BBC Documentaries Censored by Dutch Evangelicals

| 168 Comments

By Dr. Hans Roskam, Institute of Biology Leiden (IBL), University of Leiden and Dr. Gerdien de Jong, Evolutionary Population Biology, University of Utrecht.

Dutch biologists are in great turmoil due to the censorship of BBC nature documentaries by the Dutch Evangelische Omroep (Evangelical Broadcasting, EO), a fundamentalist Christian public broadcasting company. As a fundamentalist Christian organisation inspired by the word of God as revealed in the literal text of the Bible, the EO denies all science that falsifies this literal text.

Consequently, all references to evolution, speciation, descent and millions of years are removed from BBC documentaries as broadcasted by the EO. BBC documentaries are  ‘neutralized’, that is, non-offending to creationist views by replacing spoken English text by an intentionally falsely translated spoken Dutch text, or by cutting whole scenes. Nevertheless, the documentaries are presented to the Dutch public as BBC documentaries. For instance, the EO DVD “Het Leven van Zoogdieren”, their censored version of Sir David Attenborough’s “The Life of Mammals” is explicitly presented as “written and presented by David Attenborough”, despite its many deviations and sins of omission.

The EO is an accredited public broadcasting society under Dutch broadcasting law. As a consequence, it is impossible for third parties to influence the text of broadcast documentaries. Only the copyright holders, that is, the makers of BBC documentaries and the BBC as producer, can contractually forbid the EO to tamper with the documentaries’ integrity.

When this censorship of BBC documentaries by the EO was published in the newspapers in the Netherlands and Belgium, journalists asked the BBC what the BBC’s attitude would be. A BBC Worldwide spokesman said that on translation, there would always be differences and that anyone could think about it whatever they want.

For biologists, the theory of evolution is the overarching paradigm; evolution is a fact. Over 400 persons (September 26, 2007), mainly biologists, amongst whom more than 50 full university professors, are alarmed by and opposed to EO censorship. They express their concern by endorsing the following petition addressed to the BBC, the producer and copyright holder of the nature programmes.

Petition:

“Dutch biologists hold in high regard the many BBC produced nature documentaries, an excellent example being Sir David Attenborough’s ‘The Life of Mammals’. However, we feel obliged to inform the BBC that the Dutch ‘Evangelische Omroep’, a religious public broadcasting society, manipulates series broadcast under BBC flag. Recently, the ‘Evangelische Omroep’ broadcasted the ‘The Life of Mammals’ series in a mutilated form, cutting or rephrasing all passages relevant to evolution, since these contradict their fundamentalist religious creationist views.

“The Dutch community of biologists urgently requests the BBC either to insist in future contracts on the complete broadcasting of their programmes by Dutch broadcasting companies, or obliging such companies to warn their audience by explicitly announcing manipulations at the beginning of the programmes”

Documentation can be found at

Life of Mammals creationist version 1 cuts in episode 1

Life of Mammals creationist version 2 cuts in episode 2

Life of Mammals creationist version 3 episode 10 missing

More Documentation

168 Comments

With the percentage of Dutch who speak English this seems like a useless attempt at censorship. Hopefully the difference between the English and its Dutch translation will be obvious to enough viewers that it will hurt the credibility of EO.

Why are they even bothering to broadcast BBC programs?

Ken Hovind and AIG must have hours of creo programming for cheap or free.

Heh. Aren’t they going to look foolish. And angry, and just all put out.

Damn! I feel that way every time I hear similar whining. How deep and how frequent and how unsettling does my anger and offense need to be? Sometimes I wish I could get away with projecting my particular impression of reality on as many people as possible; just for the fun of it. Then I remind myself that the outcome would be predictable, mundane, and not much fun after all. (Yes, my reality is dangerous enough that I no longer let it out at night lately. Well, not every night.)

The whining is like the sound heard from the god-walloping keepers of the secret meaning of the secret design of the first word, now manifested as their grating voices begging my over-indulgence of their last, more likely latest, word. Were the tables turned their squealing would only be amplified.

But somehow I still love them, in a way. Not that I feel that I should or must. No, I simply enjoy doing so for its own sake. I find that people respond in like fashion, mostly.

Questions this raises:

1) What is the organization of Dutch television, i.e. do these people have any sort of monopoly over anything?

2) If so much of Attenborough’s stuff offends them, why screen it at all? (So they can overdub it and spew their mendacious filth into children’s ears, I suppose.)

