Coming Soon to a Theater Near You
by BradfordDoes the end justify the means? To what lengths will opponents go to discredit a yet to be released movie? This from another ID friendly blog:
You heard it in the UC, Irvine campus paper first folks, the producers of "Expelled" are bribing people to force others to see the movie. Of course, the author could have brought some evidence instead of just Kool-Aid, but who needs evidence when you are a Darwinist, right? So, I did some checking, and there is no evidence for this claim anywhere, and the author provides none. So, it's come to this. The Darwinists are now using students to write hatchet jobs in order to discredit a movie that they haven't even seen. How very scientific/objective of them.
Oh, and he repeats the fallacious claim that Dawkins, et. al. were tricked into doing the movie that I've already debunked. Ridiculous!
February 13th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Bradford, we had a discussion about that bribery on this thread:
http://telicthoughts.com/news-...
The evidence is on the Expelled web site (okay, I know you think of that as gossip and hearsay…):
http://www.getexpelled.com/sch...
http://www.getexpelled.com/cha...
Here is a thread at ARN I started about it.
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/...
A Google search for "expelled bribing schools" get these two web pages first, both of which take substantial quotes from the movie web site (I wonder why the article say "So, I did some checking, and there is no evidence for this claim anywhere,"):
http://richarddawkins.net/arti...
http://theframeproblem.wordpre...
Hmm, makes me wonder to what length IDists will go to to deny what is in front of their noses!
Comment by The Pixie — February 13, 2008 @ 10:58 am
February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'bribing' or 'force'. It's not like the schools are going to get money from the producers for mandatory field trips for the kids to see the movie… oh, wait. What was I arguing again?
Comment by hrun — February 13, 2008 @ 11:27 am
February 13th, 2008 at 11:34 am
So Pixie, in your opinion do school contests in which the schools collect "points" off of cereal boxes for a chance to win things for their schools amount to "bribing".
Give me a break, this is just a gimmick to get as many people to see the film as possible. I really don't see any good that can come out of this film and I don't like this contest because they make it explicitly for Christians but to call this bribing is ridiculous.
Comment by ninjapirate — February 13, 2008 @ 11:34 am
February 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Wait a second, I take that back.
That's pretty bad. I wouldn't have a problem if the school would pay for it and recoup the cost, but making the child pay is not cool.
Comment by ninjapirate — February 13, 2008 @ 11:39 am
February 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Not this again.
Rehash of what I said before: They suggest private schools organize a field trip to see the movie. The 'mandatory' certainly means 'during part of the school session', not 'threaten the kids if they or their parents do not want them to go'. You see this kind of thing happen all the time in school, private as well as public. If a kid doesn't want to go, or parent doesn't want their kid to go, they'll usually either stay home for the day, or go to school and end up in a study period for the duration of the event.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
nullasalus
Do you think making the trips "mandatory" will result in more children seeing the movie than an optional schoolwide trip? Why do you think the movie producers specifically recommend "mandatory" trips, why did they choose that word?
Comment by The Pixie — February 13, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Pixie,
Absolutely – that's exactly why they said as much. I just think trying to turn 'mandatory' into a word that conjures visions of principals telling parents their children will be punished if they aren't allowed to go see the movie is silly.
For the same reason they put 'mandatory' in quotes: To both differentiate it from an after-school activity, and because they know that "mandatory" is exactly that – "mandatory" with quotes and all. If parents don't want their children seeing the movie, I highly doubt they will.
Really, what do you think is going to happen? A student is going to say 'my parents said I could opt out of seeing this movie', and then the headmaster delivers an Oliver Twist style beatdown? When you picture a private school principal organizing a school trip to see Expelled, do you name him 'Principal Lou Siffer'?
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
What I think will happen is that children will beg their parents to let them go because it is a day off school. What I think will happen is some parents will see it is a "mandatory" trip and assume that means their children should go on it. What I think will happen is that parents will be fooled into thinking this is an education movie, as it is promoted by the school, so it would be good for their child's education to go.
It is all bribing schools to put pressure on parents to cough up cash for the movie.
