Just saw Ben Stein's "EXPELLED" today... - Page 12

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Just saw Ben Stein's "EXPELLED" today... (Page 12 of 17)

Posted: 4/25/2008 10:45:08 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There is no evidence for intelligent design. That's the reason you didn't see any in the film.

Should I just take your word for it?

Have you personally, objectively examined the conclusions of ID scientists?

oxymoron

You show your bias right here. You've already decided that they don't have anything worth hearing without examining any of their conclusions. Is this an example of the so called "open-mindedness" of the scientific community?

Since ID is demonstratively NOT SCIENCE, the term "ID Scientist" IS an oxymoron.

Self proclaimed "geologists" who claim the earth is 6,000 years old are not scientists, either.

Even if they hold PhDs in the field of study!

Please, PLEASE show me someone with a PhD in geology who claims the earth is 6,000 years old.

PLEASE.

I can provide non-Wiki links if you still don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris

creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

There's two. I can do some more digging if you like...

Posted: 4/25/2008 10:57:35 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
<snip>

I can provide non-Wiki links if you still don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris

creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

There's two. I can do some more digging if you like...

If you're willing to do the looking, would you mind providing a quote from each where they estimate the age of the earth as 6,000 years old?
I'm not saying I don't beilieve you. just that I'd like the quote if you're willing to look for it.

Posted: 4/25/2008 11:04:20 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
<snip>

I can provide non-Wiki links if you still don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris

creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

There's two. I can do some more digging if you like...

If you're willing to do the looking, would you mind providing a quote from each where they estimate the age of the earth as 6,000 years old?
I'm not saying I don't beilieve you. just that I'd like the quote if you're willing to look for it.

I would love to hear their reasoning, too.

Posted: 4/25/2008 11:32:26 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
<snip>

I can provide non-Wiki links if you still don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris

creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

There's two. I can do some more digging if you like...

If you're willing to do the looking, would you mind providing a quote from each where they estimate the age of the earth as 6,000 years old?
I'm not saying I don't beilieve you. just that I'd like the quote if you're willing to look for it.

I would love to hear their reasoning, too.

I stand corrected.

I forgot about those two nuts, I have even read some of their "work" and been by one of their "museums". You know, the one with the caveman riding the dinosaur?

I see why you didn't post the wikipedia link to Snelling, since it redirects to the AiG page.

Though he has an agenda, Snelling at least TRIES to be a scientist. All his papers have been throughly debunked. The excess argon thing was a nice try. The funny thing about sampling is that if you just pick certain samples, you can make the data say ANYTHING.

BTW, I don't think either are ID types. They are full blown young earth creationists, of the 1980's model.

Posted: 4/25/2008 12:17:23 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

One of aarowners premises is that everything he believes about the bible is true, so in any discussion of whether the bible is true, his conclusion is always contained in his premises, and the argument is always circular and illogical.

Other people are bringing their preconceived conditions and worldviews into the debate.

Some come and claim to be atheists, with the presupposition there is no God.

Others come in with a presupposition that there is.

Why is one premise automatically valid and the other is not?

There is a stark difference in saying that the observable, readable, testable, evidence leads me to conclude that the diversity in animal species did not require a God to create it and coming in with the position that the scripture is right and despite any evidence to the contrary if you don't accept it as absolute fact you have lost the debate, because it is true.

arowneragain is just as impossible to argue with as the man that will concede the possibility of alien seeding but feels absolutely certain it could not have been a god. There is no point to laying out an argument that is counter to his belief.

Posted: 4/25/2008 12:46:05 PM EDT

[#6]

Went to see the movie.

It's not about the existence or non-existence of God, whichever God you believe or don't believe in.

What it is about is censorship, intimidation, blacklisting and quashing ideas that are different from the status quo.

At university, ideas, theories, thoughts, conversation and such are supposed to be exchanged freely without fear of reprisal. When you begin to impede that free exchange of ideas with threats and intimidation, you begin a ride down a very slippery slope that leads to threats and censorship. Those who acquiesce to this kind of censorship are often those who later in life start using it to quiet those who have ideas that are different.

