Real Science Radio: Another Terrific Creation Magazine Issue

[Jefferson]

RSR: Another Terrific Creation Magazine Issue

This is the show from Friday January 17th, 2014

Summary:

* Lowly Bug with Intermeshing Toothed Gears: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams love the report in Creation magazine of the plant hoping insect that needs greater launch accuracy than could be provided by a signal transmitted over a nervous system. God's design solution? Provide these little garden nymphs with toothed intermeshing cog gears! (The first discovered in nature.) Creation Ministries International has just published Creation 36(1) 2014. The only thing wrong with this issue is that it's missing something. What? YOU. They need you as a subscriber! And so does your family! So to fix this problem, just click on over to creation.com.



* Post-show Update on Extreme Geocentrism: Real Science Radio takes on extreme geocentrism with its claim that the Sun, stars, and universe orbit the Earth once every twenty four hours. Wow. This view, surprisingly, still circulates and is energetically defended, including with herculean (i.e., forceful yet fanciful) efforts at a scientific defense. We would love your feedback to our article at rsr.org/extreme-geocentrism.

Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! Getting this on DVD:
- helps you to share it with others
- helps keep Real Science Radio on the air, and
- gets you Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!
Information is encoded in every cell in our DNA and in all living things. Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems!

Also, have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!

 

[Stripe]

 

[Jukia]

Therefore, goddidit, got it.

 

[Stripe]

Therefore, goddidit, got it.

Wow. Jukia has won another argument. :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

* Lowly Bug with Intermeshing Toothed Gears: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams love the report in Creation magazine of the plant hoping insect that needs greater launch accuracy than could be provided by a signal transmitted over a nervous system. God's design solution? Provide these little garden nymphs with toothed intermeshing cog gears!

God's solution is apparently discarded when the nymph molts, and the adult seems to no longer need the cog-solution. The reason may be that the cog system is vulnerable to damage - on cog tooth lost causes the whole system to fail until the next molt, and adults don't get any more molts. So, God's solution is a partial one that has a small advantage for juveniles and a disadvantage for the adults. Hardly evidence for divine design - seems like natural selection has been weeding again!

 

[Jukia]

Wow. Jukia has won another argument. :chuckle:

Stripey, I am at a loss until I pay you the requested $100 for your evidence and data based on your religionism of Brownism.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Jukia.

 

[Jukia]

:mock: Jukia.

Crushed, just crushed Stripey. Is this the proper Christianism attitude toward someone who asked you a question that you claim to know the answer to?

My, my, my. What would Dr. Brown say? How in the world do you expect his theory to be accepted by the scientific community if you refuse to broadcast the answer to a simple question. What was the salinity of the world wide Flood water? You have suggested that Dr. Brown gives us the answer but you are unwilling to share that with the wider world? Where would Christianism be if the Apostles had that attitude? They broadcast Christ's message far and wide, some--many--even died for that. Is that what you are afraid of? Dying for Dr. Brown? Fear not.

Please, please, answer my plea.

 

[6days]

RSR: Another Terrific Creation Magazine Issue

This is the show from Friday January 17th, 2014

Summary:

* Lowly Bug with Intermeshing Toothed Gears: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams love the report in Creation magazine of the plant hoping insect that needs greater launch accuracy than could be provided by a signal transmitted over a nervous system. God's design solution? Provide these little garden nymphs with toothed intermeshing cog gears! (The first discovered in nature.) Creation Ministries International has just published Creation 36(1) 2014. The only thing wrong with this issue is that it's missing something. What? YOU. They need you as a subscriber! And so does your family! So to fix this problem, just click on over to creation.com.



* Post-show Update on Extreme Geocentrism: Real Science Radio takes on extreme geocentrism with its claim that the Sun, stars, and universe orbit the Earth once every twenty four hours. Wow. This view, surprisingly, still circulates and is energetically defended, including with herculean (i.e., forceful yet fanciful) efforts at a scientific defense. We would love your feedback to our article at rsr.org/extreme-geocentrism.

Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! Getting this on DVD:
- helps you to share it with others
- helps keep Real Science Radio on the air, and
- gets you Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!
Information is encoded in every cell in our DNA and in all living things. Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems!

Also, have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!

Loved it! Thanks!

 

[DavisBJ]

I see this toothed cog problem as just the latest (that I am aware of) in a long history of mysteries that science has been faced with. If I were a psychologist, I would find it fascinating to study the way that scientists and fundamentalists both choose to be delighted by such a problem, but for such divergent reasons. An evolutionary biologist would see an opportunity for a number of graduate students to do theses investigating what evolutionary precursors might have led to the development of the cog mechanism, and would be enthralled with the anticipation of publishing the new understandings in science that are found. Of course the fundamentalists, as in this case, will concurrently be gleefully claiming that this lack of current understanding in science shows the incompetence of those foolish scientists.

