SciAm Interview with Mark Mathis of Expelled - 8 of 8

[jayls5]

Thank you very much for posting this. It's a shame people are more likely to watch the documentary in question than listen to this (more informative) discussion.

[Masher88]

I'm so glad that they did the research about Judge Jones. I just wish it were more prevalent out on the net, though. All I could find about this topic were the lies by the Discovery Inst. et al.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

Thanks for posting this - very revealing. It's fascinating to see how dishonesty comes naturally to the godjunkies.

[D34dH053]

Holy shit, I never hear the series in context...thanks deBeuk!

[AfrSkin]

Tell it on the mountain!

[DonHoraldo]

I'd just like to point out that a classic creationism vs science argument is going on. mejc2 is trying to trip me up by spiraling round subjects in hopes I won't be able to answer one. wish you good luck with that because when I get stumped I make my self unstumped by doing research. And I like doing research. on that note you will wave to step it up a bit. this is not my first time around the turnip truck.

[urbanelf]

This audio clip gave me some hope. Thanks for putting it up.

[Jk2546]

Holy shit some troll has no life if they have to mark it one star that many times. That has to be the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.

[ianw115]

Devastating Pwnage. What an absolute thrashing.

[zoologist02]

Well, that turned out as expected. *sigh* I'm sorry that the general public is going to walk in there and think science is evil. As a zoology major that really pains me. :(

I wish someone would make a counter movie to this...at least it'd be truthful.

[NonSatisBibivum]

I thought Mathis was slime after the first segment, but he actually became more objectionable as the interview progressed. You can pick out a lie in almost every sentence he utters.

[Cafeeine]

might I make a suggestion? In order to keep from jumping all over the sections, you might want to disable comments in all but one (either part one or part eightI suppose) section and direct commenting there.

[Cafeeine]

By jove, this was hilarious! my head is still turning from all that spin!

[Cafeeine]

Thanks for putting this up!

I'm at the 3rd bit, I initially thought this was a parody, as Mathis is really ridiculing himself.

[CognosSquare]

The systematic misrepresentation of facts in the movie must be seen as lying at some point.

[mejc2]

I Always kinda thought that devout evolutioinists had positions of power. Now I am sure that they do.

[DonHoraldo]

"evolutioinists" no such thing

and scientist preserve science with the scientific method.

judge Jones made his ruling based of the facts and an earlier court case. fact intelligent Design is creationism. the thesis is the same the books are the same and the arguments are the same. creationism was rule to be unconstitutional in the supreme court.

[mejc2]

Oh a Judge said it. well then it must be true. sorry.

[DonHoraldo]

as far as the legal system goes, yes. if a majority of the supreme court say something then it is law.

[mejc2]

Ok then, stop all scientific research that supprots creation. the judge said its not science.

[DonHoraldo]

there is no scientific research that supports creation. for one thing creationism has not set one testable hypothesis in more than 30 years.

[mejc2]

"The creationist orchard agrees with the current genome sequence data, since anatomical, physiological and/or genetic similarities between kinds/baramins do not represent phylogeny but a designer. Evolutionary reasoning, on the other hand, cannot unravel the tangled phylogenetic brier and is unable to understand the true origin and diversity of created life, because its premises of naturalism and materialism axiomatically exclude the original work of a divine Creator." Dr. Pierre Jerlström

[DonHoraldo]

so because your right the tree of life is wrong. fail. the only way to prove the orchard is true is to prove that the orchard is true not to ramble about how the tree is supposedly wrong.

actually put some effort in to your lies. I need not but point out the circular logic.

[mejc2]

The truth is, both sides use circular logic and both sides ramble on. it may be possible that creation cannot be proven scientifically but equally possible that evolution/molecules to man also cannot be proven scientifically. Both sides have what they call evidence for thier side and evidence against the other. However the bible is supposedly an historical account, Evolution is admittedly made up by men. the bible may be a tall tale(not likely)but evolution is a tall tale(positively)

[DonHoraldo]

first evolution is the proses by witch the diversity of life on earth is explained not the origin. the current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life is abiogenesis. abiogenesis has not been witnessed in a lab, and the fossil record is too young so it is still being experimented on to check its validity.

next show me one peace of circular logic in science, but don't give me the date the rocks by the fossil and the fossils by the rocks because that ignores radioactive decay dating.