We've seen this move from academia to the business world in the form of political correctness run amok. It has begun to reach its ugly tentacles into government and now threatens our personal lives.

If you think that religion is the issue, it isn't. And the threats, intimidation and censorship won't stop there. At least the fact that freedom of religion is currently thought to be as ironclad an idea as freedom of speech and is therefore not on the table for elimination anytime soon. Unlike our precious second amendment that is and has been under fire since the 1930s.

Expelled is about more than intelligent design. Those of us who are rational and intelligent RKBAers recognize this and fight for liberty at every turn. We know that if one leg on the chair is removed, it won't take long for the rest to collapse.

Posted: 4/25/2008 1:20:33 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There is no evidence for intelligent design. That's the reason you didn't see any in the film.

Should I just take your word for it?

Have you personally, objectively examined the conclusions of ID scientists?

oxymoron

You show your bias right here. You've already decided that they don't have anything worth hearing without examining any of their conclusions. Is this an example of the so called "open-mindedness" of the scientific community?

Since ID is demonstratively NOT SCIENCE, the term "ID Scientist" IS an oxymoron.

Self proclaimed "geologists" who claim the earth is 6,000 years old are not scientists, either.

Even if they hold PhDs in the field of study!

Please, PLEASE show me someone with a PhD in geology who claims the earth is 6,000 years old.

PLEASE.

I can provide non-Wiki links if you still don't believe me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris

creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

There's two. I can do some more digging if you like...

IIRC there is at least one genetisist as well. This is beside the huge number of doctors, lawyers, etc who all know how to think that don't buy the captial "E" Evolution either.

Oh, and Dawkins is a baffoon.

Posted: 4/25/2008 1:29:34 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There is no evidence for intelligent design. That's the reason you didn't see any in the film.

Should I just take your word for it?

Have you personally, objectively examined the conclusions of ID scientists?

YES I HAVE , I AM A GOD-DAMNED* SCIENTIST WHO USED TO BE A CREATION-BELIEVER UNTIL I GOT AN EDUCATION.

*pun intended

Posted: 4/25/2008 1:35:02 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

IIRC there is at least one genetisist as well. This is beside the huge number of doctors, lawyers, etc who all know how to think that don't buy the captial "E" Evolution either.

Oh, and Dawkins is a baffoon.

Doctors and Lawyers?

Also, you misspelled buffoon.

Posted: 4/25/2008 2:17:08 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There have been joint talks between the two and they basically 'agree to disagree' on several key points. But they have taken steps to see eye-to-eye.

And yeah - re-unification is a goal between some people of both sects. You seem content on keeping things separate - I guess more room in heaven for your ilk? Thats worked out like gangbusters for the Sunni and Shiites.

That's a tad one-sided,

I'd say the anathemas from the Council of Trent stand as a barrier to Christian reconciliation.

They list key doctrines of Protestantism and declare that anyone who believes them is anathema, condemned and separated from God.

You get the Roman church to set those aside and we might be able to have a dialogue.

However, they won't. Every pope since Trent has reaffirmed them.

Ecumenism from the Roman church is not based on mutual respect of differing doctrines. It's a ploy to try to draw non-catholics into their church.

My first awakening to this was years ago when I attended a friend's wedding in a Roman church. They served communion during the ceremony. However, I was excluded from partaking even though I had been a CHristian for years.

No, non-catholics are seen as less-than, not real Christians.

Abandoning the principles of the Reformation would be a giant leap backwards.

I have been to many services that do not welcome guests to communion. The reasoning is simply that the act means different things to different people. If you disagree with what catholics believe and what the Eucharist means to them - then why would you want to partake in it?

At any rate - Catholics aren't the only ones who ask non-members be excluded from services. On the flip side, there are churches who welcome any and everyone - even those who haven't taken first communion/confirmation etc.

And I doubt too that all sects will resolve their differences - but some flavors may.

Posted: 4/25/2008 2:24:51 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Please, PLEASE show me someone with a PhD in geology who claims the earth is 6,000 years old.

PLEASE.

Careful - there are a couple paleontologists who are 'new earthers'. The mentor of the lady who found the 'soft tissue' in a trex bone is one of them. I dunno if he has a degree in geology or not - but I wouldnt be surprised that there are a couple out there.

