ehm..how times has this been said throughout human history?..
deists may very well be right, nontheless without evidence of ANY sort it is unreasonable to believe there had to have been intelligent being.
And as for the biblical God,only people that haven't read the Bible or complete hypocrites capable of twisting their holy book to suit their purposes can believe in that monster.
Knowing God as I do I imagine he's chugged to see His babies all busy trying to out shine each other whilst He's getting on with the important house matters. Creation is ongoing and we are all part of it. Maybe the question you should bother about is where is God taking us? Nothing is revealed without his say so. Be glad you have been designed with the gift of creativity. God is Great and nothing is impossible with Him.
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
That's original... So is it more "intelligent" to say "we don't know so God didn't do it? Just asking because your statement, as tired, pointless and ridiculous as it is, really has nothing to do with the argument.
@minksseattle Actually, it would. But I think he simply meant "We don't know so we can't claim we know it's God." It's more intelligent because to say, in effect, "We don't know so we DO know it's God" is inherently contradictory whereas saying, "We don't know but we know it's NOT X. So it must, by definition, be something outside X," is not. Thus, it's more intelligent and logical. As stated, I don't think that's what he was trying to say. I think he was pointing out the contradiction.
@Ripley747: You guys all use the same argument that can easily be turned around on you as I've shown. No one is denying certain forms of evolution exist. The argument lies in theories of the beginning. Your side is content with the notion of a fact-less big bang theory, void of any intelligent involvement. You think that's somehow the final word on the subject and all other theories are nonsense and should be band from the discussion. That's just fact-less, unscientific, hypocritical bologna.
@JordanCliffs I'm sure you've been told this but "the beginnings" isn't of concern regarding evolution. When economics comes up with a theory, it need not explain the origins of money and how clams evolved and came to be used as a monetary currency pre-BC. When psychologists devolop a theory to explain human behavior, they need not explain how matter from the brain came into existence via the big bang. Music theory doesn't need to explain the origins of soundwaves. Why is evolution different?
@Ripley747: I said in both of my last 2 posts, that the argument is more about the beginning than it is about evolution. The argument Expelled is focused on, is that evolution is being used in academics, to imply something that it clearly doesn't even address. In our schools it's used to imply that life appeared organically via evolution. Can you admit this is true? Darwin's theory has been hijacked by atheists with an agenda. There's 2 theories. Neither based on facts. Only one allowed. Why?
@JordanCliffs Look, evolution is fact. We understand it. We've known about it for 150+ years. No credible biologist will say they know how life started. That's a question for biochemists, not evolutionary biologists. Creationists like to confuse the 2. And there's only 1 credible theory on the table. The alternative (ID) isn't even a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's saying, "I don't know so I do know." You don't see a problem there? And I doubt the pope is atheist. Just sayin.
Intelligent design? As Dawkins points out, its about as likely as aliens putting us on this earth and tending to us like pets. Just because its feasable doesnt make it a serious argument when we know so little about even whats at the bottom of the sea.
Evolution isn't the anti-god, its just somebodies attempt at the solving the puzzle.
You're not serious... The man actually stated in the movie, that there ARE signs of intelligence in our existence, but when asked what he would attribute that intelligence to, he actually suggested we may have been planted by a being from another planet! HE WASN'T JOKING... The part you are referring to was when he said God was about as likely as the spaghetti monster, etc... To him, God is unlikely but Aliens are not.
@minksseattle I was actually referring to the fact that he points out its just as unlikely as any other god/thesis. You are right, he has said that we MAY have been planted here by aliens but he doesnt blindly believe it. It doesnt have any scientific backing and he knows that, he just accepts the possibility.
To him aliens are plausible, and so is god theoretically - however as he points out... Why believe in either theory if there is absolutely no basis for it?
@purplemonkeyelephant Because he's the one who put a wrench in his own argument when he admitted there was clear signs of intelligent involvement to our existence. My guess is that he's regretting that statement to this very day.
@minksseattle No, he wasn't joking. But he wasn't exactly endorsing that position either - watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM.
That's not as bad as Ben Stein being asked if he believed in evolution and his response was, "Absolutely." But my favorite is atheist Ray Comfort admitting, "There is no God."
@Ripley747: Of course Stein believes in evolution. Certain forms of it are obvious. It doesn't however, explain the beginning of life, which is where this argument stems from. That said, we've still not seen proof of evolution from 1 species to another, which is pretty much the cornerstone of the theory. It's a house of cards without that proof, and without it the entire theory teeters on the verge of collapse. Yet we still force-feed it in our schools and outlaw all other theories. Why?
@JordanCliffs Google "Observed instances of speciation." Google "Ring species." Read a book called "The mating mind" by Geoffery Miller regarding sexual selection. And why are you confusing "origins of life" with "speciation"? You realize they are not the same thing, right? They are about as similar as biology and cosmology...oh wait...nevermind.
We outlaw theories? What theories do we outlaw in school? I'm aware of none?
@Ripley747: You're a hard one to debate because you don't really read my posts, it's obvious. Last reply... My comments on proof of species evolving into different species, was an aside... as in, I have serious doubts about the theory as it is, but that's not what I'm debating here, as I know and I've stated 3 times with you now, that evolution is not about the origin of life. I hope that you can read that before you respond again as if I don't already know this. Either way. I've said my piece.