3) Does Attenborough know what is being done to his work? (Certainly he should be told.)

4) Why doesn’t the BBC grow some gonads and refuse to hand these dickheads anything? Talk about ‘pearls before swine’…

These creatures are as bad as the “Muslims” who ran around looting and screaming and protesting over the cartoons of the Prophet. They should be stripped of their right to handle telecommunications and be shown the inside of a prison cell for twenty years.

Funny reading Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views regarding origins.

All stories have more than one way to look at… A Dutch news correspondent has contacted David Attenborough with this story back in July. It turns out that Attenborough has no objections to what the EO has done. In fact, according to this correspondent, the EO and BBC have signed contracts allowing the EO to make these changes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending what the EO did, but it always pays to do some background checking…

In Dutch:

http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/colum[…]li_2007.html

Mats, would you please provide a source for that assertion?

I’ve always wondered about that, how could these documentaries not have even one reference to evolution? I all ways thought the BBC just made a choice: keep them neutral so we can sell them to any network.

When i heard about this censorship it suddenly made sense. I just didn’t think the people of the EO were capable of such outright censorship.

You have to understand that the EO is not a fundamentalist organization as you know them in the US. I’ve all ways associated them with the honest, sincerely devout people in the church I was raised in.

Although I’ve since fallen from my faith I’ve never seen the EO do any real harm like getting people to harm doctors performing abortions or euthanasia, or trying to infiltrate biology classes with creationist gobbledygook.

I’m not surprised if David Attenborough did allow the changes, although I somehow doubt he was aware exactly what changes would be made precisely. Even if he was, I bet the whole thing was requested on a “all views should be considered” piece of pleading to “fairness”.

Attenborough is on the record as saying he accepts evolution and finds the idea of direct design (i.e. ID) difficult to swallow due to the prevalence of nasty parasites he’s encountered on his travels. However, like many Brits (of which I am one), I imagine Attenborough is a weak agnostic who doesn’t think too much about religious belief yet doesn’t react against it either (probably due to the fact that we all live in a country that has a unified church/state).

“Life of Mammals” is quite easy to edit to remove references to evolution (just omit the whole last episode on human evolution and a couple of edits elsewhere, mostly to the first episode). I’d love to see them try and edit the, much older, “Life on Earth” or “The Living Planet” though. They’d have to cut half of them I imagine, as the Earth’s natural history is much more prominently displayed in these series.

Andrew

Justin Moretti:

Questions this raises:

1) What is the organization of Dutch television, i.e. do these people have any sort of monopoly over anything?

I can at least answer this one:

There are two kinds of Broadcasting companies, public and commercial. Public broadcasting companies have members which pay a small fee. EO is publicly funded, all public broadcasters get airtime on one of the three public channels. This airtime is divided according to membership: more members equals more airtime.

All religious minorities get some airtime, so we also have Buddhist (BOS), Hindu (OHM), Jewish (Joodse Omroep) and Islamic (NMO) Broadcasting companies.

We also have Catholic (KRO), protestant Christian (NCRV) and even socialist (VARA) and Humanist (Humanistische Omroep) broadcasting, although these don’t actively push their worldview.

Mats said:

“Funny reading Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views regarding origins.”

Yes, just as your comment was censored - oh, wait.…

The “censorship” of contradictory views regarding the origin of species is simply the decision to present factual data and conclusions based on careful scientific work. This is the same sort of “censorship” involved in having math texts that say 2 + 2 = 4, rather than 2 + 2 = 5.

If you made a study of perhaps 1% of the hundreds or thousands of scientific papers in a given year on the subject of, e.g., evolutionary developmental biology, I think you might be truly astounded at the level of good, careful research and factual support for what you call “Darwinism.”

Bas said:

“I’ve never seen the EO do any real harm.…”

Bas, if the EO is knowingly trying to teach children lies as science, then I must respectfully disagree with you that this does not constitute real harm.

Jud said:

The “censorship” of contradictory views regarding the origin of species is simply the decision to present factual data and conclusions based on careful scientific work. This is the same sort of “censorship” involved in having math texts that say 2 + 2 = 4, rather than 2 + 2 = 5.

Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data. And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself. Cheers.

Regarding my statement “And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself”, here is a contextual citation:

“…perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.” Sean Pitman, M.D.

Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data. And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself. Cheers.

So, in other words, a crime that was committed in the past, but had no witnesses present, never occurred?

