Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

Crocker wasn't wrongly terminated by any means. She was a non tenured contract employee. When her contract was up they opted to not offer her a new one. There were other issues beyond her issues with accepted evutiknary models. Take the last sentence however you want and tell me I'm making it up but I can not give further details without compromising someone who has been at the school as a dept chair for nearly 20 years. Irregardless, her contract was up. She didnt want to listen to those above her. It wasn't renewed. story over.

reply to post by Murgatroid


I can't believe people who put the common lying scientist ( man ) up against scribes
who would ritually bathe when they misspelled a single word.

Clearly guys, there be no comparison in the light of truth.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Not incorrect . . . ATS or not, I do not dwell in ignorance. I know her case well. Even as it is, she was never fired. She was allowed to teach until her contract was up and simply not asked back. So simply on the basis of that she has no "discrimination" case, as there would be no show cause for letting her go. She didn't like that and wrote a book full of half truths to peddle to the ID crowd.

Unfortunately, here, your slip is showing, as you seem to only have her "story" and are lacking severe amounts of her actions. Bottom line, she was not competent and was not teaching Biology or just simply "questioning Darwin" . . . She was spouting creationist (meaning not based on science or evidence) propaganda in class and not teaching the students accepted (evidence based) concepts. Many times she completely misrepresented current understanding, in order to make a case for ID . . . just like Behe. Let me enlighten you . . .

She told the students there were two kinds of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is easily seen in any microbiology lab. … While such small changes are well established, Crocker said, they are quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.

This isn't even close to what those concepts really mean, in fact, if a dog turned into a cat . . . it would disprove evolution and point to some sort of magic, which would actually be more favorable to her stance of a creator.

Crocker said that subsequent research had shown that chemicals used in the experiment [Miller's] did not exist on Earth 4 billion years ago. “The experiment is irrelevant, but you still find it in your books,” she said.

She completely flubbed this one and Miller/Urey, while still mentioned, is far from the latest evidence we have for precursors being available. Subsequent experiments show even in different atmospheres that no intelligence is needed to produce the chemical precursors needed for life.

She cited another experiment, involving researcher Bernard Kettlewell, who produced pictures of variously colored peppered moths on tree trunks to show that when the moths were not well camouflaged, they were more likely to be eaten by birds — a process of natural selection that influenced the color of the moths. “This comes from your book — it is not actually true,” Crocker said. “The experiment was falsified. He glued his moths to the trees.”

The pictures in the book were "glued to trees" in order to give the students a visual look at the moths on trees, but this was not done in the actual experiment and as a "biology teacher" she should know that the findings are valid. An outright lie or she doesn't know what she is talking about . . . you decide.

Crocker's arguments are part of a familiar litany of half-truths and errors, said Alan Gishlick, a research affiliate at the National Center for Science Education. The Miller-Urey experiment was not intended to be evidence for evolution but part of a research program into how biological mechanisms might arise from nonbiological chemical reactions. As for gluing moths to trees, Gishlick said, researcher Kettlewell affixed the moths to trees to determine how birds spot moths of different hues. The photos were illustrations and never meant to be depictions of real life.

I can go on . . . or you could visit these links . . .
Article1
Article2
Article3

Bottom line is that she wasn't censored . . . She is free to spout her religious drivel at church, the Discovery Institute, or write books full of lies and religion . . . George Mason just didn't want her teaching religion in a Biology class and she misrepresented her syllabus to the administrators.

Exactly right. If you’re going to teach a subject, you are expected to know something about that subject—and Crocker clearly does not.

And while Crocker was let go for being a poor teacher . . . when the shoe is on the other foot . . . there are actual movements to "silence".

Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said she faced a campaign to get her fired because she expressed the view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but “so stupid, I don’t want to give them my time.”

Murphy, who believes in evolution, said she had to fight to keep her job after one of the founding members of the intelligent design movement, legal theorist Phillip Johnson, called a trustee at the seminary and tried to get her fired.

Blinded by the light . . . let there be magic .

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Murgatroid

 

I can't believe people who put the common lying scientist ( man ) up against scribes
who would ritually bathe when they misspelled a single word.

Clearly guys, there be no comparison in the light of truth.

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I'll put my faith in the critical thinking man over the delusional man any day . . . Ritual bathing does not correlate to truth or everyone would turn to obsessive/compulsives when they needed advice.

reply to post by solomons path


Check this part out click and watck for two minutes. I love this part.



I'm sorry back it up to 50 minutes and let it commence.

Fascinating wouldn't you say,

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Why don't you show us 1, just 1 example of a species changing kind. Let's see, they have been torturing fruit flies for well over 50 years and yet, they are just fruit flies. You do understand that there is a new generation of fruit fly every 11 days, so over 50 years, they have not even gotten 1 protein to change. They are all still fruit flies.

