Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[BobRyan]

I hope that all Christian college students will have a chance to see the case for intelligent design presented by the Amazing Discoveries group

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

Dr Walter Veith is a former professor of evolutionary biology that has become a Christian and now teaches that intelligent design is "science" whereas evolutionism is simply wishful-thinking.

His argument for static genomes is impressive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I hope that all Christian college students will have a chance to see the case for intelligent design presented by the Amazing Discoveries group

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

Dr Walter Veith is a former professor of evolutionary biology that has become a Christian and now teaches that intelligent design is "science" whereas evolutionism is simply wishful-thinking.

His argument for static genomes is impressive.

in Christ,

Bob

I looked at this guys blog site and he's a SDA. He also holds to some weird ideas. I'm not sure how reliable this guys going to be. I can't read your link because my web browser has security protecting me from it.

 

[BobRyan]

If the argument is that an atheist evolutionist professor that converts to Chriatianity and teaches intelligent design can not possibly have a valid science argument - if it turns out that the Christian group he joins is SDA -- then I have not seen the details that would support that point.

You might want to start a thread titled "you can't know anything about science if you are an SDA". I would be happy to participate on that topic.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is another item "thinkingstuff" may not be able to view - but is very instructive nonetheless.


What you have is stasis at the genome level.

All humans have the same coding genes. All dogs have the same coding genes. New ones are never added -- much less new chromosomes added.

Hence Dawkins' 11 second flummoxed response to this point below.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


For those who can view it -- "enjoy"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If the argument is that an atheist evolutionist professor that converts to Chriatianity and teaches intelligent design can not possibly have a valid science argument - if it turns out that the Christian group he joins is SDA -- then I have not seen the details that would support that point.

You might want to start a thread titled "you can't know anything about science if you are an SDA". I would be happy to participate on that topic.



in Christ,

Bob

No you got my point wrong. I looked at his blog site and saw other strange ideas such as an over preoccupation with demons rulling the government and secret societies that are resonsible for the 9/11 attack etc... Those strange ideas that are unsubstantiated make me wonder how substantiated his scientific analysis with regard to the subject matter is. He may have a point. He may not. However, being SDA and drinking Ellen Whites coolaid is also something to make me step back. Though I know many nice SDA people. I think their theology is off.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that if you want to divert this topic away from the genetics argument that Veith makes -- you could focus on his religion or "demons ruling the government" or 1Timothy 4:1-2 or 2Cor 4:4 or Ellen White or ...

But my point was the argument from science in this case of a professor who turned from atheist evolutionist to Christian creationist. AND whose science was so stellar that he was asked to continue teaching biology and morphology classes at the university level even though he had given up on the myths and fables of evolutionism.

I am surprised that this gets you so quickly off on what you think of SDA theology as if to accept his science arguments about intelligent design is to become an Adventist.

How are you making that gigantic leap??

I suppose the problem is that you can not click on the link that shows the science he uses to promote intelligent design and so failing that - you are simply participating in a review of the non-science elements related to Doctor Veith.

You are welcome to look at the anything-but-science aspect of what he posts - but my purpose in this thread was the science aspect which I believe you have said you can not view due to restrictions in your browser.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[annsni]

I agree that if you want to divert this topic away from the genetics argument that Veith makes -- you could focus on his religion or "demons ruling the government" or 1Timothy 4:1-2 or 2Cor 4:4 or Ellen White or ...

But my point was the argument from science in this case of a professor who turned from atheist evolutionist to Christian creationist. AND whose science was so stellar that he was asked to continue teaching biology and morphology classes at the university level even though he had given up on the myths and fables of evolutionism.

I am surprised that this gets you so quickly off on what you think of SDA theology as if to accept his science arguments about intelligent design is to become an Adventist.

How are you making that gigantic leap??

I suppose the problem is that you can not click on the link that shows the science he uses to promote intelligent design and so failing that - you are simply participating in a review of the non-science elements related to Doctor Veith.

You are welcome to look at the anything-but-science aspect of what he posts - but my purpose in this thread was the science aspect which I believe you have said you can not view due to restrictions in your browser.

in Christ,

Bob

Even if someone is a wonderful scientist and does his job well - if he has some weird thoughts on other issues, it absolutely brings his knowledge and ideas into question. The fact that the subject is something that is quite different than the mainstream of science makes him a target - and here he has some very strange ideas about some other things. How do we know his science is good?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Even if someone is a wonderful scientist and does his job well - if he has some weird thoughts on other issues, it absolutely brings his knowledge and ideas into question. The fact that the subject is something that is quite different than the mainstream of science makes him a target - and here he has some very strange ideas about some other things. How do we know his science is good?