In a way, neither side loses in the long run. As almost always happens, while actually doing the science needed for answering such questions, even more scientific mysteries will be unearthed, mysteries that will occupy the attention of yet another batch of scientists. For the scientist, that is his raison d’ etre, the very thing that makes science so fascinating – an ever expanding frontier of new questions to be faced and the new knowledge to be gained. And that same realization that there are yet even more questions not yet understood by science will delight the Enyart’s who relish denigrating science when they do not see it aligning with their beliefs. No matter that science steadily eliminates today’s gaps in which the fundamentalists keep the proof of their god, they adroitly keep him safe in the new questions that scientists see as opportunities.

We can all be thankful that the scientists up to the present paid little heed to the cackling fundamentalists who make part of their living mocking science. Had the scientists of old heeded the fundamentalists each time they said God was the reason something was the way it was, we would each be tending to our horses and buggies, wondering how we can plant the 40 acres and still have time go the funeral for the lad that died of a disease that thankfully, modern science has eradicated.

 

[Stripe]

I see this toothed cog problem as just the latest (that I am aware of) in a long history of mysteries that science has been faced with. If I were a psychologist, I would find it fascinating to study the way that scientists and fundamentalists both choose to be delighted by such a problem, but for such divergent reasons. An evolutionary biologist would see an opportunity for a number of graduate students to do theses investigating what evolutionary precursors might have led to the development of the cog mechanism, and would be enthralled with the anticipation of publishing the new understandings in science that are found. Of course the fundamentalists, as in this case, will concurrently be gleefully claiming that this lack of current understanding in science shows the incompetence of those foolish scientists.

Nope. Evolutionists when faced with evidence of design will make up a story to suit their evolutionary bias and ignore the evidence for their Creator.

We can all be thankful that the scientists up to the present paid little heed to ... fundamentalists

You mean like Newton, Copernicus and Galileo?

Had the scientists of old heeded the fundamentalists each time they said God was the reason something was the way it was, we would each be tending to our horses and buggies, wondering how we can plant the 40 acres and still have time go the funeral for the lad that died of a disease that thankfully, modern science has eradicated.

The reason we did not get where we are today a thousand years ago is because people generally reject their Savior.

Now, were you here just to spout ridiculous stories that can never amount to anything except your side disagreeing with our side, or did you have something interesting to talk about?

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. Evolutionists when faced with evidence of design will make up a story to suit their evolutionary bias and ignore the evidence for their Creator.

You were about to explain how having a nymph stage with a cog-sync, that is replaced with the more durable nervous system based function when the last molt happens, is evidence of a Creator ... ?

:think:

 

[DavisBJ]

Nope. Evolutionists when faced with evidence of design will make up a story to suit their evolutionary bias and ignore the evidence for their Creator.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric - dismissed.

You mean like Newton, Copernicus and Galileo?

Newton – replaced the need for God or angels to shepherd the heavenly bodies around in the sky with the secular idea of gravity and his laws of motion. Copernicus – dethroned the idea that man was placed by God at the center of the universe. Galileo – got in pretty serious trouble with the church for opposing several current fundamentalist interpretations of scripture – like the sun going around the earth.

Can you update me on what fundamentalist religious doctrines your current batch of fundamentalist scientists are overturning – like the three guys you mentioned did?

The reason we did not get where we are today a thousand years ago is because people generally reject their Savior.

Christianity had more than 1600 years to get its act together, but at the end of that time, it had done little more for humanity than trying to convince everyone they ought to convert. Then science came on the scene as a formal discipline, and in just our lifetime has added more knowledge and made more advances for humanity than had come about in all of human history before. By comparison, Christianity is the poster child for impotent bluster.

 

[Stripe]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You go :blabla: for a couple of paragraphs and I say the opposite with a single line, but mine is rhetoric? :AMR:

Newton – replaced the need for God or angels to shepherd the heavenly bodies around in the sky with the secular idea of gravity and his laws of motion.

Yip. Now show us in the bible where it says angels push planets around. :up:

Copernicus – dethroned the idea that man was placed by God at the center of the universe.

Not a necessary part of what he provided.

Galileo – got in pretty serious trouble with the church for opposing several current fundamentalist interpretations of scripture – like the sun going around the earth.

Can you show where the bible teaches that the sun goes around the Earth?

Can you update me on what ... doctrines your current batch of fundamentalist scientists are overturning – like the three guys you mentioned did?