[mejc2]

"first evolution is the proses by witch the diversity of life on earth is explained not the origin"

I never said evolution covered abiogenesis, which is impossible, and evolution tells a tale about how some people imagine the diversity of life occured. it's not an explanation.

[DonHoraldo]

"I never said evolution covered abiogenesis","evolution/molecu­les to man" don't lie about what you said. the record will bite you in the ass

"which is impossible" no spontaneous generation is massively unlikely, and such for all practical purposes viewed as impossible. abiogenesis is rather likely. a undisturbed moderately sized pond with a .5% solution of nitrogenous bases statistically make a stand of RNA that turns into a ribozime witch copes RNA in just a couple of years.

[DonHoraldo]

"evolution tells a tale about how some people imagine the diversity of life occured. it's not an explanation." wheres your evidence that its all made up. my evidence is that the fields of science agree with it. genetics taxonomy paleontology the list goes on and on.

[mejc2]

evidence doesn't interpret itself. Evolutionists interpret the evidence to suit their world view. I asked an evolutionist how ancient men accurately depicted dinosaurs in art and history. he said they dug up the bones, imagined the animals, then depicted them accurately the way modern evolutionists do it.Also he said it was likely they never mentioned the bones they dug up...interpreted to fit his world view. Creationists just say they saw them and depicted them in art and history accurately.

[DonHoraldo]

"them and depicted them in art and history accurately." they are not accurate. things like sloping tails breathing fire ecc.

"evidence doesn't interpret itself" and god didn't wright the bible.

"evolutionist" no such thing. get it right evolution theorist or similar for the field there in.

"the bible may be a tall tale(not likely)but evolution is a tall tale(positively)" by your logic reading and writing are suspect so the bible is "tall tale(positively)"

[deBeuk]

"evidence doesn't interpret itself. Evolutionists interpret the evidence to suit their world view"

Bullshit. Scientists interpret in in the framework of science, creationist interpret it in the framework of retarded bronze age nonsense.

[deBeuk]

"evolution tells a tale about how some people imagine the diversity of life occured. it's not an explanation"

Yes it is. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not an explanation.

[deBeuk]

"its premises of naturalism and materialism axiomatically exclude the original work of a divine Creator"

Science excludes supernatural explanations. You're basically just admitting that creationism has fuck-all to do with science.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : Naturalism lead to the discovery and development of genome sequence data, phylogeny, and all the modern tools of science. You cannot simply claim that something special is there because people aren't religious enough without providing substantiating proof. That's all that ID is: the claim that "something special is there, and everyone would see it if they were as religious as we are."

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

Genetics was discovered by a creationist.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2:

If you are talking about Mendel, his observations were made in the 1880's. A LOT has happened since then. Mendel did not have the benefit of genetic sequencing, x-ray crystallography, computer models, the tools of organic chemistry, established animal models, the neutral theory of evolution. Everybody back then was religious; it had no bearing on the science. I sense that you seem to think that God beamed this idea into Mendel's brain.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

Mendel was free of the pressures of evolutionism. Every discovery today is biased toward evolutionism even when it contradicts the theory. The fossil record in no way supports slow gradual change from simple to complex. Instead of saying that the hypothesis is incorrect, evolutionists say that the empirical evidence of the fossil record is incomplete. When ducks and chickens are found in the same strata as dinosaurs, evolutionists still claim that they evolved from dinosaurs. WOW

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : Can you give me documented evidence that ducks and chickens have appeared in the same strata as dinosaurs? Where has this been found and validated in a scientific journal? Did the genetic, radiological and morphological data from these duck and chicken skeletons pair up with that of dinosaurs? Or is this yet another hearsay legend fairytale that creationists tell themselves.

The person that could definitively prove creationism would instantly win a Nobel Prize.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

Scientific American. 303 (1): 70-75.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : So I just spent an hour on reading articles on the phylogeny of neornithids and presbyornithids and I went back to your SciAm article and found THE most important line:" Rooting modern birds in the Cretaceous neatly aligned the fossil record with the DNA-based divergence dates." You folks refuse to realize the power of the Neutral Theory and how it relates to dating. We don't need fossils or radiodating. We have DNA, which tells us differences in TIME between two organisms.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : So in conclusion: The discovery of modern birds in the Late Cretaceous actually STRONGLY SUPPORTS the current view of evolution, which is that from DNA studies using the molecular clock technique, we came to know that birds and dinosaurs split after the Jurassic and before the end of the Cretaceous. You lead me to learn something new today! Thank you!