@JordanCliffs Crap. You're right. I missed that. My apologies. I'm glad we agree that evolution is not about the origins of life and I hope you understand that, "We don't know so we know it had to be designed externally" isn't an argument. It's a fallacy from incredulity. Abiogenesis is a branch of o-chem that is working on the origins of life. It's a new study so we don't know much.
It's true evolution has holes in the theory but there aren't as many as you think. Gravity is more of a prob.
@Ripley747: Really glad we finally got on the same page about that. But you would be completely disingenuous if you were to insinuate that evolution is not used by countless many to imply that it does explain life's origin. You did this yourself by saying there's only 1 credible theory on the table. This is why Expelled was produced. Certain aspects of Evolution are fact. There are zero facts to our origin but it is implied that creationists are nuts. That's hypocritical, dogma.
@JordanCliffs The theory I was talking about was evolution. There are currently no theories to explain origins of life (only hypotheses). And if someone uses evolution to explain the origins of life then they don't understand evolution.
IMHO, creationists ARE nuts. How does it make sense that fully formed organisms popped into existence ex nihilo, along with fully developed humans with arms, legs, lungs, brains, etc.? Common ancestry is a fact.
@Ripley747: 1st, not all creationists see it exactly that way. It sounds like you wouldn't believe an intelligent entity could have played any part of it at all, whether it was in creating the "big bang" that started it all, or the fully developed beings. I don't see how either of those "hypotheses" are any less believable than yours that believes it all happened organically on it's own. Don't you see how disingenuous your perspective is. You're no closer to proving yours yet you mock the other.
I can only conclude that "No Intelligence Allowed" refers to those that would go to see the film. They could screen them at the ticketing booth:
"How old is the Universe?" Anything under "13 billion years" gets you in.
It seems Stein knows that God lives in the gaps of human knowledge. God used to be responsible for everything but these days Abiogenesis and The Big Bang are the only major things that haven't been sorted out completely.
But stay tuned. Saying "God did it" leads nowhere!
Okay... If evolution and atheism is truly the only real answer. Then you you must agree perfectly with this movie's message. After all if the theory is true then it should be perfectly able to stand the criticism it gets in any specter, in the class room or else where. No matter how widely accepted a theory is, the history of science has shown that it can very well be wrong.
Also it is good to note that Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are also the BIGGEST things to be sorted out
I agree, sort of. Evolution should be and has been tested and put through the gauntlet for 150 years and counting. And nothing has been able to knock it over. Evolutionary theory evolves like all theories of course but it's no theory that Evolution is what produced the diversity of species, that's a fact. The Theory of Evolution is about how it works, there's no disputing the fossil record, the DNA record, plate tectonics, cosmology, palaeontology, etc. All fields support Evolution.
Sure... But that does not prove it is true. For Thousands of years the theory of spontaneous generation stood all tests yet in the end it still proved wrong. The same thing with Ptolemys (spell?) theories on the sun going around the earth.
Secondly, I could say the same thing for Creation. All fields of paleontology, archeology, plate tectonics the fossil record etc. support Creation. Facts don't prove anything, it is your interpretation of those facts that the differences in theories emerge.
Well of course in you can never prove a theory is true, that's reserved for mathematics. But I think that if you're truly looking for truth (and not just a bandaid for your fear of death) then Evolution is by far the best idea we've ever come across for our origins. They're never going to discover that we haven't evolved from "lower" species, that's a well established fact. It's possible they could find an external intelligence is manipulating genes, I suppose but I wouldn't bet on it.
Good point. But once again you are mixing fact with interpretation. We know what current man and animal looks like. That is a fact. We can also with a little less certainty see other creatures were like by looking into the fossil record. However it is our own theories and assumptions that presume that they all originated from a common ancestor. It is not a fact that all things evolved from a common ancestor. That is a historical assumption that cannot be proved in a lab, like a hard science.
The basic idea is that we are looking at the same facts, we just have different theories on how they got there. So just throwing out raw "facts" will not progress the argument one way or another. As for saying "Evolution is by far the best idea, for origins", well that is open for debate, and opens up a whole field of debate on every scientific fact. I take the stand that Creation is the best way to explain our origins. There is not sufficient evidence to support that life can come from non life
The problem with saying "God did it" is that it stifles investigation because there's no way to test it and it answers every question in one hit (although not very usefully).
The other problem with standing for creation is there's no way of determining who the creator was. Muslims will say Allah did it and sound just as certain as you on your contrary position and every other religion will do likewise.
It's not a very satisfactory position and it doesn't add anything to our understanding.
First, every explanation of a historical event would then distort investigation. What's the difference between our stances. I say "God did it" you say "Evolution did it". To me the former seems far more likely in light of scientific facts but once again that is open for debate.
Secondly, for clarification I believe in the creation as referred to in the bible. As for all other explanations. Well all theories including naturalism can be debated in light of scientific hard facts.
In fact the Biblical Creation worldview has brought much to our understanding. Most of the major fields in science were opened up by creationists. Issac Newton with physics, Mendel with genetics, etc. Many scientists with biblical worldview's have used this drive to find out how and why God created. Science is an excellent tool they found for exploring God's Creation. To the contrary the Biblical creation worldview has brought much to our current understanding.
