Real Science Radio in Portsmouth UK with Genesis Expo

[Jefferson]

RSR in Portsmouth UK with Genesis Expo

This is the show from Friday October 16th, 2015

SUMMARY:

* Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart interviews David Rosevear: Hear this young-earth creation scientist and former chemistry professor from the University of Portsmouth. Far from creationism being a science stopper, Dr. Rosevear discusses the advantages that his biblical worldview gave him as a scientist, and as a professor who helped many students earn their own Ph.D.s in chemistry. Bob and David then describe Portsmouth's Genesis Expo, right on the historic waterfront, where thousands of tourists have been introduced to young earth creationism!

* YouTube Sensation Trey Smith Releases Video w RSR: on the release of Jurassic: Dinosaurs are Young. All of Them. You can order a copy of that video for yourself, your Sunday School class, and even your kids and grandkids will love it! And right now on YouTube you can hear Trey talking to footprint iconoclast Glen Kuban who smashed the human fossil footprints in the Paluxy River basin outside of Glen Rose, Texas. And check out Trey's really fun Jurassic preview video:

Spoiler

* So Please Consider Getting Our New Dinosaur Video[/b]: Jurassic: Dinosaurs are Young. All of Them. from Trey Smith and Bob Enyart, now available!

* You're Invited to this Important Colorado RTL Event: On Saturday, Nov. 7th, Bob invites you to come on out to Colorado Right To Life's annual fall event, this time hosted at Denver Bible Church, for a 12:30 p.m. lunch seating and a 6:00 p.m. dinner seating for their Pasta Banquet and Mini Film Festival! Just register at ColoradoRTL.org. And if you're out of town, please call 1-888-888-CRTL or just go to their website to buy a ticket or a table for a pro-life activist family that would like to attend! Thank you!

Spoiler

From Real Science Radio:

The Richard Dawkins 3-to-1 Evolution Challenge

Research in preparation for an upcoming debate led Bob Enyart and his associate Will Duffy to Oxford University in the United Kingdom. With the success of RSR's PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge (see the popular evolutionist's reply here), the guys decided to hand deliver a copy of this Dawkins 3-to-1 Challenge to the office of professor emeritus Richard Dawkins, who lectures there for a course titled, Science Literacy: Evolution for Non-Scientists.

 

[gcthomas]

* Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart interviews David Rosevear: Hear this young-earth creation scientist and former chemistry professor from the University of Portsmouth.

Rosevear could never have been a university lecturer or professor. Portsmouth didn't have a university (est. 1992) until twenty years after Rosevear stopped publishing (early 1970s, from what I can see in the journals).

He may feel he has some good ideas (though I doubt it), so why did he feel the need to be so economical with the actualité?

 

[Stripe]

Rosevear could never have been a university lecturer or professor. Portsmouth didn't have a university (est. 1992) until twenty years after Rosevear stopped publishing (early 1970s, from what I can see in the journals). He may feel he has some good ideas (though I doubt it), so why did he feel the need to be so economical with the actualité?

A simple Web search would clear this all up for you real quick. However, then you would have one less thing to talk about that is not rational and on topic, so we know why you're not interested.

 

[gcthomas]

A simple Web search would clear this all up for you real quick. However, then you would have one less thing to talk about that is not rational and on topic, so we know why you're not interested.

Well, that's a non answer with zero information content. Why do you bother when you have nothing to offer except trolling?

You might not have liked my post, but at least I added something new. And here is something else: the TripAdvisor page for Rosevear's creationism museum in Portsmouth.

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attrac...enesis_Expo-Portsmouth_Hampshire_England.html

Typical quotes: "utterly awful" and "this is a dire place".

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, the evidence goes unchallenged.

 

[gcthomas]

Meanwhile, the evidence goes unchallenged.

Agreed, it is amazing how anyone can visit a real natural history museum and come away ignorant of the beauty and power of the theory of evolution.

(on the other hand, the creationist 'museum' in Portsmouth will go completely ignored because to admit to being a YEC in this country is social suicide, even in the churches.)

 

[Stripe]

It is amazing how anyone can visit a real natural history museum and come away ignorant of the beauty and power of the theory of evolution.