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

LOL just change the story to fit whatever we find. Dinos came first, then birds. Wait look, birds and dinos in the same layer. OK dinos and birds coexisted. Soft tissue cannot last 65 million years. Wait this fossil is supposed to be 65 million years old. OK soft tissue can last 65 million years. Organisms mutate over time. Wait this fossil is 500 million years old and it is the same as organisms alive today. OK SOME organisms change over time. What a Joke Evolution is like smoke

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : You need to learn some molecular biology and something about modern biotechnology and science. You sound like an idiot, I'm sorry. Look at the title of the article you cited:" WINGED VICTORY." Dinos and birds are not anachronistic at all. Do you have any idea of the timescales we're talking about? Hundreds of millions of years. The word "modern bird" refers to flying birds. That fossil found was not a common duck skeleton from our era. Do you have any idea how fossils form?

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

I have a very good idea how fossils form. Do you?

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : If you understood this concept, then you would know that fossils that radiodate and look millions of years old cannot form in a few thousand years.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

fossilization is a rapid process. Although the fossil can last a long time, it doesn't take a long time to form. See, you learned something else new today.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : For a religious person, your conceit and pride are overweening. I hope you don't fancy yourself a follower of Jesus' teachings, because you provide no witness whatsoever to that faith.

The only people that claim that fossilization is rapid are creationists that offer circumstantial evidence, like a random bat encased in a stalactite. Fossilization usually requires mummification followed by exposure to a chemical rich medium. This takes thousands and thousands of years at the outset.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

"Mineralisation of Bone depends on the enviroment that it is deposited in

and the relative thickness of the bone. This process can take up to a

couple of years to thousands of years. In certain conditions, such as where the

minerals in the surrounding enviroment are extremmly soluble, the process

will be sped up - for instance, in some places in Australia fossils can be

created in a short period of time. "

You should pay me for this stuff.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : Now you're repeating what I said and contradicting yourself. In SOME places fossils may be created rapidly, but fossils are found all over the world. Why are we debating fossils, anyway? All the evidence anyone needs is in the DNA. Even if there were not a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would be OVERWHELMING.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

I'm not repeating myself. Thousands of years is completely acceptable. Millions of years is a supposition. There is no "known" mechanism to write the DNA code needed for life, new tissue, new organs, or new body plans. Copying errors in DNA that are not self corrected, which most are, In no way can result in the complicated DNA sequences Needed to create the aforementioned. You can suppose it is possible but it is not real or realistic. It is a supposition.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : You should watch video mcAq9bmCeR0.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

OH, that really cleared it all up NOT! There is no known mechanism to write the complex code needed to create life, tissue, or body plans. DNA appears in the first organisms in the lowest layers of sedimentary rock. Complex DNA has existed as far down as life is found. There are no new body plans created from the Cambrian on up. Similarity in DNA shows that all life on this planet has a genetic code. There is no reason to believe that single celled organisms changed into anything

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : Evolution IS the mechanism. You don't need any more mechanisms. And you're assiduously avoiding life in the precambrian, such as the ediacaran biota, that have radically different body plans than most recent life. Similarity in DNA shows that all life share different copies of much of the same information, aged over time. Youtube user cdk007 has all the answers you need. Just watch his "Origins of Life" series.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

Evolution? is not a mechanism. Random mutation is a mechanism. However, it is woefully insufficient to create the code needed to create all the diversity we see.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : That's just a claim. Earliest detected evidence of life is about 2.7 billion years old. Random mutation with selection changes white moths into black moths and dog like creatures into whales. It is the engine of life.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

the proliferation of black moths over white moths is

1. a hoax

2. an example of natural selection. NOT mutation.

There is no evidence that a dog like creatrue changed into a whale. Lining up four or five fossils and creating a story of how thousands of changes might have occurred is not evidence it is story telling.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : Well, which is it? A hoax or proof of evolution? You constantly contradict yourself. You can't have it both ways.