Everything but "the big bang" has been figured out, eh? That's kind of the whole point now, isn't it? Until that's been "figured-out" don't expect this argument to go away. I'm staying tuned, brother... But saying God "didn't" do it simply because you have no proof either way, requires "tuning-out" completely my "nowhere-man" friend.
"The Most Controversial movie of the year"....trying to play the "taboo" card....hey Ben...I think you can work at Seven Eleven to make money for food.....
"PhillipThunderGrunge???" You for real, man? LOL... yea. right.
By the way, Expelled "was" the most controversial movie that year... by far. You just missed it because you were too busy trying to pass 10th grade at the time. Ironic a guy like you slamming a guy like Stein with cheap 7/11 jokes. I'm sure he's just devastated reading your post from his Hollywood mansion. Grow up son.
exactly Stein is in his mansion..I watched the movie....When he compared the expelled ID scientists to Nazi germany..I whole heartedly laughed....Stein is not a scientist..a intelligent person but not a scientist....He made money..not a statement against Evolution
At least now you're making an argument based on your perception of the film, vs pointless flame throwing. But you missed the point with regard to the Nazi Germany scenes. It was not comparing any scientist to Nazis. As a Jew it was especially meaningful for Stein to recall the effects of a regime that devalued human life, spawned by strong evolutionist ideals. It was also a comparison of a time of suppression and academically we are facing suppression today. Question is, where will it lead?
The suppresion you are talking about is no where near the magnitude as it was in Germany...Intelligent design isn't a scientific basis for anything...That's probably why they don't take any explanations for it.....If it is unknown..why immediately assume it's God?....once Ben Stein made a movie about scientists being expelled..when he himself is not a scientist nor a evolutinary biologist...that's where the movie becomes a film with his own personal opinion not scientific.....
The suppression I'm talking about is academic suppression lead predominately by a small group of atheists, but powerful and effective non the less. Intelligent design is a scientific theory and to deny that is either due to ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Ben Stein's roll in the movie was as a reporter in a documentary. By your reasoning, news anchors are all biased, opinionated frauds if they attempt to report on any profession other than their own.
well actually yes...they are biased and opinionated on subjects that they know little to nothing about..hmm does that sound like Stein?....oh yeah look at Faux news
LOL! You're one of those... Like CNN, MSNBC and ABC are shining examples of honest journalism. Too funny man. Missing my point completely, but then that's not surprising considering everything else you've said so far.
yeah do really journalists and reporters know anything on the war on drugs or anything of the public matter excluding thier personal lives..?....they use thier research instead of actually studying it themselves...They are professional reporters...I was proving the point that Stein..goes on TV and gives his opinion..about evolution..and tells Fox News and goes CBN..to tell them his view as if he were a scientist himself...which he is not..Why don't we let Jimmy Kimmel tell his view?
My friend, you didn't really watch Expelled. You went in with a preconceived opinion. Stein made no attempt to explain science. He asked questions of professionals and exposed an academic suppression lead by a small group of atheists. If you look at Stein's history, going back as early as his college days, he has long been a "human rights" activist and that is the category in which he falls under with regard to his interest in this topic.
NO! It most definitely is NOT as proven in court at the Dover trials. In fact that was one of the main conclusions... ID is NOT a Science. It can't be falsified and it has no supporting evidence.
Denying ID is a science isn't ignorant, it's a fact... saying that IS a science is ignorant.
LOL. The point is that Hitler didn't go to war in the name of evolution, he was just obsessed with ruling the world and Arian breeding was in the agenda.
Just as Christians will distance themselves from guys like Kent Hovind and Ted Haggard for their criminal behaviour, Atheists don't have to align themselves with people who may be Atheists but are motivated by evil.
Every time I point out another bad boy Christian raping children I get "They're not true Christians". Like soap in a shower
What is your point? The movie is not claiming that all atheists turn out like Hitler. It is merely showing where the logical conclusion of atheism can lead. Why was "Arian breeding" on his agenda? Let me ask you the question, How can you tell what is "evil"?
Christians do wrong and bad things just as much as everyone else. That is the whole point is Christ dying as a payment for our evils. He didn't come to save the "perfect", it was for bad people like me.
You don't need religion to define evil. It's acts that are detrimental to individuals or society as a whole. It's evolved into humans who, faced with tools that can kill but not with the morals to prevent it had to develop a code of practice in order to survive. Those that didn't develop morals died out over time. Watch Piranhas. They're fierce eating amchines but they don't eat each other. Did God give them morals to not do so?
Then its not truly evil. To make sure we are on the same page when I say evil, I am referring to doing wrong. What determines that (detrimental to society) as your standard? If there is no God, then that is your humble opinion. I could turn around and say, no I decide what is right and wrong. Which one of us is right? Hitler thought what he was doing was right. That is why God gave us absolute moral standards.
The fact is we as a world seem to rarely obey them.
"I could turn around and say, no I decide what is right and wrong."
