…and this is a 
It's a very charitable review of a creationist movie, the latest bit of dishonest propaganda since Expelled. It is apparently very professionally made, which means less and less nowadays as digital video gear gets cheaper and easier to get, but I was surprised at one thing: it's not really a movie. It's only 52 minutes long! This looks like something they're aiming at the television market, so look for it sometime soon on TBN or maybe even the History Channel.
Among the usual mangled creationist nonsense, it seems to be arguing for some revisionist history, claiming that science only advocates gradual change, but the evidence supports catastrophism, which is a biblical view. This is ridiculous, of course; the Bible is not a science textbook and provides no supporting body of evidence for anything, while science strives for an accurate model of the history of the earth that includes both gradual events and sporadic major changes.
No surprises. Bad science and bad history, but polished to a nice shiny gloss. If it comes on TV, I'll probably watch it and take notes, but I'm not going to go out of my way looking for it.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | August 1, 2009 11:58 AM
Polish a turd, it's still a turd.
Posted by: MrFire | August 1, 2009 12:01 PM
Just be sure not to get taken in by the subsonic, subliminal message:
"Ken Ham is your master...Ken Ham is your master..."
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
August 1, 2009 12:09 PM
What's with the religious nutjobs? The fecking bible is full of crap, such as implying that the Earth is flat. Why the heck can't they see that?
Their deceitful, lying, nonsense is annoying me more & more, the older I get.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 1, 2009 12:34 PM
I'm sort of impressed. The necessity of rapid speciation is actually addressed. This has to be one of the consequences of a flood bottleneck - the rapid differentiation within the kinds post-flood. There should be some evidence of this, ya' think.
Of course, #1 and #2 under the science category are rather contradictory. I guess that it is too difficult for these apologists to really think things through.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 1, 2009 1:00 PM
From the Christian Science Evangelism Facebook page, in a fan's response to someone saying that evolution produces adaptation to changing conditions:
If this movie says evolution is about gradual change, these fools need to get their damn story straight.
(brb, spontaneously evolving into a rhino.)
Posted by: Mark | August 1, 2009 1:01 PM
On a rather seperate note....has anyone read the books by Nassim Nicholas Taleb - poorly written but very interesting.
Also, I saw a video of him saying something along the lines of:
"anyone who is invested in the stock market and critical of religion is a hypocrite"
....thoughts?
M
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 1, 2009 1:03 PM
Mark: I'm pretty sure that how most people play the market involves an obfuscated form of astrology; maybe a little necromancy.
Posted by: Tulse | August 1, 2009 1:10 PM
Tell that to Stephen Jay Gould, Luis and Walter Alvarez, Georges Cuvier, J Harlen Bretz, etc. etc. etc. Heck, look at the theories on the formation of Earth's moon.
Posted by: Terry
|
August 1, 2009 1:18 PM
"provides no supporting body of evidence for anything ..."
I disagree. The Bible, if anything, is a great lesson on how some very smart (for their time) guys could in one fell swoop, relegate women to near non-human status, stop the science of the Greeks and Egyptians dead in it's tracks, and make lots and lots of money to boot.
Posted by: blf | August 1, 2009 1:19 PM
Get with the times!
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | August 1, 2009 1:21 PM
I'd call it revisionist revisionist history: the first geologists to reject the biblical worldview in the 19th Century believed in only gradual change, but they later caught on that dramatic changes (ice ages, massive eruptions etc.) were also possible.
The film needs to update its science to the mid-19th Century.
Posted by: buck
|
August 1, 2009 1:30 PM
look for it sometime soon on TBN or maybe even the History Channel.
Don't you mean the Hysteria Channel?
On a different note, it's funny how quickly these idiots signed on to the Popperian view of science. All the logical positivists are turning in their graves now.
Posted by: Black Jack Shellac | August 1, 2009 1:30 PM
'Course they'll have to cut it back to 44 minutes before they can broadcast the propaganda on the History Channel or NatGeo, the biggest purveyors of this kind of disingenuous religious nonsense.