Mats, did OJ do it?

Funny reading Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views regarding origins.

You imply that contradicting views about origins are being censored, yet you know that this does not happen. Why do you feel the need to lie? All that is taking place is that an increasing number of countries are trying to stop the teaching of pseudoscience in schools. Or perhaps you believe that schools should be permitted to teach any kind of rubbish they like and that to prevent it is censorship?

Mats; I am curious. If you feel that creationism/ID should be taught in schools, on what grounds given that it has absolutely no scientific support? Would you also accept that astrology or wiccan be taught? How do you decide what is acceptable to teach and what is not?

Mats:

And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself.

Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.” Sean Pitman, M.D.

Out of curiosity, I googled your authority, “Sean Pitman”, and found that although he is reportedly an IDist, his views are much closer to YEC. Is this your authority? His website speaks largely if not entirely about geology, yet he is (shades of Engor) an M.D. What is in his website has been refuted in TalkOrigins and again in Pandas Thumb, repeatedly. The few claims that I looked at in detail are, to anyone with the most elementary geological education, ludicrous. Either Pitman is an ignorant idiot, or he is being deliberately deceptive.

I’d say this is projection on his part and on your part. You and he stick with the same failed and discredited interpretations no matter what the evidence, and cannot see that others may actually be guided by evidence. Sad, and very child-like.

Mats wrote:

“And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself.”

For once Mats, I absolutely agree with you.

Once again, for the record, I am posting under the name “David Stanton” and no other. I am not using the name “Stanton”, although I am starting to like this guy.

Mats: like all other creationist crybabies, you have refused to back up your initial assertion about Darwinist censorship with even a specific allegation, let alone proof, despite explicit requests by SEVERAL respondents that you do so. I conclude from this that a) you have no case and are making up nonsense, and b) you’re really not willing, or able, to engage with us as an adult. And if you’re not willing to engage with us, why should we bother with you?

Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data.

Probably because there isn’t one.

by replacing spoken English text by an intentionally falsely translated spoken Dutch text

Isn’t that sort of like bearing false witness ?

As a fundamentalist Christian organisation inspired by the word of God as revealed in the literal text of the Bible, the EO denies all science that falsifies this literal text.

Well looks like they will have to censor most of science then. The bible teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old, flat, and the sun orbits the earth. So they will have to toss out biology, astronomy, geology, physics, and paleontology.

Somehow I don’t think they are going to run much science based programming. It’s been decades since I watched a televangilist and that was for a few minutes. Boring. Who watches this stuff anyway?

Mats said:

“Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past.”

I suppose it depends on your definition of “empirically detectable.” I would think bumping into a dinosaur bone, for example, would be far more empirically detectable than the concepts of number theory, as would the results of radiometric dating performed on the bone, as would the results of DNA sequencing performed on the bone.

And of course there are evolutionary principles that are every bit as mathematical as 2 + 2 = 4. See, for example, this paper for a summary of the history of mathematical principles of population genetics: http://www.philosophy.utah.edu/facu[…]cyfinal2.pdf

Mats, are you planning to answer some of the questions raised or are you forgetting your Christian duties?

Is the network privately funded?

What intellectual property rights does Dutch law provide the BBC?

I strongly support the right of creationists to believe in crap and express it, at their own private expense. I vehemently oppose allowing them to violate the rights of others by putting sectarian pseudoscience into public schools. I massively oppose the use the use of sectarian pseudoscience and hypocritical sectarian “morality” to guide public policy.

However, when it comes to merely expressing creationist lies at private expense, I find that contemptible and unethical, but to my mind, absolutely protected in a society that values free expression. We must give the benefit of the doubt to those who could be sincerely mistaken or mentally ill; indeed, there is no actual law against lying.

However, if the presentation of BBC material creates the false impression that the BBC advocates creationism, that may violate the BBC’s rights. That is a bit different from generating their own crap.

Some Dutch person should get a clip of the EO President saying anything in English, and then dub it in Dutch with the real-but-stupid Bible Quotes, with chapter and verse.

Example of a “dubbed speech in English (sorry I don’t know Dutch).

EO PRESIDENT’S COMMENT: We need to get back to Biblical authority. BIBLE QUOTE: 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Deuteronomy 23:1 EO PRESIDENT’s COMMENT: Everyone who goes to church now must prove that his 2 parent, 4 grandparent, 8 great-grandparent, 16 great-great-grandparent, and so on up to his 1,024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents was legally married. Otherwise we won’t let your in the door.