You COULD say what's right and wrong but if what you say is to the general detriment of society then others can say with confidence that it's "wrong" or immoral. You don't need an external supernatural being to give you a reference for this. In fact, as you will have heard from others, the Bible is HARDLY the place to go for morals unless you're willing to ignore huge parts of it in which case why not cut out the middle man?
I ask again, who or what determines that benefiting society is the ultimate standard? What forces me to obey that standard? Is truth decided by majority? What to you mean by "detriment" and who defines it? Hitler and every other tyrant thought they were benefiting society by their actions. Besides what happen to survival of the fittest? I could say the strongest gets to decide whats right and whats wrong. If there is no absolute standard, I could say murder is fine, after all it works in nature.
"I ask again, who or what determines that benefiting society is the ultimate standard?"
I guess the question's tricky. I can start by saying it's evolved into what we see today, of that I"m certain (although I understand that you're not). Here's how I view it:
Humans are not well equipped to kill each other bare-handed. This is unique amongst carnivores. So we don't have the same natural inhibition not to do so. Religion was invented by man partly to answer the "death question" but also...
Okay... you are assuming that your standard is correct. How do you know that the standard exists in the first place. But regardless how it could have "evolved", under that standard Hitler was perfectly justified in killing the Jews and launching the largest war the world has ever known. He is justified because seeing as there was no one to determine what "benefiting society" means, he made up his own definition. Under the naturalist worldview Hitler was perfectly right and good in his actions.
If HItler was justified in his plan then he wouldn't be considered the world's most evil 20th century leader. But he IS because his plan was anti-social.
In a different post you said "I say God did it you say Evolution did it. To me the former seems far more likely in light of scientific facts"
That's simply incorrect. Please tell me how science supports creation because I could cite thousands of ways it supports Evolution but can't think of even ONE way it supports creation.
Last question then. How do you know he was the most evil ruler of the 20th century? I can assure you, if had won the war, we would not hold him in such esteem.
Scientific facts are neutral, we just look at them through different worldviews and then come to different conclusions. Its all based on interpretations.
Thanks TheFreeOrator. At the risk of rekindling this, I can't help but point out that every "modern" person puts their faith in Science. You bet your LIFE on it when you board a jet. If you had a fatal but curable disease would you go to your scientifically trained doctor or simply pray for a cure? The PC you're using right now came from Science, so did your house, its wiring and its plumbing. Every second of your life you're cashing in on Science's discoveries.
not even when Hitler claimed god was with him was it acceptable or good to anyone that he had several milion people killed - he even hid it from his own population and military peers as best it could be done, HE knew himself what he was doing was not a good thing to do..
please, don't be an asshat and pretend you're projecting that onto others you cannot claim to speak for at all fucktard.. go eat your own feces in a corner and be ashamed, be very ashamed!
Really? How do you know that was not "good" for him to kill several million people? He believed he did the world a service getting rid of the Jews. He did not hide it. The concentration camp workers were openly paraded through the city. The Gestapo kept records off all their wicked deeds How do you know right from wrong. Different people have different standards and ideas.
Secondly, if you wish to debate, than please keep it friendly. Rude language does nothing to advance your points.
It is your right to hold whatever opinions you wish, but if you consider it an action worthy of appraisal to kill several milion people then you are a person with low moral standards.
Morality is something that is partly natural to us, and partly cultural - it is not absolute, nor given by a god or gods.
You stated "Under the naturalist worldview Hitler was perfectly right and good in his actions."
Since i am a naturalist, i take offense to this, thus my rudeness is well warranted...
Okay. You state that "Morality is.. natural to us, and partly cultural". Then if the culture accepts it and you accept it than it is right? In Islamic countries it is perfectly acceptable to kill people of other religions and happens all the time. It is acceptable to the people and the culture, is it right? Was the terrorist attack on 9-11, right? Every culture is different and has different morals, which is right?
I am not claiming you believe this, I just ask that you explain inconstancies.
You say there are no "Absolutes". Well then who sets the bar? How do we know what Morality is, what determines that? How do we know that is true. If the standard is not absolute, why should we obey it? Without God we cannot have an absolute moral standard, a right and wrong. Without God there is no morality. Just random occurrences.
In short: would you, or would you not conceed, that you are such a despicable and horrible person, that your craving for power and bodily pleasure is so strong, that you yourself have no control at all, save for obeying the moral law of the god you worship, your religious faith being the only thing holding you back from becoming a raping, pillaging murderous destroyer of all things you approach?
If you can answer this, please consider whencefrom your answer cometh ;)
There are milions, even bilions of people who condemn the slaughter of ethnic minorities by the nazis during WW2, and there are similarly many that condemn the suicide bombings of the WTC as well as the near-daily bombings around middle-east.
It was not widely accepted by the demographics in the middle east what was done 9/11, it was critisized, and empathy was shown at great lengths from the region!
fringe groups or individuals do not reflect societies, nations, or religions, as you know.
...also to provide moral standards that were well adapted to survival of, if not the species, at least the tribe. In those early days, religion would have been useful and so would have been successfully selected for (by Evolution). However such power inevitably led to corruption and religion subsequently has been responsible for endless war and atrocities.
Now that social systems have evolved into a modern regime we don't need religion and in fact I think Evolution will snuff it out in time.
