Science vs Evolution by M. Bowden

[Laurens]

My mum lent me this book the other day, well not so much lent it to me as sneaked into my room when I was at work and left it on my bed. I got to the fourth page and it had already mentioned a global flood :facepalm: I thought I would post a topic on it, and review it as I read it. I have to say I'm very tempted to stop reading it as soon as it mentioned a flood. It says that the fossils could have been laid out all at once in a global flood.

It's gone on to talk about petrified trees as proof that the geological strata is wrong. It's not clear whether the author is a creationist (perhaps I should read the introduction, but I wanted to get stuck in to the meat) he has already mentioned a flood though, which would indicate that the author is a creationist, or simply aiming a book at that market. I shall try to plough through this book and keep you guys updated on the stupid contained therein. Although don't be too surprised if nothing comes of this topic, I might not be able to cope with the shit in this book. Page four and it's already mentioned a flood, it's not looking promising.

 

[AndromedasWake]

M. Bowden is Malcolm Bowden, almost a parody of a creationist. Andrew Inns and Redsky ministries hired him to make a series of videos about geocentrism, which attempt to twist the conclusions of 18th century aether experiments to prove that the Earth is stationary. What they achieved was what Stephen Hawking would call a very inelegant model in reference to model-dependant realism.

They also used the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments as two separate lines of evidence, even though the results from both experiments are not compatible with one another (in one the aether rotates wrt. to Earth; in the other it does not) and both results can be explained with Special Relativity.

They want to attack relativity to undermine the Big Bang, so they can live in a geocentric, static but somehow not eternal Universe, and of course this is all to protect the good name of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't even wipe my arse with the paper that book is printed on.

 

[Laurens]

M. Bowden is Malcolm Bowden, almost a parody of a creationist. Andrew Inns and Redsky ministries hired him to make a series of videos about geocentrism, which attempt to twist the conclusions of 18th century aether experiments to prove that the Earth is stationary. What they achieved was what Stephen Hawking would call a very inelegant model in reference to model-dependant realism.

They also used the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments as two separate lines of evidence, even though the results from both experiments are not compatible with one another (in one the aether rotates wrt. to Earth; in the other it does not) and both results can be explained with Special Relativity.

They want to attack relativity to undermine the Big Bang, so they can live in a geocentric, static but somehow not eternal Universe, and of course this is all to protect the good name of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't even wipe my arse with the paper that book is printed on.

I kind of feel obliged to read it, as my mother lent it to me and will probably ask me my opinion on it at some stage. But I guess I could just tell her I would rather not waste my time reading a book by a geocentric moron

Thanks for the info, but I have to say it makes me want to read it even less, which will not impress my mother.

I was thinking of sneaking into her room and leaving The Blind Watchmaker on her bed and seeing how that goes down.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Why The Blind Watchmaker? Why not The Greatest Show?
Note: I haven't read the former.

 

[Laurens]

Why The Blind Watchmaker? Why not The Greatest Show?
Note: I haven't read the former.

Simply because I finished reading the Blind Watchmaker, and I'm in the process of reading The Greatest Show on Earth.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I see. I figured Greatest Show was much more newbie friendly.

 

[Laurens]

I see. I figured Greatest Show was much more newbie friendly.

I'm not sure, I hadn't studied evolution in depth before and I didn't find the Blind Watchmaker too hard to grasp or anything. And it's kind of relevant in that it is an argument against creationism.

 

[lrkun]

I did some research on the topic. Here's a webpage related to such. It led me to a creationist webpage. Consequently, read the book, but don't laugh to much, hehe.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I'm not sure, I hadn't studied evolution in depth before and I didn't find the Blind Watchmaker too hard to grasp or anything. And it's kind of relevant in that it is an argument against creationism.

I see. It's a different angle. Watchmaker is against creationism and Greatest Show is for evolution. Interesting.

 

[Laurens]

Again only several more paragraphs into the book and it has stated that there are no transitional fossils. I dunno if I can go on with this book, I feel like I my brain is being raped by the spirit of all that's stupid.