Or, how about bacteria that have a lifespan of a few hours or couple days that has been studied for over 50 years and guess what? It's still a bacteria. No legs, no respiratory system, no change to a lil critter. Do show us something to prove how this incremental evolution has happened.

Maybe, just maybe it makes no sense to believe a lizard crawled up a tree, and over millions of years it's front leg turned into a wing so it could fly. What would have happened to the perfectly good lizard while it's front legs were useless? I mean, might a big bad dinosaur have gobbled it up as it could no longer run around? How did it forage as before? I really would like to hear how it was advantageous to slowly grow a leg into a wing and then I want to see it happening. Why do no new species come into existence that we can see changing? Why do species keep dying off? I mean, shouldn't we be getting thousands of new species at least every one hundred years? Ohhh that's right it takes millions of years, and yet there are no fossils. No insects changing, no rabbits turning into dogs or lizards into birds.... just POOF all the sudden there are thousands of animals fossilized with no precursor ones... Hmmmm.... Maybe it's because they didn't exist?

Just how did that cell know it would need eyes, teeth, rectum, reproductive stuff, and just how did they decide to make a male and female? I mean why need a mate? That seems limiting..... So much to think about....

This was really enjoyable.... Loved the facts he gives especially from Darwin and other well known and respected scientists

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Your Welcome , a No Nonsense look at a People who evidently were sure not like us .

reply to post by randyvs


I'm not sure why you posted the same video that you posted previously . . . I watched that section while checking it out the first time.

I will make a couple comments on those two minutes though . . .

You can clearly see where the binds were secured to those skulls in almost every instance . . . look for the indentations that circle the skull, about half way back.

Also, I've read Enoch (was raised in a mixed family - Jewish/Lutheran), believe it or not. However, his interpretation of the blood doesn't fit how the body actually works . . . if the heart stops and the blood stops flowing . . . you don't die. You die when the brain dies and that is due to lack of oxygen . . . which is carried in the blood, but it is the oxygen . . . not the blood and the presenter was correlating toward DNA not oxygen with his blood referrence. And, consciousness (although driven by the electrical signals in the brain) is still somewhat of mystery . . . so, it is fascinating and still leaves us with much to learn. However, not knowing is not on par with evidence for the supernatural.

Truly, I enjoy watching docs like this (although this particular one was meh?). Watching Ancient Aliens (as cheesy and half-truth filled as it is) and shows on Cryptozoology are guilty pleasures of mine. But, if you have a formal education in science, the misrepresentations and half-truths stand out like a beacon. If you don't have a deep understanding of science their explanations seem plausible and who doesn't want to believe there is some race of intelligent beings out there looking over us or responsible for our origins . . . Unfortunately, the evidence is not there, so it becomes nothing more than interesting conjecture. The problem I have is when "fascinating" is excepted as truth because it sounds "sexy".

EDIT - Forgot to mention in the "blood" response that if he is interpreting the blood with DNA, his interpretation is off. DNA is not just in the blood . . . it's in every single cell, so it is about the "flesh" . . . not the blood. And again, you don't die from spilling/losing blood . . . you die when the pressure drops (from bleeding out) and not enough oxygen reaches the brain. If this knowledge (in Enoch) came from a highly intelligent source then they should know that or we are more intelligent today than they . . .

reply to post by solomons path

You can clearly see where the binds were secured to those skulls in almost every instance . . . look for the indentations that circle the skull, about half way back.

I'll do as you ask with an open mind. And if I see what you mention i will not lie.
My word is on that.

Good post BTW

Woops wrong vid.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

You can clearly see where the binds were secured to those skulls in almost every instance . . . look for the indentations that circle the skull, about half way back.

I'll do as you ask with an open mind. And if I see what you mention i will not lie.
My word is on that.

Fair enough . . . It is extreme obvious when he shows the juvenile skulls and also I made an edit above.

I'm out for the night . . . good discussion, as always.

reply to post by solomons path

She is free to spout her religious drivel at church, the Discovery Institute, or write books full of lies and religion . . . George Mason just didn't want her teaching religion in a Biology class...

In other words teaching religious drivel is fine as long as it is Darwinism's religious drivel...

Pots & kettles come to mind.

Accusing people of talking 'drivel' does absolutely NOTHING to show that you understand the real issues in the creation/evolution debate.

Belief in evolution fairy tales is exactly like religious doctrine.

It is believed totally by faith.

The only difference is that unlike Biblical Christianity, evolution is a blind faith - which is completely contradicted by evidence and science.

Evolution IS in fact an organized religion regardless of WHAT kind of label you put on it.

It also takes FAR more faith to believe in than it does to believe in the truth.