As pointed out above without a biblical worldview there is no way of determining right and wrong.
To your second point, when you are saying "social systems" I assume you are referring to government, correct? If that is the case... government fails catastrophically in "replacing" religion. Look at what the UN has
done... nothing. Rwanda, Cold War, Dar fur, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Communism etc. Modern systematized government with the naturalistic worldview to guide it has failed.
Also let me ask you this. If someone commits a crime against another person is it MORAL for a third person to be prosecuted for the crime?
Because that's what the Jesus story is all about. Is God so powerless that He can't just FORGIVE humanity??? Why does he have to sacrifice His only son for the cause???
I know the answer. Christianity evolved from the pagans who sacrificed animals to wash away human sin, Jesus is just the new scapegoat. It's clear in the history if you're unbiased.
The answer is that the God is a righteous and just God, who must punish wrong doing (sin). Thus we as a world are all doomed to be punished (in hell), since we all sinned. Christ came and paid that punishment FOR US, in OUR PLACE. It had to happen this way, or else God would be lying when he said he would punish sin. God is not only righteous and holy but also a loving God. That is why he sent his only son. All that remains is for us to do, is simply believe that he died for us. 1 Cor. 15:1-4
Can someone tell me how they explain the evolution of the flagellum into a propellor motor, video? And while at it, the DNA transformed into RNA, information telling molecular machines to produce this or that, more complexed than any computers we have, how do evolutionnists explain that and how much of it there is found in the cell?
I can respect when people have differing opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I do not respect it when they have to resort to slander and pettiness to get their beliefs across. If your proof doesn't stand on it's own two legs without the need to 'downgrade' the research of others: find better proof.
Don't look now you just described the argument EXPELLED has made... To date there is no proof to suggest that I.D. was not involved in the origin of life and yet it's treated as a joke while theories of random chance, space aliens and magic crystals are seriously considered and taught without proof. You call that objective reasoning? Is that the respect you're referring to? Who's REALLY doing the downgrading of others and attacking anyone daring to suggest alternate ideas?
there was no proof to suggest that ID was not involved in the origin of life?
what kind of a stupid teacher teaches like that
"now students today i am going to teach you about something and even tho there is no evidence for it, there is no evidence against it so lets treat it as fact."
What kind of teacher teaches that life just happened by fluke chance without any form of intelligent guidance, when there's not a shred of evidence to support such a claim? Answer... all of them because by law that is all they're allowed to teach. That's what I call "stupid."
Good point. So why do teachers imply in their teaching that evolution = life? There's no evidence to support life occurred suddenly on its own. We all know that certain forms of evolution have occurred but the "origin of life" and "new species" can not be explained, supported or proven by evolutionary science. So your own argument breaks down. Funny you don't apply your rule to the teachers.
evolution doesnt say anything about how life started, it just explains the reason for the diversity of life on this planet.
abiogenesis is the theory that most scientists accept as the explanation for how life began but they i dont think ive heard of a school that has ever taught it is great detail because as you can well imagine a lot of it is speculative.
My friend... you and I both know that it is strongly implied in classrooms that life happened by fluke. (Big Bang - and then evolution.) That is the argument. There is no proof of that anymore than I could prove an intelligent designer was involved. But only one of the two possibilities is being permitted in the curriculum. That's absurd.
if they had kept on saying that about disease and that it was too complex to ever know and kept this mentality we would never have found the cures that we have.
How could a science that implies the origin of life was natural and unguided, claim to be "agnostic?" The very definition of agnostic implies neither faith nor disbelief in God. To suggest life's origin was fluke, random chance, clearly takes the position of disbelief in a creator. A person of such mindset could no longer be considered agnostic, but rather atheist which in actuality is a faith in and of its self since there is no proof and the rule of science is broken and guided by atheism.
What does it matter what I or you think is more realistic? We're bound to disagree and to your point that science is supposed to be agnostic, that's not even a question that should be asked. Both concepts should continually be considered/examined. That's my point. Personally though I can more easily imagine that something made everything out of nothing rather than to consider everything always existed. In all things we know there is a beginning and an end. Why would this be any different?
People are actually calling this movie fair and objective? The part that sticks out most in my mind was the 'life may come from crystals' comment, which afterward we got a cheesy old movie clip with a magician and a crystal ball. Fair and objective? Seriously? How about we just try to defame and ridicule everyone when scientific theory goes over our heads instead of putting forth our own proof and speaking about our theories.
Science can't answer everything, it has no answer as to where the first cell came from, and I have no problem with Creationists....
but it's when you get the creationists that are so naive and ignorant, they won't even listen to empyrical evidence...wow, talk about the blind leadin the blind.
It's like "wait...so you really believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old??" I might as well ask if you got a brain because the answer is obviously no.
(in reply to cornporn69) u call us naive and ignorant when you're just doing the same thing only on the opposite view. so i wouldn't be talking. There IS a God and the earth IS only 6000 years old. I have looked into the other side of this argument and i still believe that God is there. Maybe you should look at our side and then think about it.
no, what i'm saying is that people will say anything to lead u away from ur faith. who knows? maybe i am wrong, maybe the earth is more than 6000 years old. But there is still a God out there. and by the way, it didn't prove u right. ur argument was that creationists weren't openminded, so u just proved that ur just close-minded. have u looked at our side yet? obviously not.
science can't answer everything: You are right, but it tries to explain everything in nature/reality.