I was hoping for something I hadn't heard before... I guess that's too much to expect from a creationist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Again only several more paragraphs into the book and it has stated that there are no transitional fossils. I dunno if I can go on with this book, I feel like I my brain is being raped by the spirit of all that's stupid.

I was hoping for something I hadn't heard before... I guess that's too much to expect from a creationist.

Yeah... creationists are still recycling bad arguments from a dozen or more centuries ago as if they are new and interesting. By that standard, nonsense from just 50 years ago is novel and original by comparison. "No transitional fossils" will need at least another 200 years before they start considering if it is actually a valid argument or not.

 

[borrofburi]

Again only several more paragraphs into the book and it has stated that there are no transitional fossils. I dunno if I can go on with this book, I feel like I my brain is being raped by the spirit of all that's stupid.

I was hoping for something I hadn't heard before... I guess that's too much to expect from a creationist.

I wouldn't read it... you have finite time on this planet, might as well spend it doing something you actually value.

 

[Laurens]

Again only several more paragraphs into the book and it has stated that there are no transitional fossils. I dunno if I can go on with this book, I feel like I my brain is being raped by the spirit of all that's stupid.

I was hoping for something I hadn't heard before... I guess that's too much to expect from a creationist.

I wouldn't read it... you have finite time on this planet, might as well spend it doing something you actually value.

You're right.

The only reason I feel obliged to read it is to have something to say if my mother asks to discuss the matter, but I guess I shouldn't worry so much about pleasing her all the time. She expects the book to make me abandon my acceptance of evolutionary theory (and probably become a christian too), that's not going to happen at least its not a good start, and I strongly doubt it will get better. I think I will return the book to her tomorrow and tell her I don't want to read it and brace myself for the inevitable 'why?' and accusations of being closed minded.

 

[borrofburi]

The only reason I feel obliged to read it is to have something to say if my mother asks to discuss the matter, but I guess I shouldn't worry so much about pleasing her all the time. She expects the book to make me abandon my acceptance of evolutionary theory (and probably become a christian too), that's not going to happen at least its not a good start, and I strongly doubt it will get better. I think I will return the book to her tomorrow and tell her I don't want to read it and brace myself for the inevitable 'why?' and accusations of being closed minded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[borrofburi]

The only reason I feel obliged to read it is to have something to say if my mother asks to discuss the matter, but I guess I shouldn't worry so much about pleasing her all the time. She expects the book to make me abandon my acceptance of evolutionary theory (and probably become a christian too), that's not going to happen at least its not a good start, and I strongly doubt it will get better. I think I will return the book to her tomorrow and tell her I don't want to read it and brace myself for the inevitable 'why?' and accusations of being closed minded.

I'd tell her I have finite time and (knowing my mother) I don't want to spend it reading an endless array of books trumpeted by her as "the one that will finally fix you". If she wants to do some sort of book exchange (1 for 1), I may be open to that, but first she must answer two questions: "would you want to know if you're wrong?" "what, if anything, might change your mind?"

Err also, I'd have to emphasize that neither of those questions are as simple as they seem. The former most people will instinctively answer "of course", but I've met some who, after I convinced them to think deeply about it, decided they'd rather not know, and then were understanding of why I'd rather not discuss it with them (and at least one who admitted he wouldn't want to know, but insisted that I discuss the topic with him anyway); the truth is, some people really do not value the truth over their comfort, or the authority figures they respect, or the church community they (think they) depend on, etc.

The latter is also difficult... many will flippantly answer "the body of jesus christ", but that answer really just boils down to "nothing at all" when you get into the details of it. I'm not going to enter a conversation where I'm expected to change my mind with someone who bold-faced admits that there's nothing that could change her mind (which, honestly, is the very definition of closed mindedness).