Comment by The Pixie — February 13, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
We might not like their marketing techniques but its a free country and they can do whatever they want. Obviously the producers of this movie are trying to promote a viewpoint but just because we dislike the viewpoint doesn't mean they must follow some code of standards that we suggest.
This is a Biased Sample argument with Appeal to Ridicule. You are suggesting that the actions of a limited group are bad and that this limited group reflects on the views of the larger group. By painting particular supporters of a theory as desperate you imply the theory itself is somehow weakened. In general both sides of this debate need to avoid these sort of Biased Sample arguments. Yes there are neo-Darwinian supporters who make stupid or emotional statements, that sampling group says NOTHING about neo-Darwinian theories. Yes there are ID advocates who use irrational logic or ignore evidence, that sampling group also says NOTHING about ID theories. The use of Biased Samples and Appeal to Ridicule is simply childish and disrespectful to everyone involved and does not advance the debate.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 13, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Pixie,
So, this isn't about anyone being 'forced' to go anywhere, is it? You think the children will be glad to go, and the parents will be largely apathetic. And you don't think it's an educational movie, because.. well, you disagree with their likely framing.
I can understand you being annoyed by it – you don't like what you think the movie will show. But by your own words, 'forcing' isn't an issue. As for bribery, that strikes me as a tame complaint.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Pixie, is this what passess for bribary?
This is a standard business practice. Present a challenge. Pick a winner. Advance sales by doing so. You can't pass through a supermarket without seeing these things on packages if you are inclined to look. I received an e-mail from a company involved in marketing biotechnology. There were incentives in the sales pitch. You think that's bribary too?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Did you identify with "opponents" Why would it apply to a larger group and how else am I to describe those involved?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
And indeed we are arguing about the definition of bribery. How fun and predictable.
Clearly whether or not this constitutes bribery depends on the definition of bribery you chose:
It is clearly not bribery in the sense that money is being paid to elicit immoral, unethical or illegal actions of an elected official. However, it is a bribe in the sense that it is money paid to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
I think a case can be made that suggesting the term 'mandatory' for a field trip can be viewed as 'forcing' students to view the movie. And rewarding the school for 'forcing' the students with donations does (according to some definitions) constitute a 'bribe'.
So, it is factually correct to call this bribing people (the principals of the schools) to force others (via mandatory field trips) to see the movie. Wow. Done. That was easy.
Comment by hrun — February 13, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Bradford
Where Expelled crossed the line it it is bribing the schools to put pressure on parents, i.e., put bribe an entity in a position of authority to put pressure on another entity to spend money. The sort of business practices you are taking about are "bribing" an entity to spend its own money. Can you cite any other business doing that?
I am surprised you cannot see the difference here.
So is your objection that opponents call this dubious practice "bribery" or was it that this particular opponent (a second-year English major) dared to do this without citing the Expelled web site? What lengths indeed!
Comment by The Pixie — February 13, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
hrun, when was the last time you took a business enterprise to task for bribary. Based on your comment it looks commonplace. Maybe I should post a blog entry on congressmen and women who fit the description. A
"bribe in the sense that it is money paid to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity." That description fits those Americans vote into office- repeatedly.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Pixie do you know of any "Christian schools and home school groups" who have complained of this?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
nullasalus
You know, I have this sneaking suspicion it is a political movie. I have a problem with politics being promoted in school. I have a big problem with paying schools money to put pressure on parents to let their children see a political movie. And I have a bigger problem with paying schools money to put pressure on parents to pay cash for their children to see a political movie.
Comment by The Pixie — February 13, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Did I take anybody to task for anything? Somebody complained that the practices by the Expelled producers were described as bribing some to force others to watch the movie.
I have clearly laid out that both (the forcing and the bribery) are suggested on the Expelled website. Now, if you disagree with the definition of the word bribery, fine. Take it up with the dictionary folks.
Btw. some even label a tip given to a waiter as a bribe to give them good service.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. I also believe that a lot of elected officials get bribes all the time. Sometimes, the bribery can be proven easily (e.g. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham) and the official goes to jail. In other cases (countless donations from lobbyists on K street) its harder to prove and nobody goes to jail. So what? Does that invalidate the definition of bribery?