Ignoring the inherent absurdity of your question: Sure! Fish do not turn into people. Continents do not move around magically. Stars and planets do not start out as clouds of gas. Time is not a physical reality that can be manipulated. Matter did not create itself from nothing. People are not magically imbued with a soul weeks or months after they are conceived.

Christianity had more than 1600 years to get its act together

Christianity is the idea that salvation comes solely through the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Anything else is superfluous.

but at the end of that time, it had done little more for humanity than trying to convince everyone they ought to convert. Then science came on the scene as a formal discipline, and in just our lifetime has added more knowledge and made more advances for humanity than had come about in all of human history before. By comparison, Christianity is the poster child for impotent bluster.

The majority reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Hence the general rejection of science.

 

[way 2 go]

You were about to explain how having a nymph stage with a cog-sync, that is replaced with the more durable nervous system based function when the last molt happens, is evidence of a Creator ... ?

:think:

you seem to be saying because the system was replaced it was not irreducibly complex

that's like saying
we have a 4 stroke motor therefore the 2 stroke motor is not irreducibly complex

the plant hoping insect that needs greater launch accuracy than could be provided by a signal transmitted over a nervous system. God's design solution? Provide these little garden nymphs with toothed intermeshing cog gears!

intermeshing cog gears are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved you need intelligent design :carryon:

 

[DavisBJ]

Yip. Now show us in the bible where it says angels push planets around. :up:

Why do you ask me to provide scriptural justification for nonsensical ideas held by religious fundamentalists of centuries back? When it comes down to correctly understanding what was meant by the religious records of a scientifically illiterate nomadic people, notice that many of the discussions at TOL are actually contests between competing factions of Christianity. If the Bible were lucid on many details, then there would be far less dissension among sects.

But as to angels pushing planets around, do you know the prevailing religious beliefs about the stars and planets that Kepler grew up under? Even though he held the position of Imperial Mathematician, yet he was excommunicated by those who occupied the same dubious distinction you do, the religious fundamentalists who felt a religious duty to attack anyone perceived as opposing their own unique understanding of what scripture taught.

I said:

Copernicus – dethroned the idea that man was placed by God at the center of the universe.

Stripe’s response:

Not a necessary part of what he provided.

Necessary or not, relegating the abode of man – the earth – to be something going around the sun rather than vv came to be seen as religious heresy. If you took your modern knowledge of the sun and planets back to medieval Europe and tried to teach those ideas, we would be reading about your immolation at the hands of your religious fundamentalist role models.

Can you show where the bible teaches that the sun goes around the Earth?

If you are really that ignorant of the religious charges levied against Galileo, then you would do well to come back to this conversation after doing some research.

Ignoring the inherent absurdity of your question: Sure! Fish do not turn into people. Continents do not move around magically. Stars and planets do not start out as clouds of gas. Time is not a physical reality that can be manipulated. Matter did not create itself from nothing. People are not magically imbued with a soul weeks or months after they are conceived.

Your twisting what I asked by selectively omitting some important adjectives is not what an honest person would do. I asked for “ fundamentalist religious doctrines your current batch of fundamentalist scientists are overturning.” Care to answer again, honestly this time?

The majority reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Hence the general rejection of science.

Are you saying that if a disproportionate percentage of scientists are not believers, then we should reject science itself?

 

[Stripe]

Why do you ask me to provide scriptural justification for [biblical] ideas.

No support for your assertion that the bible teaches that angels push planets around. Check.

Notice that many of the discussions at TOL are actually contests between competing factions of Christianity.

Evolutionists love to point to general disagreement among Christians as if it supports their specific claims, which they cannot support with evidence.

If the Bible were lucid on many details, then there would be far less dissension among sects.

What, like how long it took God to create the universe?

But as to angels pushing planets around, do you know the prevailing religious beliefs about the stars and planets that Kepler grew up under?

Evolutionists love arguments from popularity.

Even though he held the position of Imperial Mathematician, yet he was excommunicated by those who occupied the same dubious distinction you do, the religious fundamentalists who felt a religious duty to attack anyone perceived as opposing their own unique understanding of what scripture taught.

Scripture does not teach geocentrism and the majority of religious leaders are evolutionists. I am the Kepler in this discussion.

Necessary or not, relegating the abode of man – the earth – to be something going around the sun rather than vv came to be seen as religious heresy. If you took your modern knowledge of the sun and planets back to medieval Europe and tried to teach those ideas, we would be reading about your immolation at the hands of your religious fundamentalist role models.

And I am mocked and ridiculed for dismissing evolution by people claiming to be Christians today. Your appeals to what is popular just helps dig your hole deeper.