Posted: 4/25/2008 3:09:27 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Went to see the movie.

It's not about the existence or non-existence of God, whichever God you believe or don't believe in.

What it is about is censorship, intimidation, blacklisting and quashing ideas that are different from the status quo.

At university, ideas, theories, thoughts, conversation and such are supposed to be exchanged freely without fear of reprisal. When you begin to impede that free exchange of ideas with threats and intimidation, you begin a ride down a very slippery slope that leads to threats and censorship. Those who acquiesce to this kind of censorship are often those who later in life start using it to quiet those who have ideas that are different.

We've seen this move from academia to the business world in the form of political correctness run amok. It has begun to reach its ugly tentacles into government and now threatens our personal lives.

If you think that religion is the issue, it isn't. And the threats, intimidation and censorship won't stop there. At least the fact that freedom of religion is currently thought to be as ironclad an idea as freedom of speech and is therefore not on the table for elimination anytime soon. Unlike our precious second amendment that is and has been under fire since the 1930s.

Expelled is about more than intelligent design. Those of us who are rational and intelligent RKBAers recognize this and fight for liberty at every turn. We know that if one leg on the chair is removed, it won't take long for the rest to collapse.

Welcome to the thread. I highly recommend going back a few pages to read a few responses. Namely the ones totally debunking the movie and it's motives.

Posted: 4/25/2008 3:27:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Welcome to the thread. I highly recommend going back a few pages to read a few responses. Namely the ones totally debunking the movie and it's motives.

Hommie, old buddy, your prejudices are showing.

The movie is not about Christian Theology, as explained way back there in the first pages.

The movie is about censorship in academia. It makes some good points, even if you disagree with them.

Posted: 4/25/2008 3:59:23 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Welcome to the thread. I highly recommend going back a few pages to read a few responses. Namely the ones totally debunking the movie and it's motives.

Hommie, old buddy, your prejudices are showing.

The movie is not about Christian Theology, as explained way back there in the first pages.

The movie is about censorship in academia. It makes some good points, even if you disagree with them.

The movie isn't about censorship if all its examples are lies and misrepresentations. The movie was about portraying the scientific community and academia in a negative manner. More specifically to link evolution/science with atheism.

I am attacking this movie the same way I did Michael Moore movies.

Here is a quote from Expelled Exposed

Expelled makes a big point of connecting atheism to advocacy of evolution, reinforcing the “conspiracy” theme that atheist scientists are actively repressing intelligent design advocacy. The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion by pretending that a selected group of atheist scientists represent all scientists. Associate Producer Mark Mathis admitted in an interview that religious scientists like Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a practicing Catholic, were deliberately excluded from the movie because their views would have “confused the film unnecessarily” (listen to the podcast or view the transcript

But why assume that Richard Dawkins or Kenneth Miller speak for science? In truth, the religious views of scientists reflect a wide range: it is impossible for any one scientist to reflect the diversity of opinion among scientists, any more than the Pope or Jimmy Swaggart can speak for all Christians. To present only one of the views about religion among scientists as characteristic of all of them is inaccurate at best, and dishonest at worst. But it is part of the strategy to link evolution to atheism.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:00:55 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Welcome to the thread. I highly recommend going back a few pages to read a few responses. Namely the ones totally debunking the movie and it's motives.

Hommie, old buddy, your prejudices are showing.

The movie is not about Christian Theology, as explained way back there in the first pages.

The movie is about censorship in academia. It makes some good points, even if you disagree with them.

Censorship in academia??? We have said it a million times; if evolution were to be challenged by a different SCIENCE there would be no problem. "Some kind of god did it", WILL NEVER be accepted as a legitiment challenge to a SCIENCE.

Unless of course they can prove it...

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:01:23 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Welcome to the thread. I highly recommend going back a few pages to read a few responses. Namely the ones totally debunking the movie and it's motives.

Hommie, old buddy, your prejudices are showing.

The movie is not about Christian Theology, as explained way back there in the first pages.

The movie is about censorship in academia. It makes some good points, even if you disagree with them.