It seems that you are not interested in having an informed and polite debate. Instead, you are interested in stifling conversation and drowning out all evidence with denial. If that makes you comfortable, fine. In 1000 years, people will read stories of debates like this and laugh at your lack of logic and evidence.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

My logic is impeccable. The point being made is that natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection happens all the time. Evolution in the sense that animals acquire new tissue, body parts and body plans Through mutations, never happened.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : You accept that mutations happen all the time, you accept modern biochemistry, which tells us that benign mutations in a codon can and do take place without deleterious effect, you accept that changes in an organism's embryology leads to changes in the adult animal, yet you refuse to see that this leads to the development of new tissue and eventually body parts over the course of tens of millions of years. Your "logic" is biased and flawed. You are only seeing what you want to see.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

All the things you mentioned that I accept are observable. What you want me to accept has never been observed, has been attempted purposely by man and failed. and the errors and adaptations that we do observe are in no way sufficient to create the genetic code needed to create completely new creatures, no matter how long we allow the mutations to occur. You accept on blind faith. I want facts and observation. What we observe is similarity in design. complex fossils. The End.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : The facts and observation you crave are the sum of thousands of experiments and studies in biochemistry, genetics, and bioinformatics over the course of the last 50 years. The ediacaran fossils are not nearly as "complex" as that of more modern fossils. You are blinding yourself to the brutal fact that hundreds of people vastly more educated than yourself have devoted their entire lives to the study of evolution and none of them have found anything but more proof of its truth.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

Here's your edicarin:

"They bear little resemblance to modern lifeforms, and their relationship even with the later lifeforms of the Cambrian explosion is difficult to interpret. More than 100 genera have been described, and well known forms include Arkarua, Charnia, Dickinsonia, Ediacaria, Marywadea, Onega, Pteridinium, and Yorgia."

What happened to your slow progression. There is none. they were just the first to be buried. logically because they are the least mobile /smart.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : If they were the "first to be buried" why haven't we found evidence of modern coral, modern bottom dwelling fish, modern whale carcasses, modern benthic and sessile organisms like echinoderms? Wouldn't those get buried in the same strata?Why does it take 20 million years after the end of the Precambrian for trilobites to show up? Why does all the radiodating check out? Why is evidence of biblical claims so hard to find? Why is your God so elusive?

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

Wow! those are a lot of why's. Every time we find a fossil of something that is the same as animals that are alive today, evolutionists say wow look that animal hasn't changed in 100 million years or whatever.Millions of fossils are exactly as we see them today. Millions of animals are extinct. Whenever evolutionists find one that is extinct, they claim that one has evolved into something else. My guess on fossil strata, and no one knows, is some animals sense danger better.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : More good videos - SeTssvexa9s

[NuclearRadio]

If you trust the physics that operate the computer you use, and the medicine that is given to you by your doctor, you trust evolution, because they are all founded on the same principle: the Scientific method.

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

You compare my computer to evolution? OK, copy your operating system over and over. Mistakes will be made along the way. Let me know when you acquire a new and better program for displaying videos from the copying errors. The operating system of this computer is much more simple than the DNA code that created me. The operating system could never occur by random errors filtered by natural selection and neither could my DNA code. There is no mechanism to create new body parts.

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 :

You're missing a piece: evolution requires that a selection takes place. That's where you're wrong.

If you copied your OS over and over and eliminated every copy that didn't work well for a specific purpose and merged copies that did, eventually you would create a very good operating system. This is actually a design method used by several mechanical engineers.

You start from the prima facie assumption that evolution cannot work and then try to find evidence that supports your beliefs

[mejc2]

@NuclearRadio

mechanical engineering and writing digital code are completely different processes. Developing a wing that has the least resistance to wind or the greatest amount of lift , is quite different from creating a digital code that runs a computer or an even more complex digital code that can create a living being. No computer company writes new computer code by randomly varying the old code and keeping code that "works".

[NuclearRadio]

@mejc2 : These things are only different by application, not by algorithm or concept. Again, you are drawing an irrelevant conclusion. You do love your logical fallacies.

Also: You are mostly wrong on the latter claim. Although most software companies do use a rational design methodology, FPGAs and genetic programming have been used since the 90's to effectively "evolve" solutions to code. This work was done by Koza at Stanford and Andre at Berkeley.

[deBeuk]

I noticed the audio stops after 3 minutes 48 seconds. I'm too lazy to create the video again, though ;)

[busymartian]

Thank you for putting this up. It proved three big points. #1. The Scientific community is not afraid to address the subject. #2. Expelled producers have no grasp on the subject matter their presenting. #3. The film's producers are compulsive liers. I'm going to now subscribe to Scientific American.

[deBeuk]

"Thank you for putting this up"

You're very welcome.

"I'm going to now subscribe to Scientific American"

That's the spirit :D