Your twisting what I asked by selectively omitting some important adjectives is not what an honest person would do. I asked for “ fundamentalist religious doctrines your current batch of fundamentalist scientists are overturning.” Care to answer again, honestly this time?

Your question makes no sense. Fundamentalists uphold the fundamentals of the bible. They do not overturn them. I turned your question into a coherent one that I could answer.

Are you saying that if a disproportionate percentage of scientists are not believers, then we should reject science itself?

:dizzy:

 

[DavisBJ]

No support for your assertion that the bible teaches that angels push planets around. Check.

Why do you act as though dishonesty is a virtue to you? I have been explicitly clear that that was a widely held belief within the Christian community in centuries past. If you don’t believe that divine messengers guide the planets, then that is because you have diverged from the fundamentalists of old and accepted the science they resisted.

Evolutionists love to point to general disagreement among Christians as if it supports their specific claims, which they cannot support with evidence.

I made no claim that divisions in Christian thought is support for evolution. My point was that the scriptures are ambiguous enough to give birth to lots of contested ideas. Your argument about angels pushing planets is with your fundamentalist forbears, not with me.

What, like how long it took God to create the universe?

Yeah, that is one of the points of contention in your ranks.

Evolutionists love arguments from popularity.

Wrong, this is a question establishing whether or not fundamentalists a few centuries ago held ideas about the solar system that the Christian scientists you named disagreed with on scientific grounds.

Scripture does not teach geocentrism

It does not teach geocentrism as you choose to understand scripture. Which once again shows that fundamentalist Christianity of Kepler and Galileo’s time has retreated from their prior untenable belief, largely because of the scientific understanding Kepler et al brought.

the majority of religious leaders are evolutionists.

I dunno. Can you provide data that supports that claim?

I am the Kepler in this discussion.

Kepler opposed and helped rid the fundamentalist community of some erroneous ideas. What erroneous fundamentalist ideas are you trying to correct?

Fundamentalists uphold the fundamentals of the bible.

Which is exactly the reason Galileo’s accusers said they were bringing him to trial – they were upholding the fundamentals of the Bible.

:dizzy:

That eye problem you’ve got might help explain why you have so much trouble reading accurately.

 

[gcthomas]

you seem to be saying because the system was replaced it was not irreducibly complex

that's like saying
we have a 4 stroke motor therefore the 2 stroke motor is not irreducibly complex

Do you normally rewrite what others say then criticise your version of what was written? I meant exactly what I wrote, no more or less. I don't usually mention or even refer to irreducible complexity because that whole idea is bankrupt, translating in my mind to 'it is too complicated for me to grasp, so godditit'.

intermeshing cog gears are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved you need intelligent design :carryon:

Asserted, but not remotely demonstrated. Just because you don't want to think of the step by step evolutionary process doesn't mean there wasn't one. Irreducible complexity is just a new name for God of the gaps.

 

[Stripe]

Why do you act as though dishonesty is a virtue to you?

I don't. :idunno:

I have been explicitly clear that that was a widely held belief within the Christian community in centuries past.

It is a widely held belief among Christians today that fish turned into people. What you need to do is quit pretending that I must defend what is popular.

If you don’t believe that divine messengers guide the planets, then that is because you have diverged from the fundamentalists of old and accepted the science they resisted.

Nope. It is because I stick with the fundamentals of the bible. I prefer what it teaches over what it doesn't.

Your argument about angels pushing planets is with your fundamentalist forbears, not with me.

So you are inventing impossible arguments for me to have?

There are enough evolutionists here to provide those. :chuckle:

Yeah, that is one of the points of contention in your ranks.

Not really. The bible teaches creation in six days. If you find someone who rejects the plain teaching of the bible, would you call him a Christian?

Wrong, this is a question establishing whether or not fundamentalists a few centuries ago held ideas about the solar system that the Christian scientists you named disagreed with on scientific grounds.

Fundamentalists believe what the bible plainly teaches. The bible nowhere teaches geocentrism. It hints at heliocentrism.

It does not teach geocentrism as you choose to understand scripture. Which once again shows that fundamentalist Christianity of Kepler and Galileo’s time has retreated from their prior untenable belief, largely because of the scientific understanding Kepler et al brought.

And those guys were fundamentalist Christians. Puts to rest your little assertion, doesn't it?

Kepler opposed and helped rid the fundamentalist community of some erroneous ideas. What erroneous fundamentalist ideas are you trying to correct?

Fundamentalist does not mean what you want it to mean.

Which is exactly the reason Galileo’s accusers said they were bringing him to trial – they were upholding the fundamentals of the Bible.

Sorry, the bible says what it says despite what people call themselves - or what you call them.