Furthermore, if you can’t prove there were no bastards in your family tree for ten generations, and you have to stay home on Sunday, you’d better not be working. If your neighbors report that you worked on the Sabbath we will kill you to be obedient to the Lord. BIBLE QUOTE: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) EO PRESIDENT: We’ve got to bring family values back to the Bible. If your son tells you to go to hell, God tells you to kill him. It’s right there in the Bible: BIBLE QUOTE: All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) So go and live a pure Biblical life. SUCKERS!

Oops -

I missed a comment above.

The venue is publicly funded but the Netherlands has the policy of publicly funding diverse sectarian viewpoints.

A rare instance where I disagree with Dutch policy (there are a couple of others). (I also oppose the tax exempt status of religions in the US - I believe in religious institutions being privately funded and paying taxes.)

Again, though, if you give them air time at public expense to express their views, you are in an awkward situation when you subsequently complain that they very predictably do express their views. It’s nice if some groups refrain from expressing “worldviews”, but rather stupid; what’s the point of having a religious or political station that doesn’t express the worldview of that religion or political ideology? Doesn’t that just make it a regular station?

Again, though, abusing BBC material is unethical and may be illegal.

Just being creationists is their right, and if you choose to give them a legal tax-payer funded station, you get a legal tax-payer funded creationist station. Dutch voters and taxpayers have themselves to blame on that one.

EO can buy and show all the crap they want and BBC can sell all the crap they want. But it is doubtful if BBC wants to be associated with creationism instead of science. And in any case it is bad moral and business practice from both parties to not warn about the editing. I support the Dutch scientists petition.

Mats

Mats Wrote:

Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views

From you, Mats, we expect:

1. Explaining your terms:

What is “Darwinists”?

2. Referencing your claims:

When did scientists propose censoring?

Mats Wrote:

… 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. … inferences …

As if my observing a mass hit the ground didn’t happen a nanosecond in the past. All our observations lie in the past light cone. The light from the Sun’s surface originated on average 8 minutes ago. The reflected light from Mars originated 1 hour ago. And the CMBR that we observe the properties of now originated 13.3 Gyr ago, after recombination decoupling between matter and photons.

Furthermore, abiogenesis isn’t evolution. What you want to study is the process of common descent, and it is happening now.

Inferences are used to make models, not test them, a far stronger procedure. Every living individual have ancestors, which is easily observed, and so have I by inference. Also , individuals leave records behind in some form or other, which is easily observed, and so could my ancestors have done by inference.

I can *test* the prediction of ancestors and their records by locating and observing an ancestor’s records in “the strata” of some archive. I can repeat the observation in case I read the wrong record, and I can repeat by locating other ancestor’s records.

So you see, the inference goes the same way as assumptions. Testing confirms that they whether they were correct or wrong.

From you, Mats, we expect:

3. Willingness to learn about the science you discuss:

What distinguish observations and mechanisms? What is the difference between a working set of hypotheses (modeling, inferences) and a tested set of hypotheses (theories, tests)?

A.R.: Some Dutch person should get a clip of the EO President saying anything in English, and then dub it in Dutch with the real-but-stupid Bible Quotes, with chapter and verse.

You left a good one out. EO President: The bible says disobedient children should be stoned to death at the city’s gates. We should get the Dutch government to supply free city gates for stoning just like they give us free TV time. A big pile of tiny skeletons next to the freeways will do wonders for child rearing.

Bible Quote Deut. 21, 18-21 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

I bet even back then, most people thought this was sheer wingnuttery and paid no attention. I’m not aware of piles of little skeletons outside of ancient Israeli cities.

Mats said “Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data. And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself. Cheers.”

Mats, different processes leave different traces. Just like the police can tell if a man was shot, stabbed, run over by a car, died of an illness (and which one) or of natural causes, biologists can tell how life came to be what it is. If life had been designed or created, it would have left completely different traces.

The fact that Evolution is accepted by people with such different world views as Atheists, Agnostics and God believers should be a hint that the evidence for Evolution is very strong. Conversely, the fact that Creationism is supported only by a small proportion of God believers (and only by God believers) should tell you something.

Marc L.

stanton. I have time to read thru some of your messages and did some research : http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]ll-slits.asp

Gills in humans. You said the humans have gills and some “reputable” biology textbooks even have photos of them. Reputable meaning evolitionary of course. Well find the truth on the link above.There is something about Haeckel there too.