Comment by hrun — February 13, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
My wife and I pay for field trips often but the mandatory suggestion does go beyond what I would like.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Their actions are not "bribery" by any sort of "breaking the law" definition and it is completely irrelevant if the common usage of the word "bribery" applies. They are free and justified to use whatever legal means they want to promote their film.
My point is that both sides of this debate are trying to cast moral judgements onto the other side in an effort to ridicule either the views expressed in this movie or the views expressed by opponents. At best this comes down to differing opinions of proper and improper behavior but we are all entitled to our opinions. These opinions are not valid topics of debate. An opinion is not a theory, it doesn't need to be justified or supported. Sure you can argue in an effort to change someones opinion but you could also try to teach a pig to sing. Neither is productive.
Bradford: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that particular quote was subject to my complaints but rather the line of reasoning that would follow from trying to answer that question would be subject to these complaints. I was not clear in that regard. I should have said, "This will lead to…" or something like that. The point is that an appeal for examples of bad behavior among opponents of your theories will never advance the debate to support your theories.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 13, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Pixie,
Also 'bribery':
Commercials for toys included 'free' in Happy Meals, which urges children to pressure their parents to buy the meal.
Companies that partner with a specific supplier (such as Dell) to offer deals to the company if they push their employees to purchase computers, ink, etc through said supplier.
Insurance companies that offer monetary rewards to agencies who quote or sell policies to X number of potential customers. Trust me when I say the company doesn't care if their policy is the best value for the customers quoted or sold to.
Or, best of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Channel One has been going on for well over a decade. Every other example is extremely common. Bradford is right – this kind of thing is commonplace.
Now we can get into 'Okay, so they're doing something that's common. But that doesn't make it right!'
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh give me a f**king break! Y'all just take the cake.
Do you have any children/grandchildren in school? Who ever went to school? Have you been hit up for "Band Candy" and bought way more chocolate than you'll ever eat? How about those tickets to the school play? What about the dumb raffle at the spring carnival where you MIGHT 'win' somebody's old Easter basket full of penny candy? Ever done a cake-walk?
Since my grandson's been in school (public) it's been a regular extortion racket year after year after year.
Then there are the field trips. See a play downtown, go to a gallery opening or a museum or this or that, stop and McD's and it'll only cost every student $20 plus food and spending money. Did your kid join the ski club? Does Publix Supermarket chain promise to buy computers for your school if you turn in your receipts every week to 'prove' you bought a thousand bucks' worth of groceries there? How many turkeys did your school get from making their parents participate in the Ingles Thanksgiving Food Drive?
The kids can opt out if their parents can't afford the price or they don't want to participate. Mine often have – they have a library study hall instead when the teacher and class are all somewhere else. This is standard Marketing 101, and the charges of bribery are outrageous. You'd think nobody here is old enough to have watched any commercial television in their lives, or ever once encountered a child at their door who tries to convince them to spend more than they've got on something they don't need, just so that kid's school can get pencils and paper. Ridiculous.
Grow up, people.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Joy
I am not sure I would describe any of them as political.
Again, not exactly political.
And personally, I have a problem with brands that give money to schools when you buy them. If my children's school starts to promote them, I will complain to the school (thankfully they have more integrity than that), and I avoid brands that do it.
I also object to Bradford's "To what lengths will opponents go to discredit …" when those lengths appear to be no more than a college English major exagerating "putting pressure on" to "force". Perhaps that just shows the lengths he will go to discredit his opponents.
Comment by The Pixie — February 14, 2008 @ 10:19 am
February 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Pixie:
Using the term bribary to describe what is at worse an ill advised marketing campaign is over the top criticsm. Not uncommon in ID discussions and for that very reason worthy of noting.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hi Bradford,
Kettle, meet pot.
"Does the end justify the means?"
"…the author could have brought some evidence instead of just Kool-Aid…"
"The Darwinists are now using students to write hatchet jobs…"
Agreed, this is not uncommon in ID discussions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 14, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Hi,
I think most of you are missing the point. You keep talking opinions and assumptions but don't seem to be looking for actual scientific data to find out the latest information.
