Ralph Strean to produce a Christian version of 'Cosmos'....

[Calminian]

.....Lord willing. Am I the only one that wants to see this?

Ralph Strean was the producer director of the Genesis Movie, Genesis: Paradise Lost. He did a great job on that film, and is now working on a documentary series that will challenge the rebooted 'Cosmos' series featuring Neil deGrasse Tyson (who succeeded Carl Sagan).

Strean's show, 'Quantum' will feature Dr. Charles Jackson—a literal genius, and brilliant creation scientist and apologist—piloting a time-traveling spaceship, teaching the true biblical history of our world. Brilliant!

You can view Dr. Jackson's video testimony here (highly recommended).

Fundraising just started. Help him out if you can, and pass this along. Here is the IndieGoGo page for more information.

Ralph Strean’s ‘Quantum’ series takes on ‘Cosmos’

 

[sfs]

Am I the only one that wants to see this?

I would rather perform a root canal on myself.

 

[Calminian]

Update, 24K raised.

 

[SilverBear]

"a literal genius, and brilliant creation scientist"


Jackson claims that bacteria is NOT developing immunity to antibiotics
That there is no evidence of evolution in DNA
He either changes the definition of the word species from time to time or he doesn't actually;y know the definition.
He claims that you can't make out facial features form just a skull.
He claims that you can't see the sclara of the eyes of monkey's or apes

He lies and claims Neanderthals have been reclassified as homo sapiens...they haven't
He can't state the second law of thermodynamics

 

[The Barbarian]

Neandertals are a subspecies of H. sapiens. They aren't exactly us, but they are closer to us than bonobos are to other chimpanzees. So the consensus today is that they are of our own species, but a different subspecies.

The other claims are laughable, of course.

 

[Calminian]

"a literal genius, and brilliant creation scientist"


Jackson claims that bacteria is NOT developing immunity to antibiotics
That there is no evidence of evolution in DNA
He either changes the definition of the word species from time to time or he doesn't actually;y know the definition.
He claims that you can't make out facial features form just a skull.
He claims that you can't see the sclara of the eyes of monkey's or apes

He lies and claims Neanderthals have been reclassified as homo sapiens...they haven't
He can't state the second law of thermodynamics

Actually all these claims are false, or misrepresented. You made them up which is why you didn't post any links to prove it. You probably copied this off some skeptic site.

I'll wait and see if you'll even attempt to back any of this stuff up. My guess is you'll copout and cite some site, and then run and hide.

Bluff called. Ball's in your court.

 

[Calminian]

Neandertals are a subspecies of H. sapiens. ...

SilverBear did no research, he likely just saw it somewhere online and repeated it.

Neandertal was one of us. Buried their dead with us. Intermarried with us. They had a larger brain case on average, but this varies with humans today. There's no argument against it anymore, except maybe some fringe holdouts.

 

[Resha Caner]

I was not a fan of Carl Sagan's pop science shows, but I'm afraid Ralph Strean does not speak for Christianity, so claiming he will produce a "Christian" alternative to Cosmos is akin to a papist claim.

 

[The Barbarian]

Neandertal was one of us.

Same species, different subspecies. Race, if you like. There were at least 4 races perhaps 100,000 years ago, but we are the only one left, albeit (as you suggest) carrying Neandertal and Denesovan genes.

They had a larger brain case on average,

They were extraordinarily strong, and larger muscles require more brain; their brains were somewhat different shaped than ours, which suggests different mental abilities, but not that much different. They had the hyoid structure, which almost certainly means they were using speech as we do.

And now, we find they were using art, and in at least one case, abandoned their very conservative technology to use stone tools as anatomically modern people did. I doubt very much if they were significantly more or less intelligent than we are.

They were just adapted for different times. Perhaps their cultural conservatism was their downfall, or perhaps our domestication of the dog made us such efficient hunters that they could no longer compete with us.

We may never know.

 

[SilverBear]

Actually all these claims are false, or misrepresented. You made them up which is why you didn't post any links to prove it. You probably copied this off some skeptic site.

I'll wait and see if you'll even attempt to back any of this stuff up. My guess is you'll copout and cite some site, and then run and hide.

Bluff called. Ball's in your court.

reference time stamp 0.11, 1.48 and 7.26

and then there the many gems of this one

My guess is that you will suddenly decide to find other threads to write on

 

[Calminian]

...They were just adapted for different times. ....

They were smarter than us. That's the part that kills you. They'd laugh at our modern gods, Mother Nature and Father Time.

 

[Calminian]

reference time stamp 0.11, 1.48 and 7.26

and then there the many gems of this one

My guess is that you will suddenly decide to find other threads to write on

And Bingo. Dropped some links and ran. These guys are so predictable. They're followers. He has nothing to say. They just take you to their leaders and silently slip away.

 

[Calminian]

I was not a fan of Carl Sagan's pop science shows, but I'm afraid Ralph Strean does not speak for Christianity, so claiming he will produce a "Christian" alternative to Cosmos is akin to a papist claim.

You're right in a sense. Strean's view of origins basically only represents biblical Christianity.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're right in a sense. Strean's view of origins basically only represents biblical Christianity.

You think he's God's vicar on earth? That's too bad.

 

[Resha Caner]

... and then there the many gems of this one ...[e.g. Dr. Jackson's position that bacteria are only adapting, not evolving]

@sfs , @The Barbarian - If you could, I'd be curious to hear your reply to this position. What data does biology use to claim bacteria are evolving (producing new DNA) as opposed to adapting (selecting from existing DNA)?

 

[The Barbarian]

They were smarter than us.

Technologically challenged, compared to the anatomically modern humans living at the same time. But who knows what mental skills they had, that we aren't as endowed with.

That's the part that kills you. They'd laugh at our modern gods, Mother Nature and Father Time.

There's some reason to think they had a sense of religious awe. But we'll never really know, I think.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you could, I'd be curious to hear your reply to this position. What data does biology use to claim bacteria are evolving (producing new DNA) as opposed to adapting (selecting from existing DNA)?

Great question. I happen to have a bachelor's degree in bacteriology, so I'm familiar with the one key technique that can make that certain.

You see, when we want to make a pure culture from a single cell, we use serial dilution. That is, we dilute the bacterial culture more and more, until when it's plated out, there are very few bacteria on the agar, so each colony is a clone of one bacterium.

So we know that there's only one allele for each gene in that population at the start. This is what Hall did when he began to see if natural selection could produce complex results in a short time. In his case, a new enzyme system which also evolved a regulator, was selected for in a series of mutations that were documented in the culture.

Each mutation was a new one, and natural selection removed those that lacked the increasingly effective enzyme.

Then, to Hall's surprise, the bacteria evolved a regulator. That mutation made the bacteria produce the new enzyme only when the substrate was present, a very efficient way to conserve energy and resources.

 

[Resha Caner]

Great question. I happen to have a bachelor's degree in bacteriology, so I'm familiar with the one key technique that can make that certain.

Thanks for answering, but to glean the answer I'm looking for, I'll rephrase and you can tell me if my phrasing is correct.

In essence, you select a single bacterial organism for study. As such, you know each gene in the study starts with only one allele. As that single organism reproduces, if the allele frequency changes, you conclude it was not selected.

 

[Calminian]

You think he's God's vicar on earth? That's too bad.

No, I think the Bible is. God's vicar(s), so to speak, were the prophets and apostles, authenticated by God, who penned Scriptures. They are the only interpreters. They are the only vicar(s) I recognize.

 

[Calminian]

BTW, the just hit $85K. Nice!

Give if you're lead: Quantum Series