It has no answer to where the first cell came from:
Wrong, there is a little something called chemical abiogenisis which is one of several scientific hypothesis which explain where the first cells came from.
While you are right about it not being 100% conclusive, nothing in science is. But i catch your drift, it doesnt have nearly the amount of evidence backing it as evolution or the theory of gravity, which is also true. But it does propose several different ways in which the first cells came about
Wait a minute... most of Newtons theories can be proven repeatedly, as well as Ensteins. Its past tense conception that cant be proven and never really will be. Michaelangelo said that it is passion that fuels creativity. Just what if faith can insipre scientist to study new feilds in the DESIGN of nature? What if every plant had a healing purpose we arent yet aware of? would u really want to close ur eyes to that?
Id say theres a substansial more amount of evidence in comparision to darwins theories, u can test gravity, how do u test the ape to man transition? U cant, yet we have an evolutionary chart documenting the whole thing like darwin saw it happen. ur testing edisons theories right now by reading this on an electric screen. I think the wright brothers proved Da Vinci was right. I wouldnt even call alot darwins work theories...more like assumptions...
Well we can test our dna.... Look for markers that link us to the other great apes, and we have found 2 very major markers. One is a fusion of 2 chromosomes making up one of our chromosomes. Which means we use to have the same number of chromosomes as the rest of the primates. The other is retroviral dna markers, which we share multiple markers with the apes. Which only feasible conclusion is common decent.
dude, youre looking at the pixels, not seeing the big picture. Modern science has allowed their intellectual arrogance to limit them to HOW it works, not how it has to. Im not saying evolution isnt a part of life, but it isnt the initial cause. Its just one cog in a very big machine. U believe in evolution in animals, but how about minerals, & plants. Life changes in order to adapt.
I dont anyone who have claimed evolution is an initial cause..... Evolution, summed up, is just the change in life over time via changes in its genetic code. And by modern science im going to assume you mean modern scientists (being arrogant), and many of them devoted their lives to the study of their specific field. I wouldnt appreciate it if someone who barely knows what they are talking about tries to tell me im wrong if i spent my entire life devoted to studying that field.
But what if ones "feild" or "medium" was that of natural phylosophy, the origin of all science. Like Da Vinci, Galleleo, Aristotle, all men, who believed in, and were inspired by creation. Most of these men had little to no education. (That of a middle schooler, by todays standards). Yet they made discoveries of epic porpotion, ideas we can build on to for the good of man & the planet. Einstein was brilliant, but what did he contribute? E=mc2 = the atom bomb. Thanks Albert.
Im not saying that ALL smart men believe in God. Simply that the first alliance of scientific study should be for the benefit of humanity, & for someone like Dawkins, whos work has accomplished nothing but controversy twards faith, to insult the pioneers of science, who believe in ID, like Sir Issac H. Newton, is a disgrace, Dawkins research (if hes even done any aside from read Darwins work) is NOT an accoplishment,, its given nothing to masses, so frankly, I think he should shut his trap.
Well E=mc^2 revolutionized physics which gives us our current day nuclear power plants and weapons.... He also has relativity to his name which explains why gravity exists. On top of this he explained the photoelectric affect.... I would also like to point that the religious authority gave Galileo a life sentence in prison where he died because of his discovery.
Yeah & I dont think religious leaders should have ANY place in the lab, dude, dont take it the wrong way ID isnt a religion any more than athiesm is. But religious leaders seem to be the only ones that care about moral fortitude, & Dawkins has stated that he wants to wipe out religion, is that really a good idea? Bye, bye faith based groups..
Catholic Charities, K of C, Masons, Shriners, AA, NA, ect. but,I mean fuck the good of humanity, were talking science, folks!!!
The other way to test the mechanisms of evolution is see if mutations happen in species, the see if natural selection occurs within the species. If both are true what prevents the mutations from compounding? Really all evolution is, is a compounding of mutations in subsequent generations.
But its effect without the cause. Science is where we search for the awsners to
how it works. Religion is where we study why it must, we know there IS a natural balance what what is the cause if that effect if not God? The solar system, the eco system, gravity physics all work together in unity to promote life on this planet. & from what we can gather so far, only on this planet, u dont see how ID could answer questions? thats why the greatest minds in science have always been men of faith.
Well to use one of Dawkins arguments, if by god you mean something like a quantum fluctuation then im all for that hypothesis. There is simply no sound evidence that this "initial cause" has intelligence. Especially when we have no idea what this initial cause is and everything we do so far trying to determine what it is is just guess work (assuming you mean the origin of the universe).
Dawkins thinks the space alien theory is a sound argument. Why is in our nature to create? In not in an apes nature to express themselves in articulation. We were designed in the image of a creator who desiigned us to create. Music, Movies, books, magazines, the majority of the internet are all forms of how we create and express ourselfs. Animals do not have the passion that drives us. But we do. We are creators of things and ideas forged in the existance of a creator of existance itself.