The ENCODE Project has done fanastisc research into the DNA and the program in it. Makes it difficult to believe in evolution.
See two articles on this on Then perhaps you will have some groundbreaking information to discuss, in stead of churning over the same old tales.
Regards
kernest135
Ps I may be slow answering as I am travelling about using internet cafes when I can find one in the bush.
Comment by kernest135 — February 14, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Somehow I doubt any of the scientists actually working on this project would agree with your conclusion, but obviously you know more about their work then they do. Otherwise one might think you are highly subject to confirmation bias.
I find it interesting that the view of life as the simple iterative execution of a program would make people view it as more likely to be designed. Perhaps if the program in question showed more of the features of human programming languages, like multiple layers of abstraction for example, it might provide evidence for design. Instead it seems very procedural and brute force.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 11:05 am
February 15th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Tod said:
I find it interesting that the view of life as the simple iterative execution of a program would make people view it as more likely to be designed. Perhaps if the program in question showed more of the features of human programming languages, like multiple layers of abstraction for example, it might provide evidence for design. Instead it seems very procedural and brute force.
Comment by Todd Berkebile "” February 15, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Has he already closed hid mind? the evidence he asks for is what the ENCODE project found, it is not simple has multiple layers of abstraction
and much more. But dont look—you might learn!
SORRY the URL got lost. http://www.evolution.htmlplane... web didn't like the greater than etc.
I have the file on usb but PC wont find it from here but I have already got files off it .
Back soon
kernest135
Comment by kernest135 — February 15, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Sorry the web address disappeared in my first post.
I found internet with USB so here is what I wanted to say in my first post.
I have read a lot of your posts and they seem to be mainly one opinion against the opposite opinion, my belief verses your belief, my morals verses yours. It doesn't seem likely to make any progress.
Perhaps the first thing to settle is whether or not there is a god who created earth and all life, or are we here by accidental meaningless evolutionary processes. If there is a such a god then all excuses and waffling on about evolution, or MY moral standards, or MY beliefs becomes meaningless, as there would be only one acceptable standard, because god would dictate it.
This can now be settled by science. The ENCODE Project researched into the workings of the DNA has proved that there is no "junk" (evolutionists claim 90% is junk, based on their ignorance). This part is the META information on how to access and use the information in the DNA, to make proteins etc, cell maintenance and how to build a new cell.
The simplest cell must have the highly complex computer type program and the matching interleaved data in the DNA that the ENCODE Program has detailed, AND the 10,000rpm ATP motor to produce the energy used within the cell, AND kinesins, that are tiny robotic machines that take materials around in the cell, like a commercial courier.
Absolutely nothing lives without these things, plants, single cell creatures, animals and every cell of your body.
The starting hurdle for impure chemicals in the natural environment is so great for each of these things, and all other parts of a cell, that it is clearly impossible for life to be an accident. It can only be started by some great intelligence, with planning and the ability to manipulate chemistry at the single atom level to ensure purity.
See articles on the discoveries made by the ENCODE Project, and the complexity of all cells goto . There are two files on the ENCODE Project to chose from evolution.htmlplanet.com
In case it doesn't show up here it is http://www.evolution.htmlplane....
There is also a video to watch at .multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu.
In case it doesn't show up here it is again multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu.
It shows that the evolutionary teaching that the simple cell is just a simple blob of proteinaceous matter is absolute nonsense based on ignorance, partly because we are only now able to study the inside workings of the cell.
This will give you a new perspective on life and it's meaning, and you will find value and a purpose, and your debating will be more realistic and meaningful instead of churning up the same old things.
Regards,
kernest135
Ref: evolution.htmlplanet.com.
Comment by kernest135 — February 15, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hi Kernest,
I was disappointed with your website links.
Is this the ENCODE project you are talking about?
There is plenty of scientific information on the ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements project yet your website didn't seem to link to any of it.
I may have missed your science links, but ones I tried just seem to go from one opinion piece to another with urls to places like Answers in Genesis thrown in the mix.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 15, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 7:47 am
kernest135
Great. I look forward to you presenting the data, and showing us how it supports your position
Hey, we're culture warriors. It is what we do. But I look forward to you show us how it should be done.