And another one of yours stating from: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65).” “A campaign against the “godless movement” .This is what Hitler said.

Christ said “love thy neighbour” - does not matter who it is : Jew, Dutch , evolutionist or creationist,black or white.

I tell you more..inquisition killed milions of people in the name of god. God who ?…

Get it ? That is why I believe if you try to abuse creationists they will not abuse you back. They are Christians. Hitler was talking about creator but not the One who made universe. His “creator” was the same who speaks hatred ever since he was expelled from paradise. Well, i do not want to go further because you would not understand. Unbelievers cannot discern spiritual things. A Get… educated :)

And finally Stanton, if you abhor the AiG site here I posted a piece from it about the gill slits that you misunderstood in your reputable Biology textbook : “So what are these misnamed structures? Actually, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat. By the 28th day of life, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord seem to be racing ahead of the rest of the body in growth. Therefore, for a time, the spinal cord is actually longer than the body, forcing the body to curl and flexing the neck area forward. (This curled embryo with the long spinal cord is mistakenly accused by some people of having a tail.) Just as many people develop a double chin when bending the neck forward, so the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing.

We scientists especially like to name things. Gill slits is a misleading name, since these folds are neither gills nor slits. Another popular name, branchial arches, is just as deceptive because branchial comes from the Greek word for “gills.” Somehow the name neck folds just isn’t fancy enough for our scientific minds, so these folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are arch-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a sore throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches.” after AiG site .

In my kid’s biology textbook there were as you remember diagrams of embryos of fish , amphibian, reptile, human ,and mammal a piece of text saying “gill slits” and leaders pointing to necks of them all. And that ,my dear, mongoliodal friend, is Haeckel.. By the way .. did you know that mongolism is caused by extra 21 chormosome in human genome. extra info ! Help in the evlotionary way up. But no.…it actually make people disable.….DoH !!! A

Ghost .. you reocovered well.. you got back to the beginnig and reading it all again HUH ? You got to the part of chicken and egg !!! Good work!!!

Stanton… “You serve only to support.…”

Well , do YOU understand the nature well? Name a piece of your own scientific work that would help us to understand it better…

Andre: I checked the link you gave to explain why Noah did not need to take plants on the ark and (surprise, surprise!) it did no such thing. Instead there was speculation that perhaps kangaroos got to Australia by using land bridges (an idea mooted by people 100 years ago, but dropped 50 years ago because of contrary evidence and a better theory) or perhaps the continents moved. As is typical with creationist ad-hoc explanations, that raises many other questions, like what was the mechanism, how big was the wave (remember the effect of a section of sea floor moving a few metres? Continents dashing around at the speeds needed would be millions of times more drastic), what happened to the heat from the friction, where did the energy go to when the continents stopped and so on.

All creationist ‘explanations’ are full of ‘perhaps’, none of which fit together in a coherent whole.

Dr Gould said that there is no continuity in the fossils.

As you quote Gould, presumably you have read his books. Why do you think he was such a passionate writer in support of the theory of evolution if he held the views you attribute to him? Could it possibly be that you are quoting him out of context? If he actually wrote what you claim, he would have been referring to a specific group of fossils, not to all fossils as that is wrong (check out brachiopods) and he was far too smart to make a basic mistake like that.

Torbjörn Larsson, it is LIAR, you misspelled it twice. Get Educated !

English is not his first language. His spelling, grammar and the coherence of his posts are all far superior to yours. When you first appeared here, I assumed that you were struggling with English. Now I believe you just to be an uneducated dolt unaware of the depths of his own ignorance.

BTW: Did you check out the fossil hominid link I posted? Where do you draw the line? Correction: Where does AnswersInGenesis tell you to place the line?

In Ken Ham’s “eulogy” for Steve Irwin, he essentially says that Mr Irwin was killed by God and is now burning Hell because he failed to repent for the twin unforgivable sins of believing in evolution and for not believing in God in the same exact way that Ken Ham believes in God. Ham then goes on to say that the fires of Hell await everyone who does not fear and believe in God in the exact same way that he does. Please explain how Ham’s “eulogy” demonstrates Christ’s admonishment of “love thy neighbor”? Last I heard, telling a person that God sent a person to Hell to burn forever is a demonstration of “hate.” In fact, calling people “dopes” or insisting that they’re stupid when they are not are also demonstrations of “hate.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc[…]904irwin.asp

Furthermore, “gill slits” were named “gill slits” by anatomists because they resembled the gill slits of fish, much like the reason why anatomists named the hippocampus of the brain after the genus of seahorses because that structure looked like a seahorse. Once a structure has been named in Anatomy, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible to petition to have it renamed. That’s why the neurolemma refers to the Schwann cells, which were mistaken for the outer layer of the neuron, rather than the outer layer of the neuron-proper, as the early anatomists did not have powerful enough microscopes that allowed them to distinguish between the two layers.