Posted by: Didac | August 1, 2009 1:39 PM
Actually, the Bible is not very much catastrophist. There is a Universal Flood, it is true, but after that there is some kind of promise of keeping the world ok till the Armageddon. Contrarily, science teaches us about a Heavy Bombardment, a Big Splash generating the Moon, some very huge asteroid impacts, earthquakes and volcanoes, glaciations, alluvial periods, populations bottlenecks, etc. And it is very important to take into account time scales. A process that a population genetics will qualify as 'gradual', taking place during hundreds of generations, it is a very fast process from a geological point of view.
Posted by: Vhyrrimyr | August 1, 2009 1:47 PM
Too much Pokemon, methinks...
Posted by: Stewart Cowan | August 1, 2009 1:49 PM
Posted by: Richard Harris Author Profile Page | August 1, 2009 12:09 PM
"What's with the religious nutjobs? The fecking bible is full of crap, such as implying that the Earth is flat. Why the heck can't they see that?
Their deceitful, lying, nonsense is annoying me more & more, the older I get."
If anything, the Bible says the world is round.
You either cannot tell the difference between narrative and figures of speech, or you just pick up hearsay and your brain files it under truth.
I'm not interested in getting into a debate about it. Dawkins' blog takes up enough of my time. Those who call others names are generally unlearned in many ways.
Posted by: cd | August 1, 2009 1:51 PM
A movie of 52 minutes is just about the right length for a church seminar.
The effort to keep the logic of the movie religious- focussed on the thought of contemporaries, what Darwin himself thought or believed, on observation and deduction rather than induction and testing- is deliberate. The invariably omission is that every proper physical scientist is bound by tests of physical reality- other considerations simply can't outweigh those.
Posted by: matt | August 1, 2009 1:52 PM
a creepy movie to re-write history
more creationist BS
its Global Distributors
Australia and New Zealand (DVD and Cinema):
Con Dios Entertainment
PO Box 1531
Mooloolaba QLD 4557
Australia
Ph: +61 7 5444 7474
Fx: +61 7 5444 7476
Email: Ben@condios.com.au
www.condios.com.au
All other countries (DVD):
Exploration Films
PO Box 1069
Monument, CO 80132
Ph: 800-964-0439
Email: support@explorationfilms.com
www.explorationfilms.com
All broadcast inquiries (TV/cable/satellite)
TVF International (att. Zecki Gerloff)
375 City Road
London EC1V 1NB
United Kingdom
Ph: +44 (0)20 7837 3000
Fx: +44 (0)20 7278 8833
Email: zecki.gerloff@tvf.co.uk
www.tvf.co.uk
Or for for additional information contact Creation Ministries International (Australia, Canada, NZ, Singapore, South Africa, UK, USA)—for country-specific contact information see creation.com/contactus
screening locations at http://www.thevoyage.tv/sessions.aspx
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 1, 2009 2:10 PM
Stewart Cowan said:
Round, yes. Spherical, absolutely not. The earth is referred to with Hebrew terms describing a flat disc (like a compass).
Posted by: Josh | August 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 1, 2009 2:15 PM
"the Bible is not a science textbook"
This really should be carved in stone above the entrance to every school. Not that it would dissuade the creationist assault on education. In fact they would probably try to use trading standards laws to get it removed.
Posted by: Josh | August 1, 2009 2:17 PM
Stupid typos. That should have been:
Uh, what's an alluvial period?
Posted by: Evil Eye | August 1, 2009 2:25 PM
I think you're just being a little harsh.
Sure it comes out of the creationists, but it isn't really a science movie anyway. It's a Love story.... a chick flick.
And seems to be well done.
I'll still watch it like I do with any movie my wife makes me watch. With a grain of salt.
Hell... if Iron Man can be fun... why not a Darwin movie? It isn't a documentary.