(on the other hand, the creationist 'museum' in Portsmouth will go completely ignored because to admit to being a YEC in this country is social suicide, even in the churches.)

Meanwhile, the evidence goes ignored.

 

[gcthomas]

Meanwhile, the evidence goes ignored.

Not always ignored. Seen, analysed, judged and rejected as faith based instead of science based. It is the wrong sort of evidence, you see. You completely believe creation is true, so you assume science, which you seem to respect, must support creation. So you interpret evidence already knowing the answers. That isn't science.

 

[6days]

Not always ignored. Seen, analysed, judged and rejected as faith based instead of science based. It is the wrong sort of evidence, you see. You completely believe creation is true, so you assume science, which you seem to respect, must support creation. So you interpret evidence already knowing the answers. That isn't science.

Not always ignored. Seen, analysed, judged and rejected as faith based instead of science based. It is the wrong sort of evidence, you see. You completely believe common ancestry is true, so you assume science, which you seem to respect, must support your beliefs. So you interpret evidence already knowing the answers. That isn't science

See.....common ancestry and Biblical creation are beliefs about the past...not science.*

 

[6days]

.... is social suicide, even in the churches.)

That's a large part of the problem. Most people are more concerned about others opinions, than they are about truth.
Fortunately many of the great scientists were more concerned about real science than being popular with Rome or with evolutionists.

 

[gcthomas]

Not always ignored. Seen, analysed, judged and rejected as faith based instead of science based. It is the wrong sort of evidence, you see. You completely believe common ancestry is true, so you assume science, which you seem to respect, must support your beliefs. So you interpret evidence already knowing the answers. That isn't science

See.....common ancestry and Biblical creation are beliefs about the past...not science.*

I know you are absolutely wedded to the non-evolutionary origins, as you have told me. You are just assuming I have the same stance on the other side - not true. I am committed to following the evidence, so if overwhelming evidence arrives that several groups were seeded by aliens, or that there was external influence on evolution, or that the Earth was incontrovertibly only a few thousand years old, then that is what I'd believe.

The trouble is that you require only a very low threshold of evidence to accept claims that support your Belief, since you Believe. For evolution to be wrong with the evidence available, there would need to be high quality counter-evidence, rather than the offered 'barely plausible' and unevidenced pseudo-hypotheses.

I am not the same as you. I don't have a salvation-required Belief in evolution, but I do see that the evidence points one way. But if it pointed the other way - fine.

 

[Stripe]

Not always ignored. Seen, analysed, judged and rejected as faith based instead of science based.

But you won't explain how it is invalid. :idunno:

It is the wrong sort of evidence, you see.

:AMR: There is no "wrong sort" of evidence. Either the evidence is valid, or it's not.

You completely believe creation is true, so you assume science, which you seem to respect, must support creation.

Nope. We look at evidence to try and falsify ideas. You ignore ideas, preferring to spout irrational nonsense about a man's background, education, or — in this case — refuse to do a moment's research in favor of trying to create the impression that someone lied.

That isn't science.

You interpret evidence already knowing the answers.

Nope. There can be no "interpretation" of evidence. Data says what it says. The discussion lies in whether an idea can survive in the face of the evidence.

These are the fundamentals of science, and Darwinists refuse to even acknowledge them, let alone abide by them.

I am committed to following the evidence.

Feel free to engage on it any time you like. :thumb:

 

[gcthomas]

'Tripe - you have not said anything to engage with. Your post is a content free zone.

:wave:

 

[Stripe]

'Tripe - you have not said anything to engage with. Your post is a content free zone.

:wave:

Fortunately, I have no problem with OP. The evidence has been presented. You're here to talk about anything but.

 

[6days]

I know you are absolutely wedded to the non-evolutionary origins, as you have told me. You are just assuming I have the same stance on the other side - not true. I am committed to following the evidence, so if overwhelming evidence arrives that several groups were seeded by aliens, or that there was external influence on evolution, or that the Earth was incontrovertibly only a few thousand years old, then that is what I'd believe.

The evidence from your arguments suggests you are unwilling to follow evidence that might lead to the Creator God of the Bible.

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that "the appearance of design" is evidence of a designer. *(Not that you believe in a designer, but that it is evidence for that)

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that "the fine tuned universe" is evidence of immense intellect.

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that the DNA 'code' is evidence of a code maker.

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that life is evidence of a life giver.*

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that you often use philosophical arguments based *on your belief system.

Etc

 

[gcthomas]

The evidence from your arguments suggests you are unwilling to follow evidence that might lead to the Creator God of the Bible.

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that "the appearance of design" is evidence of a designer. *(Not that you believe in a designer, but that it is evidence for that)

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that "the fine tuned universe" is evidence of immense intellect.

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that the DNA 'code' is evidence of a code maker.

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that life is evidence of a life giver.*

** If you were committed to following the evidence, you would agree that you often use philosophical arguments based *on your belief system.

Etc

Don't be daft 6d.

There is no evidence of design that isn't also evidence of evolution. So you don't get to use that to differentiate between the two.

The find tuned universe is amply explained be the anthropomorphic principle, and by chaotic eternal inflation theory.

Since DNA is not an arbitrary code, but a functional one, evolution applies to progenitor codes.

Life likewise, progenitor hypothesised self reproducing molecules.

My belief system is to follow the evidence and to build a comprehensive set of ruling principles that has no arbitrary components.

You like to misrepresent what I believe for your own purposes, but you are lucky, as my humanist moral principles precludes that behaviour.

 

[Stripe]

There is no evidence of design that isn't also evidence of evolution. So you don't get to use that to differentiate between the two.

:AMR:

Evidence of design is evidence for evolution? Evolutionists explicitly rule out design.

The find tuned universe is amply explained be the anthropomorphic principle, and by chaotic eternal inflation theory.

An "adequate alternative explanation" is no refutation that there is evidence for design.

Since DNA is not an arbitrary code, but a functional one, evolution applies to progenitor codes.

Trying to muddy the waters by introducing different kinds of codes does not deny the fact that a code — regardless of whether it is functional or arbitrary — needs a codemaker.

Life likewise, progenitor hypothesised self reproducing molecules.

Making up things that do not exist is not evidence. Nor does it dispel the fact that life is evidence for a life-giver.

My belief system is to follow the evidence and to build a comprehensive set of ruling principles that has no arbitrary components.

:darwinsm:

Yet, you declare this arbitrarily.
Your belief system is not even internally coherent. :chuckle:

You like to misrepresent what I believe for your own purposes, but you are lucky, as my humanist moral principles precludes that behaviour.

Actually, he provided evidence and declared where that evidence points. He said next to nothing about what you believe.

 

[gcthomas]

:AMR:

Evidence of design is evidence for evolution? Evolutionists explicitly rule out design.

An "adequate alternative explanation" is no refutation that there is evidence for design.

Trying to muddy the waters by introducing different kinds of codes does not deny the fact that a code — regardless of whether it is functional or arbitrary — needs a codemaker.

Making up things that do not exist is not evidence. Nor does it dispel the fact that life is evidence for a life-giver.

:darwinsm:

Yet, you declare this arbitrarily.
Your belief system is not even internally coherent. :chuckle:

Actually, he provided evidence and declared where that evidence points. He said next to nothing about what you believe.

Just because all the codes you recognise are symbolic codes and were designed does not mean that all actual codes are symbolic or that non symbolic codes are designed. That is a logical fallacy, and you pretend to know about fallacies.

 

[Stripe]

Just because all the codes you recognise ... were designed does not mean that all ... codes ... are designed.

Fortunately, I did not use the irrational construct you have attributed to me. I made an assertion: All codes are designed.

If you disagree, demonstrate a code that could not have been designed.

 

[gcthomas]

Fortunately, I did not use the irrational construct you have attributed to me. I made an assertion: All codes are designed.

So instead of using faulty logic you didn't use any logic at all. And you think that is an advance? Sounds like you.

If you disagree, demonstrate a code that could not have been designed.

You are saying that codes cannot be natural, I'm saying they can. I don't have to prove that one could not have been designed, only that one might not. And that one is DNA.

In fact, DNA is not a code, but a cipher, and that distinction makes natural origins much more likely. If you don't understand why that is so , you have some research to do before you respond with your standard assertions and dismissals.