The movie isn't about censorship if [rd]all its examples are lies and misrepresentations. The movie was about portraying the scientific community and academia in a negative manner.

I am attacking this movie the same way I did Michael Moore movies.

I guess that I don't really believe that "all its examples are lies and misrepresentations".

Therein lies the debate.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:04:12 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
[Censorship in academia??? We have said it a million times; if evolution were to be challenged by a different SCIENCE there would be no problem. "Some kind of god did it", WILL NEVER be accepted as a legitiment challenge to a SCIENCE.

Unless of course they can prove it...

But what if someone said, "I understand the Theory of Evolution. But I still do not think that it answers all questions."

Would their opinions be listened to?

That is really the debate that Ben makes. He is not a Christian and does not try to make the ID argument.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:07:18 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Welcome to the thread. I highly recommend going back a few pages to read a few responses. Namely the ones totally debunking the movie and it's motives.

Hommie, old buddy, your prejudices are showing.

The movie is not about Christian Theology, as explained way back there in the first pages.

The movie is about censorship in academia. It makes some good points, even if you disagree with them.

The movie isn't about censorship if [rd]all its examples are lies and misrepresentations. The movie was about portraying the scientific community and academia in a negative manner.

I am attacking this movie the same way I did Michael Moore movies.

I guess that I don't really believe that "all its examples are lies and misrepresentations".

Therein lies the debate.

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:10:29 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:12:37 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[Censorship in academia??? We have said it a million times; if evolution were to be challenged by a different SCIENCE there would be no problem. "Some kind of god did it", WILL NEVER be accepted as a legitiment challenge to a SCIENCE.

Unless of course they can prove it...

But what if someone said, "I understand the Theory of Evolution. But I still do not think that it answers all questions."

Would their opinions be listened to?

That is really the debate that Ben makes. He is not a Christian and does not try to make the ID argument.

That's all well and good if it doesn't answer all questions but there is no competing scientific theory. Where the problem begins is when people push for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools as some kind of science, when it is not.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:15:57 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[Censorship in academia??? We have said it a million times; if evolution were to be challenged by a different SCIENCE there would be no problem. "Some kind of god did it", WILL NEVER be accepted as a legitiment challenge to a SCIENCE.

Unless of course they can prove it...

But what if someone said, "I understand the Theory of Evolution. But I still do not think that it answers all questions."

Would their opinions be listened to?

That is really the debate that Ben makes. He is not a Christian and does not try to make the ID argument.

Of course it doesnt answer all the questions. People dont understand that ALL the answers are not right in front of your face. An unfortunate problem is that people NEED to have all the answers right now. They fill these gaps with a god.

To answer your question, it depends. If someone says, "Evolution has some holes in it, I dont think it answers all of our questions." First off, an evolutionist would probably say, "Well, no duh. Give the research more time and we will find out even more great discoveries about evolution and its mechanism."

Then, if someone says, "Evolution has some holes in it, I dont think it answers all of our questions. Lets put my God in here to fix all the holes." Of course they arnt going to listen.....its absurd if they did.

Look, everysingle person on this earth can challenge science...yes, even you Old_P, and thats the beauty of science. HOWEVER, if you walk into a University lab and challenge the Professor about his research, you better have the data to back yourself up (it actually happens all the time, well not the walking into the lab part but you get the idea). Otherwise he is just going to think its a joke. When you are challenging something you can actually see with your own eyes, to challenge it with a god is just funny.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:23:31 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:27:12 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Please, PLEASE show me someone with a PhD in geology who claims the earth is 6,000 years old.

PLEASE.

Careful - there are a couple paleontologists who are 'new earthers'. The mentor of the lady who found the 'soft tissue' in a trex bone is one of them. I dunno if he has a degree in geology or not - but I wouldnt be surprised that there are a couple out there.

As a kid I used to go on fossil digs with a paleontologist from the Smithsonian. I always through it was weird that I'd keep finding half fossilized sharks teeth and weird clam things. They'd be fossilized on one side, but not the other.

I'd learned about evolution and what not with the guy and in my gifted class. Yet, I kept thinking something didn't add up because of the weird fossils we'd find here in Florida.