Posted by: Dave | August 1, 2009 2:26 PM
Stewart Cowan:
Round, perhaps. Flat, clearly. I seem to recall something about the Devil taking Jesus to the top of a tall mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the world. You can't do that from a mountain, no matter how high it is, unless the world is flat.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 1, 2009 2:34 PM
The film attempts to discredit Darwin because he made up stories as a child. How low do you have to sink before you try to use childhood fantasies, which are a valid element of the process of cognative development, to discredit the work of an individual once they become an adult. Careful everyone lest your unguarded pre-school statements (or, invisible sky faerie forbid, baby photos) come back to haunt you!
It then gets even better, attempting to ascribe racism to evolutionary theory. The staggering stupidity of this statement beggars belief. As does the hypocrisy of such an indictement coming from creationists. Afterall, isn't there a passage in the Bible about 'hewers of wood and bearers of water' that was explicitly used to justify slavery duriing the height of that abominable practice? Good, 'god fearing' folk have been enslaving, brutalising, brainwashing, raping and murdering innocent people who have the misfortune to have the 'wrong' colour skin or worship the wrong deity (or no deity at all) with abandon for over a thousand years, and yet racism is somehow evolution's fault?
Priceless.
Posted by: Matt | August 1, 2009 2:36 PM
What lady trolls have to suffer once a month.
Posted by: raven | August 1, 2009 2:36 PM
Oh look it is a fundie xian. You can tell because he is lying. He's angry. Big deal. We only get excited when they threaten to kill everyone. Which they do often.
The bible says the earth is flat. The sky is a dome held up by 4 pillars and the stars are just lights stuck on it. The moon is a glow in the dark disk. The sun orbits the earth.
Real Fundies believe all of it. There are still a few Flat Earthers around. More who believe the moon glows from within. And a whole lot of Geocentrists, 60 million in the USA alone.
Of course educated, sane people nowdays know it is just wild guesses by people who might never travel 50 miles from where they were born. What about the people who wrote it down millenia ago? They certainly didn't know, and were just repeating the common ideas. Which were wrong.
Posted by: Josh | August 1, 2009 2:41 PM
Oh, ouch. That was fucking brutal.
Posted by: Dr. P | August 1, 2009 2:42 PM
You know, I never would have predicted a bible defender resorting to revisionism. huh. If however the disc theory includes a support system involving four elephants and a giant turtle, well,then......Posted by: Dr. P | August 1, 2009 2:45 PM
OOps! MikeTheInfidel@ 19 left the original response to Stewart Cowan,I didn't mean to make them run on so.
Posted by: raven | August 1, 2009 2:45 PM
Makes no sense. We respect, idolize and pay huge bucks to people who make up stories. Hollywood, Lucas, Star Wars, Speilberg, Brown, Star TrekSteven King, David Brin, Niven, Frank Herbert, ...plus several thousands or hundreds of thousands of others.
Much of literature, TV, and movies are just made up stories.
Who didn't make up stories as kids? And of course, the fundie xians make up stories as adults. And try to pass them off as scientific facts. They always lie to defend their other lies.
Posted by: raven | August 1, 2009 2:52 PM
There is plenty of genocide, slavery, and racism in the bible. The OT is the story of god's chosen people massacring the people around them and taking everything they can. If you aren't Jewish according to the OT, god has no use for you except as fertilizer and slaves. And if you are broke, you can always sell your kids as sex slaves as it says in Exodus.
And slavery in the USA was ended about the time Darwin published his book, 1859 and 1865. One could more plausibly say this correlation is causal. Although to be sure, I doubt Darwin started the civil war. But what the hell, since fundies lie they can claim that too.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | August 1, 2009 3:34 PM
This is perfect.
Look at how reasonable we are! We appear to be conceding some ground! We aren't like those darned fundamentalist atheists and scientists. We are the New Creationists!
Posted by: Bevans | August 1, 2009 3:40 PM
It's too bad there aren't any atheist organizations with enough money to make films like that. I'd love to see their reaction to a film version of the birth of Mithras.
