DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Sober Thinking
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 273--------------------------------------------------
Darwin
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 20, 2022, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]If Darwin was alive today, he would be arguing AGAINST the
validity of the Theory of Evolution! :o[/move]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090522165938.png
[/center]
The End of Irreducible Complexity?
by Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S.on
October 6, 2009
The titles of two recent science news articles caught my
attention, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by
Science” and “Intelligent Design ‘Evidence’ Unproven by Real
Science.”1 The evidence in question is a molecular machine.
Members of the Intelligent Design Movement and creation
scientists have often stated that molecular machines are
irreducibly complex and could not be formed by evolution.
However, evolutionists now claim the mechanism of
“pre-adaptation” is a way that these molecular machines could
have evolved.
What Is a Molecular Machine and Why Is It Irreducibly Complex?
Molecular machines are complex structures located inside of
cells or on the surface of cells. One popular example is the
bacterial flagella. This whip-like structure is composed of many
proteins, and its rotation propels bacteria through their
environment. The molecular machine of interest in a recent PNAS
article is a protein transport machine located in the
mitochondria.2 This machine transports proteins across the
membrane of mitochondria so they can perform the very important
function of making energy.
Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. An
irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential
parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function
properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is
non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise
fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex
machines. Evolution is not goal-oriented; it cannot work towards
a specific outcome. If a part of the machine would happen to
form by random chance mutation (which itself is not plausible,
see Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?), but the
other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time,
then the organism containing that individual part (by itself
non-functional) would not have a particular survival advantage
and would not be selected for. Since the part offers no
advantage to the organism, it would likely be lost from the
population, and evolution would be back to square one in forming
the parts for the machine. There is essentially no way to
collect the parts over time because the individual parts do not
have a function (without the other parts) and do not give the
organism a survival advantage. Remember, all the necessary parts
must be present for the machine to be functional and convey a
survival advantage that could be selected for.
So How Can Evolution Account for Irreducibly Complex Molecular
Machines?
The inability to find mechanisms that add information to the
genome necessary to form parts for the molecular machines and
the inability of Darwinian evolution to collect parts for the
machines (no direction or goal) have led evolutionists to
develop the idea of “pre-adaptation.” Simply stated,
“pre-adaptation” is the formation of new parts for a new
molecular machine (from currently existing parts that perform
another function) before the machine is needed by the organism.
Some quotes will help clarify.
Study authors Abigail Clements et al. state, “We proposed that
simple “core” machines were established in the first eukaryotes
by drawing on pre-existing bacterial proteins that had
previously provided distinct functions.”3
Sebastian Poggio, co-author of the study, stated, “[The pieces]
were involved in some other, different function. They were
recruited and acquired a new function.”4
Wired Science writer, Brandon Keim, puts it this way: “[T]he
necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine . . . were
lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before
they came together into a more complex entity.” He also states,
“The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to
snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral
evolution,” in which the buildup of parts provides no immediate
advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the
descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather,
mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest . . .
.”5
These quotes conjure up images of Lego building blocks from my
childhood days. The same blocks could be put together in many
different ways to form different structures. The study authors
suggest proteins that perform one function can be altered (via
mutation6) and used for a different function. This eliminates
the need to add new genetic information and requires only a
modification of current information. Clements et al. state,
“This model agrees with Jacob’s proposition of evolution as a
“tinkerer,” building new machines from salvaged parts.”7
The problem with this concept is why would evolution “keep”
parts that are intermediate between their old function and a new
function? The parts or proteins are more or less stuck between a
rock and a hard place. They likely don’t perform their old
function because they have been altered by mutation, and they
don’t perform their new function in a molecular machine because
not all the parts are present yet.8 Studies have shown that
bacteria tend to lose genetic information that is not needed in
their current environment.
For example, the well known microbial ecologist Richard Lenski
has shown that bacteria cultured in a lab setting for several
years will lose information for making flagella from their
genome.9 Bacteria are being supplied with nutrients and do not
need flagella to move to find a food source. Bacteria are model
organisms when it comes to economy and efficiency, and those
bacteria that lose the information to make flagella are at an
advantage over bacteria that are taking energy and nutrients to
build structures that are not useful in the current environment.