I've heard about that soft tissue t-rex and I wouldn't doubt that it's got some soft tissue in it.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:31:36 PM EDT

[#24]

Ben Stein also utilized the same tactic Michael Moore used against Charlton Heston. Moore spliced together different speeches of Heston to form a totally new speech as if it was one continuous clip. Stein used the same tactic by omitting sentences from a Darwin quote to allude to Nazi connection/master race idea.

This is what Stein reads in the movie,

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Now this is the full and complete Darwin quote,

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:33:06 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

Once again, Hoody, it is you that is bringing God into this discussion.

I didn't.

Your argument is a strawman, because I didn't even mention ID or God. Only you did.

Why can't you fellows stick to the subject without always getting sidetracked into a theological discussion?

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:36:57 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

I'm afraid i may offend you, but that is a terrible analogy.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:40:09 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Once again, Hoody, it is you that is bringing God into this discussion.

I didn't.

Your argument is a strawman, because I didn't even mention ID or God. Only you did.

Why can't you fellows stick to the subject without always getting sidetracked into a theological discussion?

Luckily my points have nothing to say about god. only the highly questionable material in the film and the actions of the film makers.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:47:54 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

Once again, Hoody, it is you that is bringing God into this discussion.

I didn't.

Your argument is a strawman, because I didn't even mention ID or God. Only you did.

Why can't you fellows stick to the subject without always getting sidetracked into a theological discussion?

I don't usually see you arguing in these threads, but you seem to have a nack for it.

Posted: 4/25/2008 4:59:43 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Please, PLEASE show me someone with a PhD in geology who claims the earth is 6,000 years old.

PLEASE.

Careful - there are a couple paleontologists who are 'new earthers'. The mentor of the lady who found the 'soft tissue' in a trex bone is one of them. I dunno if he has a degree in geology or not - but I wouldnt be surprised that there are a couple out there.

As a kid I used to go on fossil digs with a paleontologist from the Smithsonian. I always through it was weird that I'd keep finding half fossilized sharks teeth and weird clam things. They'd be fossilized on one side, but not the other.

I'd learned about evolution and what not with the guy and in my gifted class. Yet, I kept thinking something didn't add up because of the weird fossils we'd find here in Florida.

I've heard about that soft tissue t-rex and I wouldn't doubt that it's got some soft tissue in it.

Well - I would have to see the fossils to give you a better answer. With shells especially what you often find is not the actual fossil but a CAST of the fossil. If you are talking about finding only 1/2 a clam, its because when clams die they open up and the shells can separate. With trilobites and the like you only find the hard shell remains and only a handful of the under sides have had casts (as they were soft under neath).

As for the soft tissue - I caution you too put too much faith in that discovery. Thus far its been one sample. There is also very good conflicting evidence that the soft tissue is bio film left over from modern bacteria that seeped into the bone and rock. (FYI we find life literally miles below the earth in rock). In fact the scientist who discovered this has been pretty silent on the matter since then - but she got a TON of grant money. No reason to poke holes into her own cash cow.

Posted: 4/25/2008 5:03:41 PM EDT

[#30]

Expelled

Heh..that's my alma-mater...really, that is Everett High School in Everett Washington....My two teenagers are both students there right now.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:20:05 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Censorship in academia??? We have said it a million times; if evolution were to be challenged by a different SCIENCE there would be no problem.

Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort.

Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it.

You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs.

"Some kind of god did it", WILL NEVER be accepted as a legitiment challenge to a SCIENCE.

I'm utterly fascinated when people can't capitalize God, but write 'SCIENCE" in all caps, then insist that it's not a religion.

Further, nobody said 'some kind of god did it'.

We say God did it. Note the difference.

Unless of course they can prove it...

We've already proved it - God has given us creation, His Word, and the Spirit';s testimony.

The problem isn't with a lack of evidence; the problem is with a lack of desire to believe, which is often expressed in a redefining of what 'evidence' is.

You need to turn from this sin, and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Speaking of which......how is it that the same people who buy into a story about the earth being made millions of years ago by random chance will stumble all day long at the clear historical record that God Himself became flesh, lived a perfect life, died on a Cross, and rose from the dead?