Thank you annsni. That was basically my point. Not an attempt to debate SDA or get off the thread but to question the validity or accuracy of the source. Bob do you have a transcript of what he's basically saying? I'm having trouble viewing Youtube. Just as a side note when I was in my graduate classes I've known very intelligent professors. Doctors in their field Primarily economics. I didn't agree with certain assesments which was fair because others had the same issues. I'm not down playing their intelligence or that their point of view may not have some points. However, as an overall assesment with the subject matter I came to different conclusions which from my persepective this economic climate of our country (and the world) is actually exciting to see which theories play out in actuality.

 

[BobRyan]

Even if someone is a wonderful scientist and does his job well - if he has some weird thoughts on other issues, it absolutely brings his knowledge and ideas into question.

When Einstein comes up with his theory of relativity our first question is not "what religion are you". As it turns out "science" is well... science and it is evaluated based on objective verifiable facts of ... well of "science".

Hence the importance of having a former atheist evolutionist who now is making a "science argument" in favor of intelligent design.

Where you able to see the actual science argument he presented - or are we still at the level of "discussing religion"??

The fact that the subject is something that is quite different than the mainstream of science makes him a target

Indeed - I fully understand why evolutionists would want to "target him".

But he actually was hired to continue as a knowledge expert - in mainstream science even after his switch away from the myths and fables of evolutionism. Which speaks volumes to his ability in that field.

- and here he has some very strange ideas about some other things. How do we know his science is good?

Well - Newtonian physics is brought to us by the "very Catholic" Isaac Newton. However whenever studying classical physics we typically never broach the topic "so what about them catholics - -can we trust a scientist who believes the bread can be turned into the body of Christ?".

Scientists are funny that way - I guess.:thumbs:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Isaac Newton was Marginally Anglican. He didn't believe in the trinity nor did he believe in Satan. Just some points of interest. He was also an Alchemist. Just thought I'd help your facts. BTW Einstien was Jewish. These men were brilliant but not everything they said was right. Newton had some serious strange ideas but got gravity right. They're still some issues not resolved by Einstiens theory of general relativity. However, we must be sure of what they are saying. What are they right about what are they not right about. Thats all I'm saying. If you noted in my previous post your guy here may have a point but then again he may not. Do you have the transcript?

 

[BobRyan]

Newton was actually a theologian as it turns out. Are you really signing on to his "beliefs" before looking at his science? Newton was a strong believer in alchemy and groups like the Rosicrucians. Are you saying that you need to vet all of his "beliefs" before you will accept classical physics?

Do you reall take a what-is-your-religion first approach to Newton and Einstein, Bohr, Plank, Euclid ... ??

I have to say that I never heard of that approach to science before.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have a transcript of the video - but I can give you the main argument. Basically he argues that genomes are static. His argument is that natural selection does not select on the genotype directly - it can only select on the phenotype. And the selection must always include at least two options but since phenotype is simply the physical expression of the genotype the limit within a genome will always be confined to the static set of coding genes found in the genome.

Hence my reference to that 11 second "flummoxed response" of Darwin to this problem.

The video has much more explanatory value than my brief statement above but that is the jist of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't have a transcript of the video - but I can give you the main argument. Basically he argues that genomes are static. His argument is that natural selection does not select on the genotype directly - it can only select on the phenotype. And the selection must always include at least two options but since phenotype is simply the physical expression of the genotype the limit within a genome will always be confined to the static set of coding genes found in the genome.

Hence my reference to that 11 second "flummoxed response" of Darwin to this problem.

The video has much more explanatory value than my brief statement above but that is the jist of it.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks. I'll look into it and get back with you. Though off the top does he say how far a genotype prohibts physical attributes? I'm thinking of the Dog here. Remember all dogs are wolves originally. Note a brief look at History Channels the History of the dog.

 

[Darron Steele]

I hope that all Christian college students will have a chance to see the case for intelligent design presented by the Amazing Discoveries group

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

Dr Walter Veith is a former professor of evolutionary biology that has become a Christian and now teaches that intelligent design is "science" whereas evolutionism is simply wishful-thinking.

His argument for static genomes is impressive.

in Christ,

Bob

I looked at this guys blog site and he's a SDA. He also holds to some weird ideas. I'm not sure how reliable this guys going to be. I can't read your link because my web browser has security protecting me from it.

First: To Thinkinstuff. If you are aware that you do not have a means to make an informed judgment, why not wait until you are in a position to have one?

I guess you did not want to wait, so a judgment amidst lack of information had to do. Therefore, you you went after the man.