Thus, even if new parts for a new molecular machine could be
made via mutation from parts or proteins used for another
function, the process of natural selection would eliminate them.
The parts or proteins no longer serve their old function, and
they cannot serve their new function until all the parts for the
machine are present.
In particular, notice the use of verbs in the quotes above, such
as drawing on, recruited, came together, and snap together.
These are all action verbs that invoke the image of someone or
something putting the parts together. Going back to the Lego
analogy, an intelligent designer (me!) is required to put the
Lego blocks together to form different structures. Just leaving
the blocks lying on the floor or shaking them up in their
storage container doesn’t result in anything but a big mess of
blocks! Although the powers to “tinker” and “snap together” are
conferred on mutation and natural selection, they are incapable
of designing and building molecular machines.
Conclusion
Pre-adaptation is another “just so” evolutionary story that
attempts to avoid the problems of necessary information gain and
the goal-less nature of evolution. It fails to answer how parts
that are intermediate between their old and new functions would
be selected for and accumulated to build a molecular machine.
Michael Gray, cell biologist at Dalhousie University, states,
“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would
biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you
think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these
machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes
sense.”10 It only makes sense if you start with the
presupposition that evolution is true and confer powers to
mutation and natural selection that the evidence shows they do
not have.
Clements et al. write, “There is no question that molecular
machines are remarkable devices, with independent modules
capable of protein substrate recognition, unfolding, threading,
and translocation through membranes.”11
The evidence is clear, as Romans 1:20 states, that the Creator
God can be known through His creation. Many people will stand in
awe of the complexities of molecular machines and still deny
they are the result of God’s handiwork. But that doesn’t change
the truth of His Word that He is the Creator of all things.
HTML http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/end-of-irreducible-complexity
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/1pVulmHTd74[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422175637.png[/center]
#Post#: 281--------------------------------------------------
Canceled Science: Scientific Discoveries Some Atheists Don't
Want You To See
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 27, 2022, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apr 26, 2022
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270422121327.png[/center]
[center]Canceled Science: Scientific Discoveries Some Atheists
Don't Want You To See[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/TA4QutvxX88[/center]
Discovery Science 158K subscribers
Eric Hedin, author of Canceled Science, explains how he was
canceled by the scientific establishment and reflects on the
lessons he learned during the experience. He also discusses
scientific evidence which points to a Creator. This talk was
presented at the 2022 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith in
January 2022.
#Post#: 291--------------------------------------------------
C.S. Lewis's life-long struggle to find intelligent design in a
world filled with pain.
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 9, 2022, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090522160643.jpeg[/center]
[center]C.S. Lewis & Intelligent Design [/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/3dqR3eVwoqA[/center]
358,449 views
"C.S. Lewis and Intelligent Design" is the third of three short
documentaries inspired by the book The Magician's Twin: C.S.
Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society. Lewis is best known
for his magical stories about Narnia, but a new documentary
explores his life-long struggle to find intelligent design in a
world filled with pain. For more information visit
HTML http://www.cslewisweb.com
.
#Post#: 299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 16, 2022, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AGelbert link ---
>
> CleanTechnica
>
> By Nexus Media Published22 hours ago
>
> [center]🦖 Fossil Fuel 😈 Firms Planning 195
Carbon Bombs[/center]
>
>
[center]
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/files/2022/05/NOAA.png[/center]
> A collage of typical climate and weather-related events:
floods, heatwaves, drought, hurricanes, wildfires and loss of
glacial ice. (NOAA)
>
> [move]“US fracking boom could tip world to edge of climate
disaster.”[/move]
>
>
> SNIPPET:
>
> Fossil fuel companies are planning nearly 200 “carbon bomb”
projects that would push the climate past international limits,
causing catastrophic global disasters, the Guardian reports. The
195 projects, defined by research published in Energy Policy as
capable of producing at least a billion tons of CO2 pollution,
include 22 oil and gas drilling projects in the U.S. (more than
any other country), which, combined, could pump almost four
years of global climate pollution into the atmosphere.