Here is the Wiki on Junk DNA. That may give some insight into what the term means to scientists. Here is a paper summarising what ENCODE had done by mid 2007. The word "junk" does not appear in the paper. So I am wondering where you get your claims from. I do not have a subscription to Nature. Could you quote the part of the paper (ENCODE pilot Project, Nature 447: 799-816, 2007) that supports your claim?
On your page here, you say: "At last! Science prevails! Old religious superstition dies! Evolution theory totally dead! Poor Richard Dawkins as a totally fulfilled atheist he has no foundation." As far as I can see this is merely your belief, your opinion. Wishful thinking. It is odd that your only references are a paper that is 40 years old, and a paper by the ENCODE project, which seems to offer no support to your claims. You will need more than that to prove "Evolution theory totally dead".
And why do you think evolution is an "Old religious superstition" Perhaps you should look at the science that supports it. Perhaps you should think about why many Christians accept evolution. Perhaps you should consider why people who are anti-religion accept evolution. Perhaps you could ponder why there is no God of evolution (creationists like to pretend Darwin is, but I am sure you can see that is nonsense), no churches, no priests, no rituals, no sacred texts (some creationists will claim Origin of Species is, ignoring that evolution theory has changed considerably), and indeed one of the usual paraphernalia associated with religion.
Your website purports to give an unbiased view of the evolution/creation debate, but to me it came across as startling pro-creation. Disappointing.
Comment by The Pixie — February 16, 2008 @ 7:47 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Kernest135, the bottom line for most ID critics is the culture war mentality. While they point the finger at the "ID movement" they nurse a very potent movement of their own.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 11:07 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Quoting from Kernest135's website:
Like this intron for example?
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 11:20 am
February 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Hi Bradford,
Your second comment was a slightly more effective than your first. Although you quoted unsupported opinion and linked to another opinion piece (yours). Your blog's opinion piece eventually provided actual scientific links.
Pixie and I provided scientific links up front. Let me bring yours forward…
Some 'Junk' DNA Is Important Guide For Nerve-cell Channel Production
This is interesting in a couple of ways.
If Hameroff is right that quantum consciousness is a fundamental property of life, then we would expect to see fundamental processes in neurons.
The other way this is interesting is that it provides support for the RNA World concept in that RNA is more fundament than originally thought.
However, it is ironic that this science stuff is arguably off-topic for this thread,
since it is clear from your opening post that you were focusing on how cult-like "Darwinists" drink "Kool-Aid" (ala Jim Jones) and "write hatchet jobs".
Feel free to send this comment to the memory hole.
Then kernest135 would be free to continue linking to Answers from Genesis while admonishing us for "missing the point" and how we "don't seem to be looking for actual scientific data to find out the latest information."
BTW, here is a 2008 paper titled…
Human Perception of Physical Experiments and the Simplex Interpretation of Quantum Physics
but it is probably off-topic for this thread too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 16, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Moderation help please
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 16, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
TP:
If this is his actual prediction based on the theory he touts then this is good news.
I don't know who believes RNA is not fundamental. There have been great advances in knowledge about RNA in its many different forms and functions in recent years. Of course a fundamental cellular function does not necessarily translate into evidence of origins. Connect those dots.
I recognize that divergence is an inevitable consequence of blogging. As long as the spin-offs are related to the TT blog theme I don't usually have a problem with this. I do draw the line at wanderings that are aimed at blog policies themselves or at individuals.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
post on TT
from kernest135.
Hi
I think Joy got it right. We often go with the bribe. Certain supermarkets in our district will give discount vouchers for 4cent a litre off fuel. We tend to go there for the weeks food. For a full tank you save nearly half enough for a latte. There are many other offers companies make that could be bribery.
Remember that the evolutionists are using government money to forcefully push their view, by including it in school books, so the teachers will spend their time, Government paid, to indoctrinate the children. If the evolution view is wrong, then we are lying to our children, and setting them on the wrong path at the start of their lives.
This could be why so many are depressed, and why school shootings are on the increase. In one case the boys called out a christian girl and deliberately shot her dead declaring hatred for christianity, so what had they been taught that gave them such a distorted view of life? Why didn't the school curriculum include teaching of a better moral outlook on life? Evolution and the Humanist Religion are both subtly pushed at schools in many classes, as both are basically the same idea, ie, Hate God, we just happened, make our own morals, including NO morals.
Do you want your children, grand children to be depressed, suicidal, violent for no apparent reason? If the science involved in ID, and it is only science that they study, god is excluded, and it disproves evolution, and that saves your children from being depressed etc, isn't it important to find out for sure what the supporting evidence of ID really is?
If it makes for a better life attitude surely it is very important. There are all sorts of problems in relationships and marriages they will have to negotiate, please set them on the best moral and emotional path that you possibly can.
Go and find out for yourself. I am sure the IDists and "Expelled" want children to have a better outlook on life than evolutions purposeless meaningless, we are just an accident, mentality.
Regards,
kernest135.
Is on your post subject?
It will take a while to read the references you have given.
Comment by kernest135 — February 17, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
kernest135:
In a sense all scientific theories are wrong and doomed to be replaced by more accurate models, sometimes radically different. That doesn't mean they are lies. Have you considered that your own view might be wrong?
It's funny though that school shootings are much rarer in countries with a much higher rate of public acceptance of evolution. Must be one of those mysterious ways.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
kernest135
Thank you for all the references. This one is to the ENCODE Project an 18 page file, will take a lot of reading.
*************
Thought Provoker Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Hi Kernest,
I was disappointed with your website links.
Is this the ENCODE project you are talking about?
There is plenty of scientific information on the ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements project yet your website didn't seem to link to any of it.
**********
Regards,
kernest 135
Comment by kernest135 — February 17, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Raevmo:
I don't suppose the availability of guns or the un-availability of mental health care (or any health care) has anything to do with such things, though. It's gotta be that the shooters don't believe in evolution, right?
Comment by Joy — February 17, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
kernest135 :
Todd Berkebile Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am | kernest135: The ENCODE Project has done fanastisc research into the DNA and the program in it. Makes it difficult to believe in evolution.
Somehow I doubt any of the scientists actually working on this project would agree with your conclusion, but obviously you know more about their work then they do. Otherwise one might think you are highly subject to confirmation bias.
kernest135
You are quite right They will not publically agree with what is in the files at evolution.htmlplanet.com as the evolutionists would have them sacked, their tenure cancelled, or make sure they never got another job in science. There are court cases going on or just finished where this has happened, it is the only way evolutionists can keep people from going public with the scientific data. This is a dishonest way of shutting people up.
How is it that a good top grade scientist suddenly becomes totally incompetant the instant they see just what the scientific data means, that ID is the only possibility.
Comment by Joy "” February 17, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I don't suppose the availability of guns or the un-availability of mental health care (or any health care) has anything to do with such things, though. It's gotta be that the shooters don't believe in evolution, right?
Kernest135
In the particular case I mentioned the girl was called out because she was a christian and shot dead to show hatred of God. the shooters were evolution minded, or demonically inspired.
Comment by Raevmo "” February 17, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
It's funny though that school shootings are much rarer in countries with a much higher rate of public acceptance of evolution. Must be one of those mysterious ways.
kernest135
I was referring to the USA and its slide from a christian belief to evolution through teaching it at schools and in the media, from no school violence to having to scan pupils for guns and knives as the come into school, and teachers being afraid of pupils.
Now they have a system where they don't tell pupils if their woprk is not up to standard, as thye might become depressed. Then they go to work and wonger why they can't cope. They didn't learn properly at school as they coldn't be pushed into studying.
Regards
kernest135
Comment by kernest135 — February 19, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
February 19th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
kernest135:
If you want scientific data try:
http://www.trueorigins.org
Files such as ATP energy fof the cell, and many other scientific files.
There are many others
http://www.creationtheory.8k.c...
all I can recall in a hurry. regards,
kernest135
Comment by kernest135 — February 19, 2008 @ 10:54 pm