I am not a scientist yet, I am working on my Biology major, and thus, have no proper scientific paper yet. That being said, I know heads, shoulders and feet above what you know, Andre. As a hobby, I research prehistoric animals so I can draw them. If you actually took the time to look at my website *points to link in name*, you would have already known this. But, then again, given as how you’re too busy lambasting people for accepting Evolutionary Biology, and screaming “abuse” when you’ve been taken to task for your lying, you never did bother to even acknowledge that I provided you with numerous transitional forms, let alone ask you questions.

Andre - my question related specifically to birds, not to the origin of life. As you seem happy to engage, can we have another go please without wrangling over words?

(i) People have dug up lots of fossils from various kinds of rocks. Some kinds of fossil-bearing rocks seem older than others. Some kinds of fossil-bearing rocks contain fossils of birds and other kinds do not. The oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fossils of many kinds of creeping things but do not contain any bird fossils. Is this accurate so far, do you think?

(ii) Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude from this that there was a time when many different kinds of creeping living things flourished, but no birds?

(iii) Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude from this that birds appeared later than the creeping things that had become fossilised in the older rocks which contain no bird fossils?

(iv) Where do you think birds came from?

Stanton: you said: “You are the one who is lying, and you are the one who is spreading misinformation on this thread. Given as how Evolutionary Biology has no holy text, no priesthood, no messiah, and no sacred rituals beyond performing experiments adhering to the scientific method and having peer-reviewed articles, the only way one can call the Theory”…

I did some research for youy :

The word religion is derived from Latin “religio” (what attaches or retains, moral bond, anxiety of self-consciousness, scruple) used by the Romans, before Jesus Christ, to indicate the worship of the demons. The origin of “religio” is debated since antiquity. Cicero said it comes from “relegere” (to read again, to re-examine carefully, to gather) in the meaning “to carefully consider the things related to the worship of gods”. Later, Lucretius, Lactancius and Tertullianus see its origin in “religare” (to connect) to refer “the bond of piety that binds to God”. Initially used for Christianity, the use of the word religion gradually extended to all the forms of social demonstration in connection with sacred.

After site :http://atheisme.free.fr/Religion/Wh[…]ligion-1.htm

Gav : Why should not we wrangle th words? I would understan Crick’s statement like this : life appearance in the fossil records is abrupt and borders with miracle : be it bacteria, birds,mammals. I have a question for you before I answer yours, why do you think that some fossil bearing rocks “seem” ,as you stated “older than others”. You see you are not sure there …”seem”. How did you worked that out ? If older how much older from one another? How did you measure age of those rocks ? Answer that , then we continue…

Stanton : I red entire article and did not find any sentence about God killing Irwin. It must be your evolutionary training that screws you up: you read a piece of text, reinterpret it and throw it back at your opponent. See my answer to Gav. I wish you all the luck you need in you exams. You see ! I was bloody right ! You think that abusing creationist will help you with your career!.

I used to work for forensic cops here. I saw some really intelligent people in action. None ever stated that evolution helped them in anything.. Have a look around : can you name a company that has a department of evolution that would help in science advancement ? You may consider a career in real research. Try to avoid evolutionism, it is sagging…

”Genetic variation can not add anything to the genome.” Are you seriously claiming that chromosome doubling, followed by mutation (common in plants) adds nothing to the genome? This is a frequent claim by IDists that flies in the face of the evidence. BTW, ‘genetic information’ is a term used almost exclusively by IDists and creationists but as they refuse to define what they mean it is, like the rest of ID, a useless concept. (If you want to attempt a definition, remember that there is a single-celled amoeba with considerably more genetic material than humans.)

You lack of understanding is embarrassing.If chromosomes were even quadrupling they would still contain pre existing information. Understood - pre existing there would be no new info added! Who teaches you biology ? LOL Frankly speaking this clip is worthy to be spread all over the net ! LOL

And another one for you Simons : “When you first appeared here, I assumed that you were struggling with English. Now I believe you just to be an uneducated dolt unaware of the depths of his own ignorance.”