Jesus rose form the dead and there were literally hundreds of witnesses to testify to it. He did it right there for the world to see, and people STILL don't believe.

In light of that, we can see that the incessant demands for 'more proof' are only a retreating position.

By the way - 50 scientists who believe 'in six days'

Of course, this comes off the AiG website, so I have no doubt that lots of self-professed 'rational' people will dismmiss it out of hand.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:24:26 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Censorship in academia??? We have said it a million times; if evolution were to be challenged by a different SCIENCE there would be no problem.

Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort.

Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it.

You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs.

This is the way science works.
A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it. The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being.

Evolution is science. ID isn't testable, and therefore isn't science.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:35:29 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

This is the way science works.
A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it. The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being.

And in doing so, our wannabe evolutionary scientist throws out what we already know - Christian Theism - and sets out with a new, intentionally faulty set of assumptions (non-creationism) and makes untestable predictions and unobserved declarations, his hypothesis stands up to no tests, and has no power.

But it allows him a few years' respite from the knowledge that he will soon face his God, so he clings to it by faith.

That, friend, is evolution - a religion, not a science.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:37:37 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort.

Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it.

You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs.

This is the way science works.
A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it. The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being.

Evolution is science. ID isn't testable, and therefore isn't science.

Tolip has a point.

arowneragain, you should consider the "problem" that God gives us (and which has no solution).

God said, "I created the world in this manner", and then tells us how He did it.

Then He makes it so that there is absolutely no way to "prove" how it happened.

We are expected to believe because we love Him and have Faith in Him. I do, and so do you.

But He has made it so that others must do the same thing.....Trust Him in Faith.

The "scientists" in this debate have already decided that they will not do that. Therefore, it is a closed question as far as they are concerned.

Beating them about the head will not change their minds. They believe in "science" more than God. That is their decision. They are responsible for their decision.

Just as you and I are.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:37:39 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This is the way science works.
A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it. The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being.

And in doing so, our wannabe evolutionary scientist throws out what we already know - Christian Theism - and sets out with a new, intentionally faulty set of assumptions (non-creationism) and makes untestable predictions and unobserved declarations, his hypothesis stands up to no tests, and has no power.

But it allows him a few years' respite from the knowledge that he will soon face his God, so he clings to it by faith.

That, friend, is evolution - a religion, not a science.

Science has been around a lot longer than Christianity, and, insh'Allah, much longer after.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:42:01 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This is the way science works.
A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it. The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being.

And in doing so, our wannabe evolutionary scientist throws out what we already know - Christian Theism - and sets out with a new, intentionally faulty set of assumptions (non-creationism) and makes untestable predictions and unobserved declarations, his hypothesis stands up to no tests, and has no power.

But it allows him a few years' respite from the knowledge that he will soon face his God, so he clings to it by faith.

That, friend, is evolution - a religion, not a science.

That is an uncalled for insult.

That is a huge presupposition that you base on nothing but your personal faith. (not science; look up the definition of the word)

ETA: I'm not saying Christianity is wrong, necessarily, just that it shouldn't be used in scientific inquiry.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:49:04 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

Once again, Hoody, it is you that is bringing God into this discussion.

I didn't.

Your argument is a strawman, because I didn't even mention ID or God. Only you did.

Why can't you fellows stick to the subject without always getting sidetracked into a theological discussion?

ID is very much about a god (usually the christian God). Thats why I bring it up, people seem to forget that.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:50:18 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

I'm afraid i may offend you, but that is a terrible analogy.

Yeah, I could have done better, but if you take it for what it is and apply the same logic to the ID/evolution debate I dont think its THAT bad....

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:53:00 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Beating them about the head will not change their minds. They believe in "science" more than God. That is their decision. They are responsible for their decision.

Science is not a matter of belief, since it is a system based on things that are provable. Faith, by definition, is believing in something without any proof. Unlike most religious dogma which is immutable and based on ancient scripture, all that is required to change a scientific theory is new evidence. Anyone is free to challenge evolution if they can back up what they are saying.

You can believe whatever supernatural things you want, but it has nothing to do with science. If we let Intelligent Design into schools we might as well let Scientologists tell us their version of how the world was created too. I don't think that's something you want.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:53:03 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

Once again, Hoody, it is you that is bringing God into this discussion.

