Jump to content


Photo

Darwin Under The Microscope


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:19 AM

Heres a great new video about the history of creationism biology,up to and past Charles Darwin.

What surprised me is that Mendel's research on peas falsified Darwin's theory.

It always pays to study history and find out who is really stealing what from who.

"The track record of Neo-Darwinism is parasitic on prior Creationist breakthroughs over which Neo-Darwinists now claim sole ownership,and which Creatioists have yet to claim back as their own".Steve Fuller,Dissent over Descent Intelligent Designs Challenge To Darwinism,2008 P.253



Enjoy.

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 December 2008 - 09:00 AM

Heres a great new video about the history of creationism biology,up to and past Charles Darwin.

What surprised me is that Mendel's research on peas falsified Dawin's theory.

It always pays to study history and find out who is really stealing what from who. 

"The track record of Neo-Darwinism is parasitic on prior Creationist breakthroughs over which Neo-Darwinists now claim sole ownership,and which Creatioists have yet to claim back as their own".Steve Fuller,Dissent over Descent Intelligent Desings Challenge To Darwinism,2008 P.253



Enjoy.

View Post


Jason,

This is an excellent seminar. It will be worthy of closer examination. Evolutionists don't understand that the most robust and active portions of their research are actually hindered by trying to achieve the impossible; stuffing it into Darwin’s paradigm. The areas that function best in modern biology seem to be wasted on the continued effort to paint Darwin’s picture.

I firmly believe that Darwin’s theory will someday be considered one of the biggest, if not the biggest, pseudo-science blunders that man ever swallowed.

I know these are strong statements but we are watching history get made. There are enough young people with their ear to the ground on this issue that they will hopefully see a rise of critical thinking on this issue.

We have 18, 19, and 20 year olds at our church that are on fire for God because they see and understand the evidence. They’re even capable of articulating their beliefs better than many adults, and I think it’s because they rightly connect God’s Word to God’s world as Reality.

I really liked those quotes from Steve Fuller at the end:

Steve Fuller - "Who’s afraid of Biblical literalism? A literal reading of the Bible has done more to help than hurt science over the centuries."

Steve Fuller - "Neo-Darwinism needs to justify its continued pursuit of science given the diminished cosmic status that the theory accords our species."

Steve Fuller - "While I cannot honestly say that I believe in a divine personal creator, no plausible alternative has yet been offered to justify the pursuit of science."

Steve Fuller - "Even if most scientists nowadays call themselves atheists, atheism as a positive doctrine has done precious little for science."

Steve Fuller is a secular humanist saying all these things!

Posted Image

Well hopefully, as he’s pondering those implications, he finds himself dropping a faulty worldview for the only one that fits reality, Christianity. We're praying for you, Steve.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 December 2008 - 09:43 AM

Am I just missing it? Who is the speaker in the video? I would like to learn more about her.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 December 2008 - 01:44 PM

Thanks Adam,

I've never heard of her before either,but she must be a member of the Edinborough creation group.Marc Surtees is my favorite from the group and Paul Garners' lecture on the grand canyon is a must see,if you have'nt yet.

God bless.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 December 2008 - 04:02 AM

I want to try embedding the OP video...


Darwin Under The Microscope from Phil Holden on Vimeo.

Ah, it worked! This is a well done presentation. I have a feeling Steve Fuller is not well liked among evolutionists.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 December 2008 - 11:47 PM

Hi Adam,

I watched a youtube video on Steve Fuller and it turns out that he testified in the Dover,PA. trial for Intelligent Design.

He's not a creationists or even a true beleiver in God,he's one of those kind of guys that gets excited over new scientific theories.

He talked about how Creationists always defended their beleifs with the bible and that is boring to him,but now the I.D. crowd have finally put out a theory that we can actualy go out and test by searching for design.



Thanks.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 December 2008 - 05:04 AM

I watched a youtube video on Steve Fuller and it turns out that he testified in the Dover,PA. trial for Intelligent Design.

He's not a creationists or even a true believer in God,he's one of those kind of guys that gets excited over new scientific theories.

He talked about how Creationists always defended their beliefs with the bible and that is boring to him,but now the I.D. crowd have finally put out a theory that we can actually go out and test by searching for design.

View Post


I think the concept of information is a fascinating prospect because it throws a monkey wrench into philosophical naturalism. Where evolutionists will say information evolved by natural means, the truth is, and the evidence shows, nature is a result of information or The Word. ;)

As for Steve Fuller, maybe when he realizes that this "new science" has been around since eternity and trusting the Word of God isn't a cop-out but the logical conclusion of weighing the evidence, maybe he'll replace that man-made worldview for the worldview of God's eternal Truth.

One can pray.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 January 2009 - 01:27 PM

Hi Adam,

I have a feeling Steve Fuller is not well liked among evolutionists.


Here are some of his reveiws;

Steven Poole of The Guardian wrote: "book is an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to "action at a distance", except that the distance is in time rather than space. It's intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name."

Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Science at University of New Brunswick wrote in Science (journal) that Fuller's book "is completely wrong and is backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever.

A. C. Grayling, in New Humanist, wrote that the book contains a "mark of ignorance and historical short-sightedness on Fuller’s part".[32] In response, Fuller wrote an online response saying "if Grayling’s grasp of the history of science went beyond head-banging standards, he would realise that our current level of scientific achievement would never have been reached, and more importantly that we would not be striving to achieve more, had chance-based explanations dominated over the design-based ones in our thinking about reality."

http://en.wikipedia....epistemologist)

It reminds me of ikesters thread "Is evolution a theory test".Instead of providing evidence and testing it,they just call the one critical of the theory an ignorant ball faced liar.




Enjoy.

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 January 2009 - 10:40 PM

I was just in a few rounds of debates on my favorite hostile forum the last couple of days. The language used against Steve has a familiar ring. ;)

All insults no substance. :lol:

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2009 - 09:56 PM

Since this thread seems to focus on some of the thoughts of Steve Fuller, I thought I would add this debate I discovered in here. For those just joining this discussion, remember that Steve Fuller is a secular humanist and sociologist/historian. He is an ID proponent based primarily in his perspective of seeing a historical benefit coming from past scientists whose main axiom of discovery and research was based in the glory of God.

He is not a creationist, by any means, but he does offer some interesting points for both sides to ponder:



#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 March 2009 - 01:32 AM

Thanks Adam,that was a great debate.I could'nt believe the hypocracy of the evolutionists by ignoring the request for a testable mechanism and a quantifiable definition of evolution and then claiming God is'nt testable,as if they can win by default.

#12 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 14 March 2009 - 01:25 PM

Thank you Adam for posting this FORA TV video discussion!

Despite struggling with trying to get it to stream all the way to the end, I persevered and went on to the source site to learn a bit more about the subject from the full debate.

Coolio!

I'll check out the other vids in due time.......




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users