Science in America is NOT objective when it comes to origins.

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A DEVOUT EVOLUTIONIST AND A HATER OF GOD AND THE BIBLE:

“But I am also a deeply rational person. And so as I began to read studies…volumes and volumes of studies…I realized that the scientists who published these findings were not on an anti-God rampage, they were simply publishing their observations. I then realized it would be irrational to reject their findings. Why? Because if they were, indeed, falsified…an anti-God conspiracy of unheard of, global, proportions would be going on. I don’t consider it rational to hold such an opinion.

And there is no dogma in science. The best thing for a scientist to hear is that they’re wrong. Why? It means new curiosity, new answers, new searching. Just look at last summer. Scientists had predicted, for decades, the existence of the Higgs Boson particle…the field that gives the universe mass. Scientists were almost disappointed that their prediction was right! It would have been much more exciting to have to go back to the physics drawing board. Instead, the Standard Model was confirmed. Again.

So I was convinced by testable data. Not dogma. Again, that is falsifiable evidence.

So, no, I am not going to spend an hour listening to a nutjob like Hovind. I spend the first 20 years of my life “studying” that kind of drivel. I’ve got better, more exciting, and real things to learn now.”
“To be honest, I don’t have an hour to spend watching psuedoscience.” -Andrew Marburger [a deluded frequent commenter]

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Science in America is NOT objective when it comes to origins.

  1. [“studying” that kind of drivel. ] The Holy Bible is drivel???

    [they were simply publishing their observations.] When has true evolution ever been observed? . . .or – when has a BENEFICIAL MUTATION ever been observed? Or – repeated successive mutations been observed to the benefit of the organism? When has co-evolution ever been documented and observed? Or more correctly, when has simultaneous beneficial mutation ever been observed?

    Dr. Carl Baugh sums up the adoption of evolutionary persuasions:

    1. Misinformation about EVIDENCE “for” and “against” evolution

    2. Desire to appear INTELLECTUAL to self or peers

    3. Influence by ASSOCIATES or INSTRUCTORS

    4. REACTION to “restrictive” individuals

    5. PREFERENCE toward the erotic

    6. Escape from ACCOUNTABILITY to a deity

    Identifying the Higgs/Boson particle still does not explain where it came from – no matter how small – it still has a Source.

    1. “When has true evolution ever been observed?”

      There are scores of examples but this one is probably my favorite at the moment:

      http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

      I can’t wait to hear why this isn’t beneficial, or not evolution, or whatever pseudo-science objection you have…

      And, Woody my man, I don’t hate God. It’s hard to hate something that doesn’t exist 😉

      And if I’m deluded, you also have to assume that academia itself is deluded and / or engaged in a global, historic conspiracy. A clear thinking person can assume the rational conclusion. And not your, irrational, one.

      1. Not even good deflection. . . long term trials on bacteria only prove that bacteria are adaptable. Just as every other life form on this earth is. Even you are, although I begin to question that idea, with your repeated citing of the MSU e.coli experiment.

        Evolution of increased cell size in all twelve populations

        All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape.This change was partly the result of a mutation that changed the expression of a gene for a penicillin binding protein, which allowed the mutant bacteria to outcompete ancestral bacteria under the conditions in the long-term evolution experiment. However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria’s sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures. [ Philippe, Nadège; Pelosi, Ludovic; Lenski, Richard E.; Schneider, Dominique (2008). “Evolution of Penicillin-Binding Protein 2 Concentration and Cell Shape during a Long-Term Experiment with Escherichia coli”. Journal of Bacteriology 191 (3): 909–21. doi:10.1128/JB.01419-08. PMC 2632098. PMID 19047356]

        Let’s have some more of the “scores of examples.” Remember – a score is 20, therefore you must provide at least 40 to qualify as “scores.” The one you gave us doesn’t count, because it does not demonstrate successful evolution. As far as I can determine the e.coli never evolved into anything other than larger, albeit more fragile, e.coli.

      2. Sage, you do realize the Earth isn’t less than 10k years old, right? These processes take millions of years. The adaptation we’ve observed in 20 is remarkable. But, you’re scared of Hell so you’ve gotta find reasons to reject sound research. I get it.

        Happy to provide you with another 39 examples of evolution, but I am going to ask that you respond to each one. That way we can examine the psychological flaw of science denial as it unfolds.

        Let’s move along then, shall we?

        “Shorter winged swallows evolve around highways.” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/349028/description/Shorter-winged_swallows_evolve_around_highways

        This article shows the remarkable process of natural selection at work. Can’t wait for your response! If you’re interested, here are 975 comments on that story:

      3. Given enough time, anything is possible right? 🙂 Not according to the Chicago conference. Also earth cannot be billions of years old: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n719OQjrwnE&feature=player_detailpage

        I did not look at the article (I like the summery for my lack of time. Thanks!

