Real Science Radio: Bill Jack is Back, Now at DU Debating Evolution

[everready]

They are in awe of science and envy it. So they pretend that they have scientific proof for God.

How silly. Reason and faith can take you there. Science can't.

Christians are in awe of Jesus Christ, not science, Jesus has his hand stretched out to you Barbarian why not grab it before its too late.


everready

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian chuckles:I'd be open to your evidence that Yom in Genesis means "mornings and evenings without a sun to have them."Everready stamping his foot and insisting his new beliefs are true, is not evidence. Everready speaks as an atheist speaks:It gives me the truth. And you fear it, because you fear the truth about your alterations to the Bible. If you would just accept Him as He is, you wouldn't have to fear the truth. He says that if you follow Him, you'll be happy. Why not give it a try for a change?[/QUOTE][QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 0"]They are in awe of science and envy it. So they pretend that they have scientific proof for God.How silly. Reason and faith can take you there. Science can't.

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days," while you insist on "billions of years."

When you've picked one and only one of those conflicting accounts, you might be able to join a rational discussion. Until then, you are forced to blather and misquote.

 

[The Barbarian]

Christians are in awe of Jesus Christ, not science

We are. You guys have it completely wrong. Science is just a method for understanding His creation. And it's totally unable to tell you anything about Him.

Why not just accept Him as He is, and let it be? You might not go to Hell for not accepting His creation, but if you do accept it His way, you'll have a better relationship with Him.

Jesus has his hand stretched out to you Barbarian

About a half century ago. And it changed my life. That could happen to you, if you trusted Him, instead of your man-made doctrines.

Worth a try.

 

[Stripe]

We are. You guys have it completely wrong. Science is just a method for understanding His creation. And it's totally unable to tell you anything about Him. Why not just accept Him as He is, and let it be? You might not go to Hell for not accepting His creation, but if you do accept it His way, you'll have a better relationship with Him.About a half century ago. And it changed my life. That could happen to you, if you trusted Him, instead of your man-made doctrines. Worth a try.

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture, which says: "six days." You prefer your "billions of years," which wouldn't be a problem if you didn't pretend to be upholding the Bible.

 

[Alate_One]

And really, Bob picked on a guy with a BS in biology? Couldn't even get a graduate student to debate? :chuckle:

The silly thing about the cell point is even if an evolutionist said they believed God created the first cell, You wouldn't accept any level of evolution after that. Then at some magical point evolution becomes okay except you usually call it something else.

 

[GuySmiley]

And really, Bob picked on a guy with a BS in biology? Couldn't even get a graduate student to debate? :chuckle:

The silly thing about the cell point is even if an evolutionist said they believed God created the first cell, You wouldn't accept any level of evolution after that. Then at some magical point evolution becomes okay except you usually call it something else.

Are you still commenting on these threads without reading? Bob didn't pick anyone.

 

[GuySmiley]

Hey, was that the film that got those guys sued for plagiarism for copying from Harvard University's Inner Lives of a Cell?

This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright.

It has come to our intention that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008. To our knowledge, this film includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled “The Inner Life of a Cell.” XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material.

We have obtained promotional material for the “Expelled” film, presented on a DVD, that clearly shows in the “cell segment” the virtually identical depiction of material from the “Inner Life” video. We particularly refer to the segment of the “Expelled” film purporting to show the “walking” models of kinesic activities in cellular mechanisms. The segments depicting these models in your film are clearly based upon, and copied from, material in the “Inner Life” video.

We have been advised by counsel that this segment in your film constitutes an actionable infringement of XVIVO’s intellectual property rights, as protected by federal statutes, including Section 106 of the Copyright Act, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Each of these statutes provides for judicial enforcement of their provisions, with substantial civil penalties for their infringement.

We have also obtained legal advice that your copying, in virtually identical form, of material in the “inner Life” video clearly meets the legal test of “substantial similarity” between the copied work and our original work.

This letter will also serve as notice to you that XVIVO intends to vigorously and promptly pursue its legal remedies for your copyright infringement, unless and until Premise Media, Rampant Films, and their officers, employees, and agents comply with the following demands:

1) That Premise Media, Rampant Films, and its officers, employees, and agents remove the infringing segment from all copies of the “Expelled” film prior to its scheduled commercial release on or before April 18, 2008;

2) That all copies of the “Inner Life” video in your possession or under your control be returned to XVIVO;

3) That Premise Media notify XVIVO, on or before April 18, 2008, of its compliance with the above demands.

We have been advised, by a telephone conversation with Mellie Bracewell of Premise Media on April 8, 2008, that an e-mail transmission of this letter to her will be promptly forwarded to you. A hard copy of this letter, on XVIVO stationary, will also be sent to you today by express delivery.

We are sure that you will want to avoid legal action in this matter, and urge you to promptly notify us of your compliance with the above demands. You may do so by return e-mail, directed to _____, followed by a hard-copied letter indicating your compliance with the above demands.

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-expelled-for-plagiarism.html

Wow, that all sounds really official. But anyone can sue anyone for anything. I wonder how that law suit turned out.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...LLEDXVIVO-Agreement-Infringement#.VV5iltPJCUk

 

[Alate_One]

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days," while you insist on "billions of years."

When you've picked one and only one of those conflicting accounts, you might be able to join a rational discussion. Until then, you are forced to blather and misquote.

Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. Not the earth. You reject clear teaching of scripture. See how that works?

 

[The Barbarian]

Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. Not the earth. You reject clear teaching of scripture. See how that works?

No worries. Stipe pretty much put himself on the sidelines, now.

No one with any sense pays any attention to him.

 

[User Name]

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture, which says: "six days."

What is your understanding of Revelation 6:13?

 

[Stripe]

And really, Bob picked on a guy with a BS in biology? Couldn't even get a graduate student to debate?

Evolutionists always look at the qualifications a person has rather than listening to what they say.

The silly thing about the cell point is even if an evolutionist said they believed God created the first cell, You wouldn't accept any level of evolution after that. Then at some magical point evolution becomes okay except you usually call it something else.

Nope. As has been pointed out to you innumerable times, we have a completely different explanation for change within kinds, a process that evolution has no part of. Evolution is scientifically impossible; what we believe is in line with physics and reality.

Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. Not the earth. You reject clear teaching of scripture. See how that works?

Nope. That you can't read is not my problem.

What is your understanding of Revelation 6:13?

I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” (Revelation‬ 6‬:12-17‬ NKJV)​

I think you'll be pretty nervous.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wow, that all sounds really official. But anyone can sue anyone for anything. I wonder how that law suit turned out.

Harvard had scientists. IDers don't have scientists; they have lawyers. The film was changed just enough to make it legal, according to the lawyers. But watch both of them, and decide for yourself which one is the shabby copy.

Even if you don't know anything about cell biology, it's very clear.

 

[GuySmiley]

Harvard had scientists. IDers don't have scientists; they have lawyers. The film was changed just enough to make it legal, according to the lawyers. But watch both of them, and decide for yourself which one is the shabby copy.

"XVIVO has agreed that the Premise Media documentary does not infringe on any of XVIVO’s intellectual property rights. "
Yes, brining up the law suit was a shabby attempt by you to discredit the film.

Even if you don't know anything about cell biology, it's very clear.

This is a shabby attempt by you to change the subject.

 

[The Barbarian]

As I said, look at the original, and look at the copy. And it's very clear which was plagiarized by whom.

Legal maneuvering notwithstanding.

 

[Granite]

As I said, look at the original, and look at the copy. And it's very clear which was plagiarized by whom.

Legal maneuvering notwithstanding.

Enyart manages to attract some real...characters, I'll say that.:yawn:

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists love it when the discussion is not about the evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Compare the original with the plagiarized copy:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/23/about-that-cell-video-in-expel/

Another curious coincidence: you’ve heard of the concept of plagiarized errors, the idea that the real tell-tale of a copy is when it’s the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies. In this case, I previously criticized the Harvard video for a shortcut. That kinesin molecule is illustrated showing a stately march, step by step, straight down the microtubule. Observations of kinesin show it’s more complex, jittering back and forth and advancing stochastically. That’s a simplification in the Harvard video that is also present in Expelled‘s version.

tell-tale of a copy is when it’s the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies. In this case, I previously criticized the Harvard video for a shortcut. That kinesin molecule is illustrated showing a stately march, step by step, straight down the microtubule. Observations of kinesin show it’s more complex, jittering back and forth and advancing stochastically. That’s a simplification in the Harvard video that is also present in Expelled‘s version.

Ironically, common errors in puedogenes is one reliable way of detecting common descent. Shared errors tells us that the second video is descended from the first.

Poetic justice. Stipe hates it when the discussion is about the evidence.

 

[Granite]

Aside from the plagiarism it's amusing how this was trying to be hyped as a major throwdown between two significant minds.

 

[Stripe]

Compare the original with the plagiarized copy:[url]http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/23/about-that-cell-video-in-expel/[/url][COLOR="DarkRed"]Another curious coincidence: you’ve heard of the concept of plagiarized errors, the idea that the real tell-tale of a copy is when it’s the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies. In this case, I previously criticized the Harvard video for a shortcut. That kinesin molecule is illustrated showing a stately march, step by step, straight down the microtubule. Observations of kinesin show it’s more complex, jittering back and forth and advancing stochastically. That’s a simplification in the Harvard video that is also present in Expelled‘s version. tell-tale of a copy is when it’s the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies. In this case, I previously criticized the Harvard video for a shortcut. That kinesin molecule is illustrated showing a stately march, step by step, straight down the microtubule. Observations of kinesin show it’s more complex, jittering back and forth and advancing stochastically. That’s a simplification in the Harvard video that is also present in Expelled‘s version.[/COLOR]Ironically, common errors in puedogenes is one reliable way of detecting common descent. Shared errors tells us that the second video is descended from the first. Poetic justice.

Aside from the plagiarism it's amusing how this was trying to be hyped as a major throwdown between two significant minds.

Evolutionists love a discussion when it does not involve the evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Aside from the plagiarism it's amusing how this was trying to be hyped as a major throwdown between two significant minds.

Apparently, low budget issues got them a low-resolution knock-off of the real thing.

One way teachers catch cheating is just this way. Shared features might indicate convergence, but shared errors indicate common descent.

This is old stuff for IDers; a photo of what was claimed to be the DI laboratory, turned out to be their "lab director" copied into a stock photo of a real lab.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/12/the-disco-tutes-1.html