E is not my mother tongue either .Do you think that because you speak E , or run a spell check each time before you post a message you are not an ignorant ?. You poor misguided creature !! Your messages show quite otherwise.. !! Do not flatter yourself : discussion with you is easy.I can answer your “sweatouts” eating my morning cereal..Few “typos”will happen in the heat of the moment LOL.If I’d reach for a thesaurus you would not understand a word considering how did you understand the stuff with chromosomes.…

Sorry Guys I did go hard on you - you are just a bunch of kids.. I should have known better looking at those pretty pictures on your site. I hope that your server hit rate went up because of our heated discussion…

Andre, you are a lying hypocrite. You honestly think you can just toss an insincere apology, thinking that it can make amends for all of the abusive lies you’ve heaped on us?

Furthermore, you fit the stereotype of the typical Christian Creationist I meet, who is a selfish, abusive solipsist who is arrogant to think that he knows all, and who refuses to be reminded that his opponents happen to be human, let alone also often fellow Christians, too. Why should I believe that you’re sincere in your apology, or even that English is your second language, even? You’ve continued to refuse to admit that I did, indeed provide actual lists of transitional forms, and you’ve refused to answer any of the questions I’ve asked of you, and when you’ve deigned to acknowledge my existence, you’ve been supremely arrogant and insulting, AND you’ve refused to admit that anything you’ve said was a lie. And now you expect to patch things up with this “apology” of yours? To be truthful, I think it’s just another trick of yours that you’re setting up just to insult us and our collective intelligence again.

discussion with you is easy.I can answer your “sweatouts” eating my morning cereal.

Then why don’t you? Here are a few of the questions you’ve avoided:

Where do you draw the line between apes and humans?

Given that there is lots of evidence that evolution is taking place right now what do you think prevented it from taking place in the past too?

What do you think a transitional form between, say, dinosaurs and birds would look like?

Why do you think he [Gould] was such a passionate writer in support of the theory of evolution if he held the views you attribute to him?

Some from Stanton: “there have been no trace of any human-Bothriolepis interaction. No cooked, eaten, or carved bones in ancient trash middens, no pictures drawn of them before the 19th Century, no nothing. Can you explain why?”

Why can’t you name me a Young Earth Creationist who has contributed to Biology within the last 100, or even last 50 years?

If it is true that he [Damadian] was denied a share of the prize because he was a creationist, then can you explain why fellow contributor Dr H. Y. Carr, who is not a creationist, was also denied a share of the prize?

“unless you actually provide a reputable source that describes Stalin’s alleged chimpanzee-human hybrid experiments, you are lying out of your ass.”

Can you demonstrate where creationists have attempted to explain how the indigenous plants and animals of Hawaii were able to get to Hawaii from Mount Ararat in fine detail?

Can you show us what Intelligent Design can tell about the Intelligent designing of placoderms or mesonychids?

Raging Bee “why don’t you report on the outcome of IDers’ research”?

Popper’s Ghost “Any idea who did the work that discredited recapitulation theory?”

Gav “Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude from this [the observation that older rocks do not contain bird fossils while younger rocks do] that birds appeared later than the creeping things that had become fossilised in the older rocks which contain no bird fossils?”

PvM “Have you heard of St Augustine?”

One last question:

If chromosomes were even quadrupling they would still contain pre existing information. Understood - pre existing there would be no new info added! Who teaches you biology ?

If that is the case, why are tetraploid lilies larger than diploid lilies? Also, you ignored “followed by mutation (common in plants)”. But you have company - it seems every creationist on the planet does likewise.

BTW: I only criticized your English because you criticized someone who has a far greater command of the language than you. Your writing problem is not just with the language, though. Reread a post such as 131866 and you will see a long, disjointed paragraph that skips from one thing to another.

Andre I appreciate your coming back. Perhaps I should have said striving about words to no profit, rather than wrangling.

Please don’t answer a question with another question, otherwise we are into striving to no profit. If you think that my summary in (i) of my earlier post does or does not map onto the evidence, then a plain yes or no will do.

I think this thread was over a long time ago. Take it to the forum people.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Guest Contributor published on October 1, 2007 9:09 PM.

Evolvable by design was the previous entry in this blog.

Not-quite-endless Forms Most Beautiful, or Wormholes Through Morphospace is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter