order of monks? Do you have any names that I can reference?
>>>>Gillette
You can start here and branch out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism
And also, given your wonderful and distinctive posting style, do I know you from another website, like Bnet?:)
Madame/Mr. Gillette, thank you for the information. Yes, I used to post as BrightCourage on Bnet.
Concerned-one

Delta, Canada

#59 Mar 29, 2008
Bob that was a slanderous lie. Are you feeling so threatened by it that you have to resort to deception to try to keep people away from it. This is exactly the type of attitude and behaviour that the movie is exposing.
Be open minded people see it for yourself, and when you leave the theatre, do the hard research you've got minds of your own -it's okay to go ahead and use them.
Don't allow yourself to be bullied and deceived. by
The Dude

London, UK

#60 Mar 29, 2008
Bob-who? And which bit's a lie?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#61 Mar 29, 2008
Concerned-one wrote:
Bob that was a slanderous lie. Are you feeling so threatened by it that you have to resort to deception to try to keep people away from it. This is exactly the type of attitude and behaviour that the movie is exposing.
Be open minded people see it for yourself, and when you leave the theatre, do the hard research you've got minds of your own -it's okay to go ahead and use them.
Don't allow yourself to be bullied and deceived. by
I have been following the story of "Expelled" ever since PZ Myers and others were first interviewed for a non-existent movie called "Crossroads". Seems that "Expelled" has been nothing but lies, deception and distortions since its inception.

Go to Pharyngula and read any of the many articles PZ has posted concerning the movie and the people involved in it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min ChristineM 16,334
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 21 min Chazofsaints 22
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min The Northener 201,720
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Chazofsaints 40,804
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 32 min Chazofsaints 259
Where does instinct fall within random mutations? 52 min Chazofsaints 7
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 1 hr Chazofsaints 59
More from around the web