Posted by: Can'tBelieveAnyofIt | August 1, 2009 3:41 PM
As long as 90% of any population is numb, there will always be hucksters salivating to take their money from them. The human population will never be able to get beyond this. Be thankful we have Dr. Meyers and his ilk to clear the air briefly so that we may breathe the truth from time to time.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 1, 2009 3:50 PM
Evil Eye said:
Sure it comes out of the creationists, but it isn't really a science movie anyway. It's a Love story.... a chick flick.
And seems to be well done.
I'll still watch it like I do with any movie my wife makes me watch. With a grain of salt.
Hell... if Iron Man can be fun... why not a Darwin movie? It isn't a documentary.We're talking about The Voyage That Shook The World, not Creation.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 1, 2009 3:51 PM
... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE BLOCKQUOTES HERE?
Evil Eye said:
We're talking about The Voyage That Shook The World, not Creation.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 1, 2009 3:52 PM
And even that is only done once. All other mentions of the shape of the Earth (beyond "flat", that is) talk about the four corners which have become proverbial in much of the Western world. The Earth was imagined as a square, Chinese-style.
Funny how the Bible contradicts itself and gets it wrong both times.
Posted by: Al jebel | August 1, 2009 4:17 PM
Stewart Cowen is really Anthony Bennett a British right wing bible licker with libertarian party connections. He is an ignoramus without parallel in his attempt to shoehorn his religious fantasies into semicoherent arguments against the grain of reality.
His arguments have less substance than neutrinos and do less damage.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
August 1, 2009 4:26 PM
Stewart Cowan # 16, You either cannot tell the difference between narrative and figures of speech, or you just pick up hearsay and your brain files it under truth.
Wrong! For example, Daniel 4:10, "...and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
Daniel 4:11, "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
That sure as hell implies a flat earth. Of course, the author probably hadn't considered the shape of the Earth, & just assumed that it was flat.
Those who call others names are generally unlearned in many ways.
Are you referring to my use of the term 'nutjobs'? This is not name-calling; it is factual, albeit a slang word used informally. Would 'the religious insane people' suit you better?
Seriously, anyone who believes that there's a magical monster spirit man, controlling the destiny of man, when no one's ever seen it, must be insane.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 1, 2009 4:30 PM
Raven: Your posts at 31 and 32 express the insanity of this movie better than mine did. I take off my hat to you sir! (Or madam as the case may be)
Posted by: 24fps | August 1, 2009 4:32 PM
Haven't seen the movie, just a couple of quick points on general tv/movie stuff:
Most mainstream channels, like History et al, tend to want 42 to 45 minute projects to the hour time slot. However, 52 minutes isn't unusual for subscriber digital channels, which have much less advertising on them.
Also, while digital video is cheaper than film stock, there's a pretty wide range in terms of quality of camera within "broadcast quality", and a broad range of cost for the different quality cameras. So there is some saving to be made, budget-wise, but not so much as you'd think. It still takes the same number of crew people at the same cost as film, and the production quality has a great deal to do with who's running the camera and the sets, etc. you put the camera in front of. In some ways, the costume, set and makeup departments have to be even more on the ball if you are shooting in High Definition because the clarity is so much more intense.
So there was probably a fair bit of money in the project if its production values were good, even if the content was crap.
Posted by: Bruce | August 1, 2009 6:18 PM
A 52 minute video could be edited to fit within a 45 or 50 minute school classroom period. I fear that they eventually will push this for that market also.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 1, 2009 6:54 PM
Uh, what's an alluvial period?
That would be like your basic stack-o-periods created by alluvial deposition, you know, like the colon (:). Stratigraphically speaking, the period on top is the youngest. Unless, of course they've been overturned by Noah's Flood or deposited in the southern hemisphere.
Basic geology 101 really.
Posted by: Evil Eye | August 1, 2009 7:53 PM
I'm sorry.
I thought they were the same movie.
"Creation" had the same subtitle (The Voyage that Shook the World")... or so I thought.
Posted by: eric b | August 1, 2009 11:47 PM
I know I probably should, but I just cannot bring myself to watch Expelled or this "made for TV movie". It goes against everything I teach my students - which is that they should learn everything about an opposing view so you can determine the evidence you can use to shoot down the opposition.
Posted by: Dan W | August 2, 2009 1:09 AM
Sounds like another crappy creationist movie to avoid. Sadly, I could see the History channel (which rarely shows anything history-related these days) showing that sort of drivel. What with their current trend of all sorts of "end of the world" shows and other crap that has nothing to do with history.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 2, 2009 12:06 PM
I heard he also stayed up past his bedtime as a child, and once pulled a girl's pigtails. These are the things scientists don't want you to know about Darwin!
Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 12:16 PM
Huh...so then, I need to ask (let's raise this to Geology 310 or thereabouts), what are the indicators of paleo-up that allow us to determine if the colon is overturned or not*? A semi-colon would be easy to determine, but how do we figure out the colon? Also, what allows us to discern if there is a hiatus in deposition between the "bottom" period and the "top" one?
*Presuming northern hemisphere of course.
Posted by: bornagain77 | August 2, 2009 1:31 PM
You Stated:
the Bible is not a science textbook and provides no supporting body of evidence for anything,
Though I do not treat the Bible exactly as a engineering textbook, the Bible does have precisely fulfilled prophecy in it that sets it apart from all other books and should at least raise some eyebrows on your part.
The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrQqhINYrc4
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 1:33 PM
You still have nothing. The bible is a work of fiction. Period. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day...Posted by: bornagain77 | August 2, 2009 1:42 PM
Believe what you want, you will anyway, I just showed you some very interesting evidence that the Bible should not be taken lightly.
Posted by: bornagain77 | August 2, 2009 1:45 PM
This video may make you wonder a little:
Euler's Number - God Created Mathematics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEb1gTRo74
Posted by: Entanglement | August 2, 2009 3:35 PM
@53, it did make me wonder. It made me wonder why the author was so confident in the content of the video, and yet so cowardly as to disable ratings and comments. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 2, 2009 3:42 PM
Well believe in your delusions about the bible, but the following is true: The first five books were put together over a couple of hundred years, and contain many myths and fictions. For example, no evidence for the flood or exodus exists. The Jesus chronical were written well after his death, and have him growing up in town that didn't exist at the time of Jesus, but did during the time the writing took place. The new testament was assembled by a committee for political reasons. And Yahweh is an amoral warlord not worthy of worship. So, your precious babble has holes in it the size of Alaska.Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 3:46 PM
Worse, the evidence that does exist absolutely contradicts the story as told in Genesis.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 2, 2009 4:22 PM
Well, bornagain77's first video did make me think. For example what's the deal with God only multiplying part of the 430 year punishment by 7 instead of the full 430? I didn't realize divine punishment could be pro-rated.
I also looked at the full text of Leviticus 26 (ah, Leviticus), the source of that "multiply by 7" idea. So the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948, and Leviticus 26 says:
I'm wondering when the "eat(ing) the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters" ended? 1930s? Or did it continue up until '48?
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 2, 2009 4:49 PM
Since I'm a glutton for punishment, I watched bornagain77's second video as well. According to that video, the Bible reveals the value of pi like so:
Take the numeric values of each Hebrew letter in Genesis 1:1, multiply the number of letters by the product of the letters, then divide that value by the number of words by the product of the words, and that give you pi to 4 decimal places (uh... times 10^17).
Personally, I think an easier way for the Bible to reveal pi would've been to just give an example of something that flat out mentions the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Oops! It does just that in 1 Kings 7:23 and gets the value wrong. Not much excuse for it, either, since pi had been estimated hundreds of years before the purported birth of Christ. They couldn't crib off of Archimedes?
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2009 4:52 PM
Only if it's analogue with at least its hour hand still attached to the axis and pointing in the usual manner. The babble is much more rundown than that. It has no hands, the axis is poking through the 13th hour, the dial is shaped like a Möbius strip drawn by a drunken M.C. Escher, and the "clockworks" inside appear to consist of a dead donkey powered by a perpetual motion machine. The operating manual is in gibberish and requires hoardes of trained brainwashed minions each of whom disagrees with each other (and often themselves) as to how the gibberish is to be interperted.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 3, 2009 1:09 AM
Huh...so then, I need to ask (let's raise this to Geology 310 or thereabouts), what are the indicators of paleo-up that allow us to determine if the colon is overturned or not*?
I believe that this will require prayer and revelation.
A semi-colon would be easy to determine, but how do we figure out the colon?
The semicolon obviously represents bioturbation (see also ¡ and ¿). The rest will require prayer and revelation.
Also, what allows us to discern if there is a hiatus in deposition between the "bottom" period and the "top" one?
Hiatus = ÷ The rest will require prayer and revelation.
Wassat? Really? O.K. The Lord says that enough of his mysteries have been reveal for today and that I should have a glass of wine and go to bed. Praise jeebus.
Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm | August 3, 2009 9:56 AM
Hey, bornagain77 @ 50! In that video Ezekiel's prophecy is that Jerusalem will be attacked by an army and be under siege for 430 (or whatever the number is) years. The narrator even repeats the statement (and prints it on the screen). So how does 'being under siege', which has a specific military meaning, get turned into 'suffering God's punishment' for 430 years?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 3, 2009 10:36 AM
bornagain77 said:
Though I do not treat the Bible exactly as a engineering textbook, the Bible does have precisely fulfilled prophecy in it that sets it apart from all other books and should at least raise some eyebrows on your part.
Fundies always say this, yet they have absolutely NO knowledge of the sacred texts of other religions, other than what their pastors and apologists tell them. I've seen one of the textbooks they use in "comparative religion" classes in their colleges; it consisted entirely of broad generalizations written by someone with no academic training, intended only to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over all other belief systems.
Believe what you want, you will anyway
Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're black!
I am seriously thinking of getting a petition going to have the name of the religion changed from "Christianity" to "Projectionism". It would be more accurate. Or "Cognitive Dissonance"; I'd be fine with either. Truth in advertising.
Posted by: TryingNotToGetTrappedInTheTarBaby | August 4, 2009 2:30 AM
Citizen Z said:
Personally, I think an easier way for the Bible to reveal pi would've been to just give an example of something that flat out mentions the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Oops! It does just that in 1 Kings 7:23 and gets the value wrong. Not much excuse for it, either, since pi had been estimated hundreds of years before the purported birth of Christ. They couldn't crib off of Archimedes?
Just noticed a detail fault in your case that you might want to know - "Kings" books are Old Testament, around 500-600BC, ie: well before or Archimedes, who is 200-300BC so your timeline needs a tweak.
Wikipedia has a nice discussion of the progress of the definition of pi, including a suitabably well-formed argument about the bible's estimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Facts are wonderful things. I recommend collecting them! Sometimes you can even assemble them into groups and form larger structures that look like other bigger things. Sort of like lego. Then you can pull them apart and make the same facts into totally different looking things ... that's fun too. Sometimes you can impress your friends or even make money out of these big assemblies of connected facts. Theories are fun to collect too, but they can just up and eat you one day if you take them for granted for too long.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2009 3:17 AM
Archimedes would have in their future, but there were more than a few mathematicians who worked in their past:
Posted by: Steve | August 22, 2009 2:35 AM
I am truely amazed at the ignorant rubbish most people of a scientific persuasion are expressing. I am amazed at your faith in a speculative theory. You really believe there was a puddle of slime that got stuck by lightning or some other energy source and WHAM you have a replicating cell. But it gets more fantastic this single celled life form turned into a multi celled organism. It became a jelly blubber then a frog, then a bird, but some became moss and mould and plants and trees. The others went on to become monkeys and of course people. The only thing you can posit for this fantastic faith in the religion of evolution is - time. Yes folks, with enough time anything can happen. I suppose if a printing press blew up enough times the encyclopedia Brittanica can be arraged too. What faith you scientific types have!!!!!
Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2009 3:17 AM
Steve:
You apparently misunderstand what a scientific theory entails.
Empiricism is anything but faith. It is knowledge.
Faith is what religious types have: unevidenced (or even counter-evidentiary!) belief.
Posted by: Gary | August 28, 2009 1:27 PM
If you multiply 430 X 7 = 3010. 2009 - 3010 = 999 B.C. which was right smack in the middle of King David's reign over Israel (perhaps the 7th year of his kingship). Moreover, 2009 - 70(A.D.,temple destroyed) = 1939 which is a multiple of 7. 277 X 7 = 1939. 277 + 153(pyramid number) = 430.
Posted by: steve | September 3, 2009 7:03 AM
John,
I am fully aware of what scientific theory and empericalism are. A scientific theory is a hypothosis that is proposed and varified by experimentation and observable, emperical/measurable data. Evolution is neither observable nor measurable. (Carbon dating has been shown to be unreliable when the fallout from the St. Helen's eruption in the 1980's was determined to be 100's of 1000's of years old) Evolution is a theory likened to two or three points on a graph from which ridiculous speculative extrapolation takes place to draw an imaginary line, whether the biological tree or individual fossils. One of the classic frauds of evolution was the animal they contructed from a tooth only to find out later it was the tooth of a pig. Or Pakicetus, a whale "created" by evolutionits from a small piece of jaw and skull bone. Perhaps the greatest fraud in many text books are Haekel's embryos.
Anyway, you did not address the content of my earlier email just some terminology which I have now addressed, so try again.
Posted by: matthew.hodson
|
February 14, 2010 3:33 AM
I just watched this terrible "movie" thinking it could be an interesting historical look at Darwin's journey and how he developed his theory. Not something that I have no knowledge of already but more details and another view point might be nice.
The title and the blurb describing it lured me in.
The movie is made well and starts off in a reasonable way with some interesting details, but as it progresses the atmosphere becomes more and more hysterical, women began screaming. Okay, well not really but it does dissolve into creationist nonsense.
It is an exercise is pure deception, Satan, if he existed, would be proud.
My reactions started out as: "that's interesting", progressed to "why are they talking about that? How is it relevant?", and finally to "Whaaat?"
Is there anything sneakier than a creationist?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/FvHHcZs.tZQO1BCeBRTaZJ_sYLGblP0UFh1G04dztQ--#27bb4
|
May 16, 2010 6:18 AM
Wow I just watched two of the Kent Hovind DVDs a debate verses DR James Paulson. I know it would be frowned upon to say that Kent won. But I have to be honest Kent slaughtered them both. The other debate was against Dr. Meyers. Can someone please let me know of a debate where the evolutionist wins. There must be one out there somewhere.
Posted by: John Morales
|
May 16, 2010 6:58 AM
Yahoomess @70:
Debating verses? (Is this poetic or Biblical?)
Dr. Meyers? (Who is it to whom you refer?)
--
PS Do you think "winning" a debate establishes the veridity of that which the winning side (whether affirmative or negative) is in favour of, or do you think it establishes which side is better at debate?
Can you cite the specific debates and basis (i.e. met criteria) for determining the "winning" side of said debates upon which you have based your conclusion?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 16, 2010 7:09 AM
Debates are won by those who employ verbal and rhetorical trickery. Which is all the creobots are good at. Evolution won the real debate years ago in the peer reviewed scientific literature with real hard physical evidence. There is no evidence in the form of scientific papers for creationism. There are a million or so scientific papers that support evolution both directly and indirectly. No contest, and creationism loses big time in reality.