John Bedson's unholy crew is being challenged on this site.
I am currently a Christadelphian, and it is a great pity that we have to wash our dirty linen in public, but this particular brand of dirty linen consists of dispute about the theory of evolution, which Bedson, Gilmore, the Burke brothers, Pogson and several others declare with one voice to be true - in fact, that is the name of the Bedson site.
I hereby issue a challenge to all and sundry, ex-Christadelphian or otherwise, to come here and debate the subject fairly. As the owner of this blog, I reserve the right to terminate any offensive, abusive or otherwise disgraceful conversations. Two warnings will be given, and termination will follow.
I am no politician, and as such, will have no hesitation in terminating the objectionable.
The subject to be debated is the subject of my little book: 'How Does Instinct Evolve?'
In my opinion, that book finishes the theory off forever, and is a major contribution to the debate on the subject of whether or not evolution could, or did occur. It is a revolutionary argument, which like Pasteur's single-handed demolition of the theory of the spontaneous origin of life, is my single-handed demolition of the theory of evolution.
If my argument is correct, and there is no reason to suppose that it isn't, then evolution could not even start, far less produce the multi-faceted multitudes of life-forms on earth today.
So the gauntlet is hurled into your faces, members of the opposition. Give me a man to fight with me, and we'll take it from there. You may recognise the quotation. Or not.
>>
ReplyDeleteJohn Bedson's unholy crew is being challenged on this site.
>>
There is no 'Bedson's unholy crew.' It doesn't exist. Bedson is an ex-Christadelphian (he left our community about 20 years ago) and the BEREA team is flatly opposed to him. We do not belong to his 'Christadelphian skeptics.'
>>
the theory of evolution, which Bedson, Gilmore, the Burke brothers, Pogson and several others declare with one voice to be true
>>
Firstly, none of these people are members of 'Bedson's unholy crew.'
Secondly, I am Dave Burke. I am also an Old Earth Creationist. You claim I am one of those who have 'declared evolution to be true.' Please substantiate that claim (quote me verbatim) or withdraw it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi,
Delete>>
the theory of evolution, which Bedson, Gilmore, the Burke brothers, Pogson and several others declare with one voice to be true
>>
Firstly, none of these people are members of 'Bedson's unholy crew.'
What? Not even Bedson? That seems a bit unlikely!
>>
DeleteWhat? Not even Bedson? That seems a bit unlikely!
>>
Not at all. Bedson does not have an 'unholy crew.'
Hi,
ReplyDeleteWhen I go to www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com I get a message:
Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com
...and similar in other browsers...
Can this be fixed?
Hi Asyncritus,
ReplyDeleteI came across your blog earlier today and have since read some of your writings in various places across the web. Though not your "little book" as the website appears to be down!
From what I can gather you argue that evolution cannot be true because it cannot account for instinct? Your hypothesis seems to have been answered many times and in many places, and yet you still persist in advancing it and proclaiming it as though it has not been answered.
I can only assume that this is because you do not accept any of the answers that you have been given.
In the spirit of scientific enquiry it would be helpful if you could suggest what you would accept as evidence against your hypothesis. As you know falsifiability is a crucial part of a notion being accepted as science. So what would falsify your theory?
"So the gauntlet is hurled into your faces, members of the opposition. Give me a man to fight with me, and we'll take it from there. You may recognise the quotation. Or not."
I don't want to appear pedantic about metaphors but gauntlets are normally "thrown down" rather than "hurled into your faces" - aren't you being a little violent there? And I take it that you are quoting an oversized Philistine? Rather odd, as given your position as standing (almost) alone in opposing the widely accepted scientific consensus, I would have thought that you would have identified with the young son of Jesse rather than with the villain of the piece?
......it's very quiet around here....??
ReplyDeleteIt's been a month now, and the tumbleweed has been drifting through the silence.
ReplyDeleteSo on behalf of "John Bedson's unholy crew" I declare that you have lost the argument.
When challenged you could not come up with a test that could falsify your proposition (remember it's the exception that proves the rule!).
Either that, or you have come up with an idea for a falsifiable test, realised that you were wrong all along and have given up?
If you have, then congratulations, and welcome to the world of reason!
I entered this comment 2 days ago, but will enter it again, as it seems to have got lost. Being connected with the Christian Faith for 70 years, ( I'm 75 ), may I make a mild comment about Christadelphians / or Ex-ones for that matter. Your minds, like JWs , do not seem to have had the New Birth which Jesus says is necessary to PERCEIVE the KINGDOM of HEAVEN.
ReplyDeleteOnce one has experienced this, one's perspective changes dramatically. I've questioned your people carefully and gently but they have had no Encounter with God on this life-changing experience. I'm not being autocratic or self-righteous here. As A.J.P. Taylor, the W.W.2 Historian said.. " Talkative little Christianity ". Please stop your endless chatter and find the 'Key' outlined above. Ken Cameron.
I entered this comment 2 days ago, but will enter it again, as it seems to have got lost. Being connected with the Christian Faith for 70 years, ( I'm 75 ), may I make a mild comment about Christadelphians / or Ex-ones for that matter. Your minds, like JWs , do not seem to have had the New Birth which Jesus says is necessary to PERCEIVE the KINGDOM of HEAVEN.
ReplyDeleteOnce one has experienced this, one's perspective changes dramatically. I've questioned your people carefully and gently but they have had no Encounter with God on this life-changing experience. I'm not being autocratic or self-righteous here. As A.J.P. Taylor, the W.W.2 Historian said.. " Talkative little Christianity ". Please stop your endless chatter and find the 'Key' outlined above. Ken Cameron.
What a great Blog, I also came across a 'How does instinct evolve' post on the nakedscience forum. What a great read that was also. The psychology of this science is astounding, everyone is in a groupthink, believing they are all thinking independantly while following the herd of independent thinkers. If instinct can't come about without an intelligent input, then it must come about with an intelligent input, so it was great to see about 6 or 7 people coming after you on that forum saying, argument from ignorance, personal incredulity, it asks more questions than it solves etc. What a load of hilarious rubbish being spilled by a bunch of butthurt people. And to see that they banned you from that forum :/ That made me spit my mint, just hilarious. Good work.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletei get interest in the creation-evolution debate for years and i have some interesting points about the topic :
for example: scientists found a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U
we know that a motor is evidence for design. even if its very small and made from organic matter and have a self replicating system. lets say that scientists will create an ape-like robot with dna and self replicating system. we will agree that this kind of robot is evidence for design. so why not the ape itself that is much more complex then this kind of speciel robot?
what do you think about this argument? have a nice
checl also creation.com