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

The only reason I feel obliged to read it is to have something to say if my mother asks to discuss the matter, but I guess I shouldn't worry so much about pleasing her all the time. She expects the book to make me abandon my acceptance of evolutionary theory (and probably become a christian too), that's not going to happen at least its not a good start, and I strongly doubt it will get better. I think I will return the book to her tomorrow and tell her I don't want to read it and brace myself for the inevitable 'why?' and accusations of being closed minded.

borrofburi already posted a link to this video but I hate naked YouTube links so I'm reposting it here:



As for your mother, I'd recommend looking through the table of contents and skimming promising chapters for one juicy example of their stupidity and, if she brings the book up, barrage her with ridiculing criticism of their treatise. It will likely be proof enough to her that you've read the book and she'll be unlikely to bring the subject up again...

 

[Laurens]

Thanks for the replies guys. I haven't spoken to my mother yet, I am one of those people who finds confrontation pretty difficult sometimes, but I think I will tell her that I don't really have the time to read creationist nonsense if she does bring the topic up. I can tell its just a load of shit from looking at the contents page. Carbon dating is wrong, fossils are faked, and all that kind of bullcrap. I don't have time for it really, I've got better books to read.

I loved the video by the way.

 

[Redsky]

Malcolm Bowden has been studying creation since the 1960's and during that time has published a number of books through his own publishing company.

I had no interest in creationism until I came across Malcolm Bowden and yes I did ask him to make the videos.

I used the videos as a bell ringing exercise to bring people to my website which contains a much more important message.

I think it is a very sad situation, that Christians feel the need to try and use creation science to prove God. Also I think it is a very sad situation that non believers use evolution to try and disprove God.

The problem arises from the way God was presented in the Old Testament. According to Jesus, these people didn't know God and presented him in a hateful manner because they thought that God was just like them.

They used their so called God given laws to murder Jesus and yet Christians today claim that these Old Testament laws and ways are God inspired thanks to the Roman Emperor Constantine who produced thy first ever Bibles and pronounced them "Holy".

The theory of evolution has come into being as a result of of a people who misrepresented God's character because they didn't know what God was really like and so an alternative to creation was desirable.

If you are interested in science and are reading this post, then all I ask is this. Don't accept the popular theories without question. For example, the theory of heliocenricity has problems because relativity alone is not sufficient to hold the universe together.
Relativity has a problem because the "constant" speed of light has been exceded.
Life cannot start on it's own on this planet.
If life were able to start on it's own 4 billion years ago then at the rate at which genetic mutations occur, the first simple cell would only be 43% complete.

But none of this proves God. That's not what this post is about. It's about asking you to question what you are told is true.

All I ask is that you open your eyes to the scientific information that is available and enjoy...

 

[Laurens]

The theory of evolution has come into being as a result of of a people who misrepresented God's character because they didn't know what God was really like and so an alternative to creation was desirable.

:shock: WRONG

The theory of evolution came into being from the study of nature. I had nothing to do with people wanting an alternative to creation or to misrepresent God's character. Nature was observed and conclusions were drawn from it.

It's worth noting that Darwin had read Paley's Natural Theology and wasn't averse to creationism when he set sail on the Beagle. However, his observations let him to dismiss Paley's arguments and come to the conclusion that natural selection was the driving force behind the diversity of life.

And it's not like Darwin was champing at the bit to unleash his theory, he sat on it for a long, long time without publishing it for fear of it's implications. This doesn't make sense if he was eagerly searching for an alternative to creation, surely if that was the case he would have published it and had done with it?

If you are interested in science and are reading this post, then all I ask is this. Don't accept the popular theories without question. For example, the theory of heliocenricity has problems because relativity alone is not sufficient to hold the universe together.

:shock: Please can you clarify for me, you are not saying that heliocentricism is wrong are you?

Relativity has a problem because the "constant" speed of light has been exceded.

That is very, very disputable.

Life cannot start on it's own on this planet.

Evidence for this?

If life were able to start on it's own 4 billion years ago then at the rate at which genetic mutations occur, the first simple cell would only be 43% complete.

This is based on what exactly?

 

[australopithecus]

It should be noted that RedSky's channel actively endorses Malcom Bowden's geocritic apologetics. AW has some good videos debunking that specific brand of insanity.

They're on wheels, so they can move about.