>
> “Only the colonial mindset of political leaders in rich
countries can make the brutal calculation that the interest of
fossil fuel giants and their billions in profit is more
important than the lives of people who are overwhelmingly black,
brown and poor,” UK climate justice advocate Asad Rehman told
the Guardian.
>
> Full article: 🤦‍♂️
>
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2022/05/13/fossil-fuel-firms-planning-195-carbon-bombs/
--- End Quote ---
Steve Hanley • 21 hours ago
I was unaware that capitalist theory teaches killing your
customers is a good long term business strategy.
AGelbert > Steve Hanley
It doesn't. At least that's what Taylor's Theory of Managment
says. However, Social Darwinism, the ideological "justification"
for Corporate Capitalism's "fiduciary duty" to do 24/7 profit
over people and planet (i.e. "fittest" predators 'R' US),
requires it.
When you look at the following quote from the "point of view" of
the Social Darwinist Wall Street worshipping greedball, it makes
perfect "evolutionary" sense:
--- Quote ---
> “Capitalism is the astounding belief, that the most wickedest
of men, will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone.” — John Maynard Keynes
--- End Quote ---
The atheist religion of Social Darwinsm is what is destroying
the fabric of human society today by completely rejecting
altruism because it is a "weakness" and completely embracing
unrestrained greed because it is an integral "strength" of the
"fittest", though few will admit it. We aren't talking about hot
dog stands or your local bakery, where common sense ethics based
principles like empathy and respect for customers are sine qua
non for a successful business.
Social Darwinists believe that ethics based principles are
'limitations pretending to be virtues'. To them, ethics are
'feel good illusions' that humans invented to pretend our
species has empathy. To Social Darwinists, empathy is
irrefutable evidence of inexcusable weakness. To them, all who
are guided by ethics are deluded fools that should be eliminated
from the human 'apex predator' gene pool for the "good" of our
species.
Social Darwinism is the morally bankrupt world view that spawned
the profit over people and planet neoliberal ideology.
Neoliberal intellectuals like Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von
Mises and Milton Friedman were all Social Darwinists long before
they renamed laissez-faire liberalism (that had been thoroughly
discredited by the Great Depression) with the catchy title of
"Neoliberalism".
We don't need "isms" of any sort; We just need ethics based
principles. Without them, we will not make it.
--- Quote ---
> "A society that loses the capacity for the sacred, that lacks
the power of human imagination, that cannot practice empathy,
ultimately ensures its own destruction." -- Chris Hedges
--- End Quote ---
Steve Hanley • 19 minutes ago
Thanks for this magnificent comment. Pertinent and cogent. I may
feel constrained to quote from it from time to time.
AGelbert > Steve Hanley • 4 minutes ago
Thank you Steve. Please do. People need to see what is really
undermining the efforts of people of good will.
rawlsio > AGelbert
Atheism has nothing to do with it. None of the great ethical
systems that recognize and incorporate the scientific / genetic
realities of human cooperation, reason, empathy and sociability
rely on religious explanations for these capacities. Religious
explanations are extraneous and (usually) motivated by the
desire of some to seek power over others -- just as the Social
Darwinists / Libertarians seek to do. Masking this "will to
power" in religious doctrine is no better than their attempt to
mask their power grab in the language of Darwin and evolutionary
theory. It might even be worse...
AGelbert > rawlsio
"Atheism has nothing to do with it. "
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422173931.png
How do you define the moral imperative if there is no ethical
standard?
How can there be an ethical standard we are merely a species of
apex predator which is the result of random undirected
processes, as all atheists firmly believe?
Do you define morality by caloric intake? How about nutrition
level? How about energy use? How about how little or how much
you defecate where you "eat"? Do you see where I am going? You
don't? Try this: HOW do YOU know when an action is morally
"right" or "wrong"?
If you are an honest person of good will, you will answer that
ethical standards MUST apply EQUALLY across the board to all
humans. If you are a Social Darwinist, you will say the action
is "right" if you gain an "evolutionry advantage" by practicing
it, even if that requires harming a fellow human.
Now then, if that doesn't present a moral quandary to an honest
atheist, I don't think said atheist is being honest.
"Situational Ethics" is an evident absurdity only a Social
Darwinist could love.
Spare me the many examples of religious bigotry, murder and
mayhem to make a case for the "ethical superiority" of atheism.
Religious bigotry is NOT, and never has been, the product of
Honest Worship of the Creator of the Universe that Commands that
we treat our neighbor with the SAME RESPECT we treat ourselves,
though you probably broad brush stroke all religious people as
the "scourge of humanity".
LOOK AROUND. Social Darwinism is what DOMINATES OUR SOCIETY NOW,
not "religious" dictates. All those bigots on the Supremely
bigoted Court make a PRETENSE of religiosity, nothing more. They
are all Social Darwinist "Might equals Right" to the core. The
same goes for the Mega-Church Con-artist greedballs.
Labelling the PRETENSE as the "real thing" is Orwellian.
rawlsio > AGelbert • a day ago
"If you are an honest person of good will, you will answer that
ethical standards MUST apply EQUALLY across the board to all
humans."
This is true, and it's a good starting point for all great
ethical systems -- but it has nothing to do with religion.
You seem to be plunged into deep confusion due to the so-called
naturalistic fallacy -- the idea that because something is found
in nature it must be "correct" in some deep sense. You need to
get over this confusion because the fallacy is easily disproven.
It is the kind of thing that might confuse the infant in your
picture, but should not be difficult for anybody over the age of
12 or 13 to grasp.
You also seem to think that the world of ethical discourse is
divided into "religion" and "social Darwinism". This is ...
profoundly misguided and unhelpful. In fact, no ethicist would
even consider "social Darwinism" an ethical theory. If anything
it's just a precursor of the Libertarian political philosophy,
which updated the hateful core of the SD ideology with a vapid
appeal to "freedom".
Your suggestion that one can only define ethical standards based
on ancient texts (usually of of sketchy provenance) demonstrates
that you have not really spent much time actually thinking or
reading abut ethics, moral theory or moral philosophy. (And of
course it raises the obvious question: which of the many ancient
texts that purport to reveal the "correct" religious doctrine is
actually correct? They can't all be...)
The great competing theories in modern ethics all take the
fundamental equality and dignity of individuals (all humans for
sofundamental equality and dignity of individuals (all humans
for some, all conscience creatures for others) as the starting
point, not because religion requires that view (most religions
actually don't -- cf, the Old Testament and all that smiting of
the unholy), but because there is no sound rational argument for
any of the alternative views. From there the differences in
Utilitarianism (with sound application of the harm principle),
Contractualism, Constructivism, Kantianism, Capabilities
Theory... etc., expose different conclusions about the kinds of
behaviors states and individuals can legitimately (or should,
optimally) engage in, but none of them violate the central
premises of equality and dignity.
I don't think I gave any of the (many) examples that could be
used to illustrate the ethical failings of religious practices
and organizations, but suffice to say that religion has been one
of the defining characteristics of the human experience that has
caused division, hatred, irrational violence, etc.
But that said, I don't have any real problem with people
believing in things that are not true, including God, etc., I
just think it's a waste of energy that can (but does not always)
lead to bad outcomes over time. As long as those people ACT in
accordance with the sound ethical principles that exist
independent of religion and that are designed to lead to human
flourishing, the thoughts in their heads don't particularly
trouble me.
AGelbert > rawlsio
Yes, I am a Christian, but my argument has nothing to do with my
Faith. I was an atheist long ago. I came to Christianity LONG
after I became logically convinced that the universe has a
Creator. So, I attempted to use the same cold, hard logic that
worked on me in a college class on philosophy (Plato, Aristotle,
Kant, Hegel, Aquinas, Nietzsche, etc.) with you.
I never said a word about "ancient texts" (i.e. Religious texts
that you consider the work of "ignorant bronze age goat
herders", eh?). I made it quite clear that you need to go to
first causes, which you refuse to do. I also made no false
equivalence with Social Darwinsm and anything else. I said that
IF you believe we are the product of random undirected
processes, you cannot logically be anything but a Social
Darwinist. You refuse to state the basis of your ethical
standards by your repetitious statements about all the "great"
ethical codes out there. Sure, there are lots of them. Sure,
they really ARE ethical. Sure, a lot of atheists swear by them.
Good for them. That is NOT my argument. You do not want to go to
the root of the matter, so I will not press you further. I
admire your zeal and celebrate your willingness to make the
world a better place. 👍
That said, for your own good I must address your assumption
that I am "confused" along with that clever rhetorical flourish
about my "thinking" being at the level of a human baby
🙄. The only fallacy here is your belief that ethical
codes can spring from an organism that is the product of random
undirected processes.
Here you are, telling me about all the "flaws" in my thinking,
yet you have probably swallowed the totally fact free, totally
evidence free, ridiculous fantasy that "there are multiple
universes and infinite parallel worlds of existence". You also
obviously dispute all the irrefutable evidence from the
biological sciences of irreducible complexity of the cellular
machines and the SEVERAL physical constants that dictate cause
and effect in our universe, to such a precise (over 1000 places
to the RIGHT of the decimal point = NON-RANDOM UNIVERSE) degree
of fine tuning, that molecules couldn't even have formed without
them. Good luck with that.
An atheist friend and colleague of C.S. Lewis, who argued
vociferously, as you do, about all the "flaws" in the thinking
of C.S. Lewis, who was convinced, through REASON, not religion,
that our universe was designed and intelligently created by God,
came to the conclusion before his death (see video below) that
C.S. Lewis was right and atheism is irrational, as well as
unreasonable.
If you dare to follow logic and reason where it irrefutably
leads, you will eventually agree. I cede the floor to C.S.
Lewis:
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090522160643.jpeg[/center]
[center]C.S. Lewis & Intelligent Design[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/3dqR3eVwoqA[/center]
Null66 > AGelbert • a day ago
You presume moral standard is due to religion.
Other species display moral and ethical codes.
AGelbert > Null66 • 18 minutes ago
I presume moral standards come from our conscience, not
Religion. We all have one. We can choose to ignore it and
pretend it isn't there, of course. That's what Social Darwinists
do, though they do not have a patent on playing fast and loose
with ethical standards. You don't need to make Religion the
whipping boy to turn your back on the fact that we have an
innate knowledge of what is right and wrong; you just need to be
a hypocrite.
As to other species, the lense through which we view their
behavior is OUR ethical standards, so your argument is flawed
because it is circular. Dolphins may be atruistic in our view,
but we do not really know how they think. Pretending they think
like we do is the anthropomorphic error.
Null66 > AGelbert • a day ago
Most social darwinists are religious.
AGelbert > Null66 • 32 minutes ago
Yeah, and I know what their RELIGION is...
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-170422173111-7821398.png
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100718163643-14431575.png
HTML https://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png
#Post#: 325--------------------------------------------------
The Incomprehensible Scale of 52! 🦉👉 52! = Fifty
Two "Factorial" = 52 "!"
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 30, 2022, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sep 24, 2020 4,805,294 views
AGelbert NOTE: 52! = Fifty Two "Factorial" = 52 "!"
[center]The Incomprehensible Scale of 52!
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122214-653256.gif[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-300522164042.png[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/hoeIllSxpEU[/center]
But Why? 192K subscribers
One of my favorite fun facts to share with someone is how no
matter how implausible it seems, every time you shuffle a deck
of cards, you've produced a sequence of cards that has never
existed before.
It's of course natural to doubt or even disagree with this.
After all, 52! just cannot be fit into any type of visualization
with an object we are familiar with. So we cant mentally picture
just how immense it is. For this reason I like to say there are
an infinite ways to shuffle a deck of cards. Since no human nor
humanity itself could ever possibly produce every single
combination.