Let me put my thesis very plainly and undiplomatically: Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"! True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific."

We could call it the "Cult of Entropy." It is actually very old, it goes back to Aristotle and to Babylon, as a characteristic creation of oligarchism. Its belief structure is intrinsically fascist, and over the last 150 years it has come to pervade biology in particular to such an extent, that the teaching of biology has itself been, and remains, a very major vehicle for the propagation of fascism. I shall illustrate this now with the case of Darwinism and modern molecular biology.
The Case of Darwin

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information. Many everyday people do not understand it at all and accept ALL its teachings on faith.

Unfortunately some scientists and academic professionals are not so noble and have perpetrated deliberate frauds and cover-ups of important discoveries.

Modern Scientific beliefs are based upon a leap of faith in the big bang theory. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

reply to post by solomons path


I'm going to have to wait until I comment anyway because I just
realized my screen is old and prolly much darker than yours brother.
So I couldn't possibly see it as you say it is. I do have another moniter
coming I will guarantee you a fair reply in a couple days ok ?

reply to post by randyvs


Well, I think his presentation style can be distracting, but he's also able to draw you in as the information is quite interesting even if you already know a lot of it. I did not care for his video regarding Benny Hinn who he really went after for good reason and Joel Osteen whom he seems to defend that only preaches the name it and claim it prosperity stuff (I call it blab it and grab it) and never teaches the need for salvation and a repentant heart. He has run in that circle and I am sure sees these men in a much more personal way than I do. I left him a note on his channel about just this thing. We'll see if he responds to me.

I read the teaser on his thieves book, which did seem interesting. I look for truth, and think no matter what is brought up we have to do our own research. So, I don't know the guy, but so far I have enjoyed his Nephilim and Theory of Everything videos. Thanks for making this thread.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

I'm going to have to wait until I comment anyway because I just
realized my screen is old and prolly much darker than yours brother.
So I couldn't possibly see it as you say it is. I do have another moniter
coming I will guarantee you a fair reply in a couple days ok ?

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Spoke too soon girlfriend isn't ready to go yet . . . so, I can post a couple more!

Sounds like a completely reasonable proposition. I'll await your response.

reply to post by Murgatroid


No they are nothing alike . . . sorry. Evolutionary Theory is backed by objective evidence and over 150yrs of peer reviewed research. And that is where she fails . . . She is a scientist. If she doesn't agree with the findings, she should have the knowledge and resources to replicate the research and falsify the findings. If she did this and published it, she could present in a science class.

However, all she did was give her views based on theology. Biology 101 is not a theology class and all of her objections are old and thoroughly debunked creationist criticisms. Here is a link for you to see all of them and why the are bunk.

Talk Origins

If she wanted to "teach the controversy", as they say, she could have asked to teach a theology or philosophy elective that covered her claims . . . just like Behe does at Lehigh. Unfortunately, all she did was put her faith on display in a forum meant for objective evidence.

I'm sorry it frustrates you, but science requires evidence and hard data . . . not faith.

I will say, she is the first scientist to just blatantly ignore her education and put out old, tired claims. A move usually pulled by professors (or layman) who don't have a formal education in science (like philosophy) and don't understand how wrong their misrepresentations are. Even Behe teaches accepted science in his actual science classes . . . again, he saves the intelligent design talk for theology/philosophy courses.

If she wants to teach her views in science courses . . . she needs to quit whining and get to researching, so she can show why these claims are false. But, that would only sell books, if she actually changes (falsifies) excepted theory . . . which, I'm pretty sure she knows she can't or she would have done so.

Science is not faith or religion . . . no matter how many times you stick your fingers in your ears, click your heels and deem it so. Not on equal footing.

As far as your external quotes . . . mystery schools . . . illuminati . . . how very Christian of you . . . Bunk all of it. Just because some crackpot says it so and writes a book that falls in line with your feelings doesn't make it so. I suggest educating yourself and what the theories and hypotheses say from those that spend their livelihoods researching in these fields say (paying special attention to the evidence and more importantly the predictions that are made and verified) and make an informed decision. Did you know Darwin predicted the mechanism of DNA over 100 years before it's discovery. He admitted to having no way to test for it, but thought it had to be there to transcribe traits. His prediction was verified by Crick/Watson. Do you know predictions based evolutionary theory are responsible for a multitude of medical breakthroughs? If it was all based on faith, we would not be able to do these things . . . and don't get me started on physics. It's clear you don't have a formal education in science or are familiar with the protocols of research.

reply to post by solomons path


Not sure how ethical this is but I do trust Unified or Murg to give as honest
a commiment as mine would be for now. If that 's ok for you put the question to them.
And I will still honor what I said later ? As I'm also interested very much by your Q.


Also from some of your own peers. and colleagues.

Click here for more information.