I didn't.

Your argument is a strawman, because I didn't even mention ID or God. Only you did.

Why can't you fellows stick to the subject without always getting sidetracked into a theological discussion?

ID is very much about a god (usually the christian God). Thats why I bring it up, people seem to forget that.

Again, please re-read what I said above.

I didn't even mention ID. You did, not me.

Ben Stein's movie is not about "proving" ID. It is about the un-questionableness of Evolution.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:54:38 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort.

Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it.

You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs.

This is the way science works.
A scientist formulates a hypothesis, tests it and continues to test it. The more accurate predictions it makes, and the more tests it stands up to, the more powerful it is seen as being.

Evolution is science. ID isn't testable, and therefore isn't science.

Tolip has a point.

arowneragain, you should consider the "problem" that God gives us (and which has no solution).

God said, "I created the world in this manner", and then tells us how He did it.

Then He makes it so that there is absolutely no way to "prove" how it happened.

I'm sorry, but that's not what Scripture teaches. We may not be able to 'prove' how it happened, but we can certainly prove that it happened in the way He told us.

Further, as a Christian, my job isn't to 'prove' anything. Sure, we have proof - Christian Theism is the Ultimate Fact of the universe, without it nothing could exist - but the evolutionists have decieved you if you think 'proof' is the issue.

It's absurd to try and 'prove' what you, I, and EVERY PERSON EVER BORN already know. Could I offer 'proof' that met their desired standard (I can offer proof - but I can't offer proof that meets their artificial man-determined standard), it would only 'prove' what they already know - that there is one God, He created this world, and we are all sinners born at enmity with Him.

We are expected to believe because we love Him and have Faith in Him. I do, and so do you.

On this, we certainly agree, brother.

But He has made it so that others must do the same thing.....Trust Him in Faith.

Yes - and our job is to proclaim this message to them. It is not our job to be errand-boys seeking evidences to offer them. It is our job to herald what Paul heralded on Mars Hill - God commands all men everywhere to repent. Paul didn't devote decades to digging up 'proof'. Paul told them plainly, through the preaching of the Gospel, that they must repent. We aren't called to defend God's Word, we're called to declare it.

The "scientists" in this debate have already decided that they will not do that. Therefore, it is a closed question as far as they are concerned.

Unless God sees fit to open their eyes through the preaching of the Gospel. I'm not here to make appeals to men's reason. That never saved anyone. It is the Gospel that is the power to salvation.

Beating them about the head will not change their minds.

Nobody's beating - I didn't start this thread, and have only resplied in response to errant propositions made by others.

The only thing that will change their mind is the power of the Gospel. It overcame my hardheadedness - it can overcome theirs.

They believe in "science" more than God. That is their decision.

It's not just their decision - it's their god.

They are responsible for their decision.

Just as you and I are.

On this I agree.

Lets not forget, though, that the 'scientists' in this thread aren't the only people reading this.

There are lurkers God may be dealing with (you and I both know from experience that this is the case, even here) , and there are Christians reading this who may not have the ability to refute the arguments of the evolutionist.

Posted: 4/26/2008 7:58:55 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I updated my previous post with a little bit more info.

If you check a few pages back i posted more info provided from some debunking websites.

take a few min and read this site Expelled Exposed. appears to be very well sourced in the information it provides. Read about the people supposedly fired and denied tenure.

Yep, I read it back then.

It is a one-sided opinion.

I guess my experience as a police officer taught me that when you've heard one side of a story.......you've only heard one side.

Maybe there's another side of this story.

Here is my little ID analogy:

I think its stupid that we give all of our law enforcement officers handgun training and gunfighting tactics. Instead, why dont we just teach them that God will guide the bullets away from them instead and they wont get hurt.

Instead of this example above, maybe we should train them to fit what we actually know happens. God doesnt guide bullets. Well, if he does then he makes then go straight, but then we know its not God but momentum...anyway, thats what ID tries to do to science while at the same time claiming to be science.

Once again, Hoody, it is you that is bringing God into this discussion.

I didn't.

Your argument is a strawman, because I didn't even mention ID or God. Only you did.