Seriously. If humanity managed to become some kind of card
shuffling empire and managed to shuffle a trillion unique decks
a second since the start of the universe you legitimately
wouldn't accomplish anything.
I cannot explain with words how large 52! is.
As unique as each individual order of cards is, more so is the
person you are. Not even considering the genetic possibilities
for a person but the life decisions and experiences you've
encountered throughout. You may not feel it. But it's pretty
crazy 😉☝🏻 that you exist.
The sand calculations I just took as an amalgam of the tons of
different rough estimates I can find on the web. It ranges from
10^18 up to 10^25.
Anthony Gelbert 16 minutes ago
The above excellent video video is more irrefutable evidence
that we are not the product of random undirected processes.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422175637.png[/center]
Deaddy Manny 2 weeks ago
I sometimes forget how math is phenomenal when you start
connecting it to the world around you... And, by the way, the
words you said at the end and the whole video itself is
phenomenal, gives you some thoughts to think on.
Anthony Gelbert > Deaddy Manny 13 minutes ago (edited)
Agreed. Here's something you may find interesting (though the
video is no longer available, the quantum base of reality
exhibiting the golden ratio is an established scientific fact):
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172558-13271555.png[/center]
#Post#: 326--------------------------------------------------
Darwin 💩 Nightmare (Basics of ☝🏻
Intelligent Design Biology) 🧐
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 30, 2022, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Mar 9, 2022 31,587 views
[center]Darwin's
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-230721144125.png<br
/>Nightmare
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163126-16771578.gif<br
/>(Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Ep. 1)[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/H3B8KkSZp_E[/center]
Discovery Science 165K subscribers
When Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in
1859, he was painstakingly aware of the fact that the fossil
record diametrically opposed his theory. Ever since Darwin’s
time, paleontologists have put their finger on the Cambrian
explosion, where most of the major animal phyla appear abruptly
in the fossil record suddenly and without any evidence of
intermediate forms preceding them in Precambrian strata.
This video is part of "Basics of Intelligent Design Biology," a
video series reviewing scientific problems with the Darwinian
(and neo-Darwinian) evolution of animal life. The first four
episodes (season 1) will review the basics of the Cambrian
explosion and failed evolutionary attempts to explain it using
Precambrian fossils, punctuated equilibrium, and the tree of
life.
This series is a partnership between Discovery Institute and
Lukas Ruegger, creator of the Deflate YouTube Channel
(
HTML https://www.youtube.com/c/Deflate2020),
which has lots of great
content dealing with science-faith questions and intelligent
design.
For more information on the Cambrian explosion and problems with
Darwinian explanations for the origin of animals, be sure to
also check out the Darwin’s Doubt website and book
HTML https://darwinsdoubt.com/.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
visit
HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook:
HTML https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/
Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science
& Culture
Discovery Institute:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRWallaceID
#Post#: 330--------------------------------------------------
National Geographic View of Fossil Record is WRONG Says
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 1, 2022, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171847-12792299.pnghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090522165938.png[/center]
[center]National Geographic View of Fossil Record is WRONG Says
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/glgXFGW_K6g[/center]
Discovery Science 165K subscribers
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg challenges what he
calls the "National Geographic" or "textbook" view of the fossil
record as a support for modern Darwinian theory. In this bonus
interview released as part of the Science Uprising series,
Sternberg unpacks what the fossil record really shows, what we
learn from population genetics about Darwinian theory, and how
the Darwinian mechanism can't account for the evolution of
whales. He also examines competing scientific explanations for
the abrupt appearance of new body plans in the history of life.
Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist with interests in
the relation between genes and morphological homologies, and the
nature of genomic “information.” He holds two Ph.D.'s: one in
Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International
University and another in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology)
from Binghamton University. From 2001-2007, he served as a staff
scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information,
and from 2001-2007 was a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s
National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg is presently a
research scientist at Discovery Institute.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
visit
HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171910-12801673.png[/center]
#Post#: 334--------------------------------------------------
Zombie Science
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 2, 2022, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gelbert 2 years ago
Biologist Jonathan Wells is to be praised for his excellent work
in exposing the disingenuous modus operandi of evolutionists. As
to all the icons of evolution that were alleged by evolutionists
to be "just innocent textbook errors", I have only this to say:
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained
by malice.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-020622162256.png[/center]
[center]Jonathan Wells
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-110422180554-644315.gif<br
/>Presents His Book Zombie Science[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/I2UHLPVHjug[/center]
Discovery Science 165K subscribers Jun 1, 2017 73,159 views
In his latest book Zombie Science, biologist Jonathan Wells asks
a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent
textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Wells
gave a presentation about Zombie Science at the book's national
launch party recently in Seattle (see more about the
presentation here
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/jonathan-wells-presents-zombie-science-at-national-book-launch/).<br
/>
Watch as Wells explores a new wave of icons walking the halls of
science while putting some familiar corpses back in the grave.
New topics include DNA, the human eye, vestigial organs,
antibiotic resistance, and cancer. Looking past the current
zombie outbreak, Wells offers a hopeful vision of science free
from the clutches of materialist dogma. Wells himself is
something of an iconoclast, railing against the tyranny of
science’s Darwin-only advocates. His first book, Icons of
Evolution, became an international hit by dismantling the
outdated and underwhelming “proofs” of evolution that have
littered textbooks for decades. For doing so, he was attacked by
Darwin’s defenders and became one of the most hated figures of
the intelligent design movement.
Learn more about Zombie Science and all the other books by
Jonathan Wells at his website,
HTML http://www.iconsofevolution.com
.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube
channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and
inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling
evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research,
sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce
articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information
visit
HTML https://www.discovery.org/id/
HTML http://www.evolutionnews.org/
HTML http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook:
HTML https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/
Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science
& Culture
Discovery Institute:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DiscoveryInstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace
HTML https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRWallaceID
#Post#: 335--------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 2, 2022, 6:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718204530.gif[/center]
[center]Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion
Debate[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/zF5bPI92-5o[/center]
Larry Alex Taunton 30.1K subscribers
The God Delusion Debate pits world-renowned atheist and
scientist Professor Richard Dawkins against his Oxford
University colleague Professor John Lennox, who is both a
scientist and a Christian theologian. In this, his first visit
to the so-called Bible Belt, Dawkins debates his views as
expressed in "The God Delusion" and their validity over and
against the Christian faith. The event garnered national and
international attention from The Times of London, NPR, BBC,
Christian Post, and Fox News Network. Spectator Magazine called
the debate remarkable, and still others have called it historic.
The God Delusion Debate was filmed on October 3, 2007 before a
sold-out crowd at the University of Alabama-Birmingham's Alys
Stephens Center and broadcast to a global audience of over one
million.
Free study guide at
HTML http://fixed-point.org/
#Post#: 357--------------------------------------------------
Rare Fossil Preserves a Moment of Deadly Battle — And Recalls a
Problem for Darwin
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 15, 2022, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
June 9, 2022 By Günter Bechly
Günter Bechly is a German paleo-entomologist who specializes in
the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp.
dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals.
[center]Rare Fossil Preserves a Moment of Deadly Battle — And
Recalls a Problem for Darwin
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422152651.png[/center]
[center]Rhamphorhynchus is a genus of long-tailed pterosaurs in
the Jurassic period.[/center]
[center]
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Rhamphorhynchus_muensteri_rendering.jpg'[/center]
[center]Rendering of Rhamphorhynchus muenster[/center]
SNIPPET:
The fact that we have a rich fossil record of pterosaurs, even
including nests and track ways, makes it even more remarkable
that we lack any transitional fossils that would document a
gradual development of their unique body plan, contrary to the
predictions of Darwin’s theory. Pterosaurs instead appear
abruptly in the fossil record of the Late Triassic, which agrees
with the predictions of intelligent design theory.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145344-560693.png
Full article with video:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164615-5351419.gif
HTML https://evolutionnews.org/2022/06/rare-fossil-preserves-a-moment-of-deadly-battle-and-recalls-a-problem-for-darwin/
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 11
DIR Next Page