        Shorter winged boids? How is that going to turn the little thing into a superior organism. You want me to think that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution, even if the observation looks backwards? I’m going to need a lot of faith arn’t I?
        How does the modle that birds evolved from lizards support or get supported by or predict this LOSS of wing span?

        Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (Rev. 3:17-18)

        For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God. (Eccl. 5:7)

      4. you like E.coli, eh? Please see article in The ARMORY. It is not evolution nor is it a benefitial mutation. Cosmology does not suppory evolution in the least; I know from experience. Geology has disowned it many times with living fossils, etc. Biology is showing the impossibility for complicated organic structures to have arisen by evolution. This E.coli stuff is a little late for a theory that has been taught as fact for nearly 140 yrs.; even if it were true that is only one of many millions of good mutations that must be observed along with billions of transitional forms. If I were you I’d abandon ship.

        And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:28-32)

      5. Where is it claimed that evolution creates “superior organisms” ? It creates organisms more likely to survive. Shorter winged birds near the highway are more likely to survive due to the better ability to dodge trucks and cars. As the FIRST commenter pointed out:

        “This is how natural selection works. There were ALREADY shorter winged swallows.
        Longer winged swallows gradually got killed off because they couldn’t dodge trucks/cars.
        This left the shorter wing swallows to procreate.”

        Ta-da! Evolution in action.

        Do you have any sources that DON’T link back to felon? I mean, even the whack-jobs at Answers in Genesis know Hovind is out of his mind…

      6. “Organisms more likely to survive” are “superior organisms”, pal.They may be better able to survive in their present situation, but they are inferior and less likely to survive among pure-breed boids.
        Sure, less bird to hit. Husky’s have thick hair and dingos have short. That is not a “mutation” that is adaptation. Birds with short wings may have good manuverability, sure! Evolution is not observed, fool. That is survival of the fittest. Do you believe your short winged birds will become a chimp someday?
        I know he was arrested and I know why. Check out the paper I’ve on The Armory. You really think that that effects the reliability of the science he teaches? Sounds like one more excuse to not view the man’s matterial.

        He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. (Proverbs 18:13)

        The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)

      7. Did you watch the movie, guy? You’d better, unless you are totally consumed by your dogma of evolutionism.

        For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (John 3:20)

        He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. (Proverbs 18:13)

  2. Good grief – I don’t need to respond – it was right there in the link you posted -” Still, Charles Brown says, factors other than wing length may also be involved. Cars may have killed off daredevil swallows, for example, leaving more cautious birds behind.”

    I have straight blond hair and blue/green eyes, but my husband has very dark hair and light blue eyes. Statistically – my children had a metered 1-3 chance of having blue or green eyes. One has blond hair and green eyes, one has blond hair and blue eyes, and one has dark hair and green eyes. And they are still 100% human. The genetic material for blue eyes, green eyes, dark hair, blond hair – or long or short wings must exist for any lateral variations to occur. Swallows, bacteria – or people. . .all reproduce within “kinds.”

    Conjecture is not science. http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/Chapter%2010.htm

  3. “Statistically – my children had a metered 1-3 chance of having blue or green eyes.”

    Umm, that’s not how genetics work. You’re ongoing betrayal of your own willful ignorance would be laughable if it weren’t so disturbing.

    And that link contains some of the most patently insane claims I’ve read on the internet. Which is saying something.

    Folks, I am done here. Arguing with ignorance is an exercise in futility and I will not waste my time further.

    Like pigs in mud, enjoy wallowing in superstition!

    1. That’s why she said STATISTICALLY, paly. Wait: who was it that said, “To be honest, I don’t have an hour to spend watching psuedoscience.” and, “So, no, I am not going to spend an hour listening to a nutjob like Hovind. I spend the first 20 years of my life ‘studying’ that kind of drivel. I’ve got better, more exciting, and real things to learn now.”? O yah! now I remember! It was the same guy that said, “You’re ongoing betrayal of your own willful ignorance would be laughable if it weren’t so disturbing.”

      Sorry to see you go unsaved and headed to the pit of hell. But it is not for a lack of trying on our part. Remamber this: you left this site not giving us 1 good or substantial reason or evidence to believe in evolutionism and now you are many times more accountable than you were after you aposticized for we gave you every reason to doubt your currently heald dogmatism.

      Feel free to do up a fat ol’ paper about how God and the Bible are wrong and you are right and e-mail it to be or even past it into a comment. That is, if it will help to ease the pain of the word of God that is eating at you.

      Dear post event reader: And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. (I Kings 18:21)

      Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. (Eccl. 9:10)

      There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30)

      For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (II Peter 2:18-22)

      For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (II Peter 1:16)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s