Why can't you fellows stick to the subject without always getting sidetracked into a theological discussion?

ID is very much about a god (usually the christian God). Thats why I bring it up, people seem to forget that.

That's why this subject is so touchy.

If ID is about God, then it can't be critically commented on, as that would insult people's faith.

If ID is about science, it has no merit and is quickly dismissed.

If the religious defendants in this thread would recognize that ID is about religion and not science, these ID threads could be transferred to the religion forum and be happily ignored. This would also make the scientists happy, as ID would be taught as a philosophical idea, not a scientific theory.

Posted: 4/26/2008 8:02:18 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I'm sorry, but that's not what Scripture teaches. We may not be able to 'prove' how it happened, but we can certainly prove that it happened in the way He told us.

Further, as a Christian, my job isn't to 'prove' anything. Sure, we have proof - Christian Theism is the Ultimate Fact of the universe, without it nothing could exist - but the evolutionists have decieved you if you think 'proof' is the issue.

It's absurd to try and 'prove' what you, I, and EVERY PERSON EVER BORN already know. Could I offer 'proof' that met their desired standard (I can offer proof - but I can't offer proof that meets their artificial man-determined standard), it would only 'prove' what they already know - that there is one God, He created this world, and we are all sinners born at enmity with Him.

How is it then that isolated civilizations don't adopt Christianity on their own?

Posted: 4/26/2008 8:04:04 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Your statement presupposes that evolution is a science of some sort.

Thats false. It's a religion - and that's being charitable with it.

You start by believing (by faith) that God doesn't exist, then you go out and seek to twist evidence to support your beliefs.

Evolution is a science. It is not a religion.

I'm utterly fascinated when people can't capitalize God, but write 'SCIENCE" in all caps, then insist that it's not a religion.

Further, nobody said 'some kind of god did it'.

We say God did it. Note the difference.

I dont capitalize "god" when refering to any god. I do capitalize "God" when refering to the Christian God out of respect for people here. I dont have to do that you know....

We've already proved it - God has given us creation, His Word, and the Spirit';s testimony.

The problem isn't with a lack of evidence; the problem is with a lack of desire to believe, which is often expressed in a redefining of what 'evidence' is.

You need to turn from this sin, and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So I am just supposed to know that God did it because a random book tells me so? For many, thats not enough proof.

Speaking of which......how is it that the same people who buy into a story about the earth being made millions of years ago by random chance will stumble all day long at the clear historical record that God Himself became flesh, lived a perfect life, died on a Cross, and rose from the dead?

Really, there is a clear historical record??? I must have missed that, all I have heard about is that there have been archaeologists searching the desert, Isreal, etc for many many years and they have found NOTHING. People were supposed to have roamed the desert for 40 years and left NOT A SINGLE shread of proof. Truly a miracle (

).

Jesus rose form the dead and there were literally hundreds of witnesses to testify to it. He did it right there for the world to see, and people STILL don't believe.

NOT ONE PERSON SAW JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD. They only discovered him gone in the morning. Come on, quit making stuff up.

Of course, this comes off the AiG website, so I have no doubt that lots of self-professed 'rational' people will dismmiss it out of hand

As well we should.

Posted: 4/26/2008 8:05:30 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

That's why this subject is so touchy.

If ID is about God, then it can't be critically commented on, as that would insult people's faith.

That's not quite true.

Every statement made in this discussion insults someone's faith in some way. That's unavoidable. Further, since God is.....God......everything is 'about' Him in some way.

If ID is about science, it has no merit and is quickly dismissed.

That's not true at all - further, the opposite is true. Evolutionism has no scientific merit, and is therefore in need of being dismissed.

If the religious defendants in this thread would recognize that ID is about religion and not science,

The only 'religious defendants' in this thread are defending evolutionism, not creationism.

these ID threads could be transferred to the religion forum and be happily ignored.

That's what the evolutionist wants - hide the truth so he can rest in his religion.

This would also make the scientists happy, as ID would be taught as a philosophical idea, not a scientific theory.

Why teach as theory what we know as fact?

Posted: 4/26/2008 8:08:26 AM EDT

[#46]