I know that you will try to deny what you did, and defend what you just did, so I will answer you in advance to get it out of the way now: I have not been impressed before, and will not be impressed this time.

Second: EVERY evolutionist should be disowning their cherished notion.

I mean, seriously: we are descendants of a monkey-like creature's mutation? The idea is that a monkey-like creature brought to birth a mutant, and that mutant was a human.

Even if could be convinced not to believe the Genesis story as is, I would not buy into that idea. I would say `I do not know the origins of humanity.'

Secular scientists need to accept that the notion of us being descendents of a mutated monkey-like creature is not realistic. They need to accept that evolution being wrong does not necessarily mean creationism is true, so there is no reason to cleave to evolution just to resist creationism. It just means that they need to work on something more credible.

I dare say most evolutionists are influenced to maintain evolution for one or both of two reasons:
a) it has been their life's work, and they do not want to accept it was wrong,
b) concern that if they acknowledged the notion's wrongness, more people would more credence to a religion.
Fact is, wranglings aside, we know that the concept of "mutation" has bad connotations for good reason. The idea that we are descendents of a monkey-like creature's mutation is simply not realistic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First of all the discussion is about a person who make a scientific assessment. Anyone thinking on this level will first want to assure themselves of the source. Ie if I base a conclusion off a falicious premise the end result no matter how logical is also wrong. Also anyone who wants to make an assertion from a position of authority must allow that authority to be validated. In otherwords, how reliable is the source from which I will obtain information? It would be foolish to take everything anybody said as gospel. Authority and accuracy must first be verified. Which is all I was doing. If someone told me that they saw a Space Alien which is unlikely what types of things would I like to know about the person before I consider the story? Have they a history of Mental illness? Are they known for telling the truth. Are they on medication? See my meaning. I don't ever just jump on a band wagon because someone says something that agrees with my point of view. Never. Many people do this. I see that as dangerous. For instance. I'm conservative financially and politically. Just because someone is a republican doesn't incline me to believe they have my same values. Verify. Always verify.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks. I'll look into it and get back with you. Though off the top does he say how far a genotype prohibts physical attributes? I'm thinking of the Dog here. Remember all dogs are wolves originally. Note a brief look at History Channels the History of the dog.

He goes into some lenght discussing the dog and the wolf. He points out that all dogs have the exact same genome - in fact they all have the exact same coding genes. For a coding gene to be "expressed" (in phenotype) a couple of things have to happen. One of them being that the Alleles from each parent for the specific coding gene have to combine.

So while not all traits are expressed for every individual - they are all present in the genome's coding genes. And more specifically (as Veith points out) for the amoeba-to-man storytelling of evolutionism we have NO example of "new chromosomes" being added to a genome nor even of a single new coding gene being added.

Phenotype variation within a genome is at the level of gene allele for the fixed set of coding genes in that genome. No more.

So the amoeba genome is not going to "acquire" the gene for human eye color nor even the chromosome it lives on.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First of all the discussion is about a person who make a scientific assessment. Anyone thinking on this level will first want to assure themselves of the source. Ie if I base a conclusion off a falicious premise the end result no matter how logical is also wrong.

For "science" you only want to know if they are a recognized scientist not what church they go to.

Hence we do not take a what-is-your-religion first approach to Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Plank, Euclid, Hubble etc.

Imagine if before accepting Hubble's discovery of the Andromeda galaxy -- the first question was "what church do you go to and what are your views on this doctrine or that doctrine".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For "science" you only want to know if they are a recognized scientist not what church they go to.

Hence we do not take a what-is-your-religion first approach to Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Plank, Euclid, Hubble etc.

Imagine if before accepting Hubble's discovery of the Andromeda galaxy -- the first question was "what church do you go to and what are your views on this doctrine or that doctrine".

in Christ,

Bob

Ah but I would ask if he had a stigma, or mental health issues. Is he reliable. Note today religion is often a basis for a belief that is contrary to modern science just like it was in respect to Galileo. Its just that the roles were reversed.

 

[Revmitchell]

First of all the discussion is about a person who make a scientific assessment. Anyone thinking on this level will first want to assure themselves of the source. The op simply lists the source of the information.

The op makes it clear it is about the subject not the person. I watched it and noticed two things:


1. No outrages claims were made
2. Much of what he said is found also in two books I know of:

What is Creation Science? -Parker/Morris & Darwin on Trial - Johnson

 

[billwald]

>I have to say that I never heard of that approach to science before.

You will find that "real" OPC/Reconstructionists will only accept science from "real" Christians (not Catholics, Orthodox, CoE . . . .)