Dawkins does not think the space alien theory is sound, in fact he thinks we Evolved (he is an evolutionary biologist) through purely natural processes and that space aliens had nothing to do with it. I think you need to do more research next time. Also your hypothesis that a designer made us is pure speculation with no evidence to support it. And even if we were created, monkeys look like us and like you said they dont have these same motives for art and music, and yet im the were created too.
?!?!?!?He Does too!!! He says so in expelled!!! He says he thinks we were seeded by a more advanced civilization, that evolved through darwinian means (HE DID USE THE WORD DARWINIAN) SPACE ALIENS, DUDE!!!! FUCKING CREATURES FROM BEYOND THE STARS. But were dumb for believe in this whole ID thing. Yeah...were some kooky kids...
you need to re-watch that clip. The question was what is the possibility that ID would be the answer to some issues in genetics. So he had to give an example where ID was correct. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT, he simply says that IF id was correct then that is the most probable. You really need to do your research.
Ive watched it!!!!! Over and OVer!!!! He specifically endorsed the "seeding" theory!!! HIS WORDS ""WE WERE SEEDED HERE" THATS HIS MOST LIKELY EXPLAINATION!!!! HE ALWAYS DOGES THE ISSUE, HES NEVER GIVEN A STRAIGHT ANSWER ABOUT OUR ORIGINS, OR THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, OR THE NATURAL BALANCE, DNA, HE ALWAYS SHRUGS THIS SHIT OFF WITH A BUNCHA "I DUNNO, BUTTHEOLOGY SUCKS" JARGON. NOBODIES TALKING ABOUT THEOLOGY! JUST THE EXISTANCE OF ID!!!
You are not listening. The question was something like Can you give an example where ID is correct. IF ID is correct then dawkins would say that is most likely. HE actually believes we evolved naturally through abiogenisis. You really need to get your facts from places other than propaganda movies.
Propoganda movies??? Ben Stein didnt lie, or exageratte anything, he didnt even tell people what to belive, he wasnt telling dawkins to believe in God, just lay off those of us who do. Dawkins doesnt have any answers as to how life began, short of his E.T. theory, Penn & Teller dont know anything about addiction, but they put down AA because its a faith based program, may not be perfect, but wtf do they do to help people? All these neo-athiest do is, talk about things, never accomplish anything.
The whole movie was an exaggeration of the facts. Just watch any debunking youtube video of expelled, you will realize most of those guys who were fired were fired not for their beliefs in ID but for a variety of other reasons. As for Dawkins he believes in chemical abiogensis not any ET theories. please try to get your facts straight. If you want to find out what he believes watch a video called Dawkins on the orginin of life. Not from a question asking how ID could be correct
Dude, Ive seen the shit, it didnt debunk shit, Dawkins is a joke, Hitchens is a drunk, & so is the YT buddy who doesnt get to share in the riches & spoils of their adventures, I gahter youre in the "Thunderf00t cult", the only thing worse that a religious cult, is an athiest cult, ESPECIALLY AN ONLINE ATHIEST CULT, at least religious cults stand for something as opposed to the lack there of. TF is a fuckin loser dude, u think he has a real social life as much time as he spends here on YT?
Job 26:7-8 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; He suspends the Earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in His clouds; yet the clouds do not burst under their weight." Satan will stop at nothing to keep people in the dark about God.
So if we are suspended which way is down? And dosn't Job also say "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?" And in case you say translation Re'em the word used is not rimu which is hebrew for wild ox.
History has proven religion stops any decent progression with science. Take a look at the Christian Dark Ages. The world was in a terrible state until Renaissance.
Islam which has been very successful at surpressing proper science has caused those countries to fall way behind in their developments.
Can't we just keep the two separated. Afterall, science doesn't deal with anything of the supernaturally. Its pointless trying to use scientific methods to prove God's doing in anything because.
Evolution is a scientific theory that cannot be proven, the only thing that the pseudo scientists can say is that they have observed evolution in the microscopic in the mutations of viruses but that is merely an ADAPTATION, NOT EVOLUTION, viruses always will adapt to the environment just like us but that doesn't mean that we evolve, we rather devolve since we are copies of other HUMANS that were created ~6 000 years ago.
So why only pick on one "theory" why not gravity, or bacteriology, or embriology. They were all arrived at by the same method. Facts and proofs are little more than data in science. I know for a fact that the sky is blue, and no scientist devotes his or her time trying to decide if it is blue or another color because its fact, science comes up with a theory of why its blue.
First of all, evolution is falsifiable (and has not yet been done so), besides the weak attempts to do so by ID(creationist) proponents. We have observed evolution in the fossil record and in the laboratory (they have done something very interesting), they evolved ecoli over a 20 year experiment the ability to digest citrates, something no natural ecoli can do. Also we know there are mutations, how do these mutations not compound over time?
-design in the text of the Bible, hidden codes, archeological proofs of the people's names, places and dates, prophecy fulfilled with 100% acuracy in the past tense and in the present tense which makes it highly sure that we're at the end of the age and that the rest of the prophesies will be fulfilled just as acurately.
- the motor in the flagellum, the round planets, the DNA as the most outstanding intelligent language of life, need more?
Really, dna is the most intelligent language??? Is seems like a pretty shitty language, if its so great why dont we start talking in DNA hahhahaha. no just messing with you. Secondly the motor in the flagellum was evolved (we even know the process by which it evolved!). Planets are round due to gravity (who doesn't know that?).... And finally the whole bible thing. Well stop believing everything you hear, every religion PROVES its holy text is right....
Religion is like anything, alot of it has to do with interpitation...
But, honestly, accepting the fact that its in your nature to create because you were created in the image of a creator that created u in his own image, is very inspiring. Most of the greatest minds in science where devotly religious Newton, Da Vinci, Edison, Franklin, Aristotle, Galleleo, Most of them, like Da Vavinci, simply studed the DESIGN of nature, which eventually led to the airplane. Faith inspires passion.
yes the brilliants minds of yesterday were religious, but many of the brilliants minds of today aer not religious: Einstein, Feynman, hawkings, darwin. Then again the best explanation for the origin of the universe and life was religiously oriented back then so it would make sense for them to be religious (which is not so anymore). By the way Edison was a diest and so was Franklin, so they rejected christian dogma, not very religious at all.
Also it is not a "fact" that we were created by an intelligence. But if we want to create things because we were created, why is it not true that our creation's want to create things? AND why did the "orginial" creator (you know the one that wasn't created) want to create things? And any answer you give how come that answer cant apply directly to us lowly humans.
All intelligent beings want to create things. Its what separates us from the animals. U ever seen a monkey preforming any form of sophistication, intellectualism, or trying to be deeply creative of mind? No. They dont have the higher calling of creativity. & y is it u guys make God out to be a meglomaniac? If being a celebrity, or diplomat makes u justifyably arrogant, what does literally being God do for ones ego?
I find it funny you use monkeys, who look like humans, so aren't they also created in god's image also? And celebrities dont require the acknowledge and praise of every little thing they do from everyone on the planet, if they did they would be a megalomaniac. As for monkeys intellectualism, they have gone days without food if obtaining the food hurts a monkey neighbor of theirs, I would say that requires some level of sophistication.
Dude, Im not denying we came from the same genetic stew, Im pointing out we have ingrediants that they dont. A higher intellect that makes us mentally superior, yes monkeys are intellegent, ut so are plants in a very weak way. All life on this planet is connected, Id never say otherwise, Im pointing out that our creativity, & higher standards of morallity are what separates us from them. Besides were physically inferior to apes, theyre stronger, faster, & more agile, because they must be (ID).
teacher: in an unguided and undesigned way, the theory of evolution
stein: how did life begin in the first place?
teacher: for the last time, ben, the theory of evolution does not explain how life began in the first place. there is however, a theory for the origin of life. it's called abiogenesis. and evolution has NOTHING to do with how life began in the first place, because evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
Then there should be no problem with teaching Intelligent Design which DOES use scientific findings to suggest a possible explanation for the origin of life. Ahhh... but Evolutionists don't want that theory to be spoken of do they? Here in lies the problem. Here in lies the academic suppression and obstruction of our basic freedoms.
creationism DOES NOT use scientific findings of ANY SORT to argue it's BELIEFS. all you have is a hypotheses, and in science, that's an idea. you, by scientific law, cannot take a hypothesis and call it a theory unless you have massive amounts of PROOF to back it up. so, it can be taught, just not in science class. perhaps "cultural studies" class, or something of that nature.
wow, you really believe that? no one's saying intelligent design shouldn't be taught at all. all we're saying is it has NOTHING to do with science since christians use FAITH to back it up. you people are people of faith. there's nothing wrong with that. just don't try and prove something which, by DEFINITION, cannot be proven. that's part of the beauty of god. he would be upset if he heard that a group of imbeciles in the US were trying to prove his existence
Your use of the term "Creationism" is interesting since the subject matter for Expelled is "Intelligent Design." That's typical... it's also "intentionally" inaccurate... they are not one in the same. You've also introduced the word "Christians" which also has nothing to do with the subject matter. I.D. is a study based solely on scientific data. Switching the words and introducing others doesn't change that. It only sheds light on your own ignorance or dishonesty about the subject matter.
ok. fair enough. so then please tell me how I.D. and creationism differ. how are they NOT the same thing, just relabeled? and please tell me how christianity has nothing to do with I.D.? maybe i should have said judeo-christian? right. and where's all this scientific data you so confidently speak of? i'm NOT ignorant and if i saw true scientific data, my view would differ. admit it, I.D. is beyond silly, and the only reason you might support it is because you have FAITH in it, and NOTHING ELSE!!
ben stein's movie is just that. A MOVIE. he's not a documentarian because he distorts fact and intentionally leaves out counter arguments. let us not forget he is NOT a scientist!!!!
If you're not ignorant then why are you asking so many questions about a subject matter you claim to know so much about? You're clearly just a sheep who's learned nothing more than what to repeat. You don't really have a clue what you're talking about. Not a clue. Maybe take that cotton out of your ears, "cottonear." All the answers to your questions are readily available if you really want the answers. Or keep quiet while you blindly follow like a good little sheep with cotton in your ears.
ha. exactly what i thought.you have no evidence, just faith on it's own. and that's not evidence. religion, by definition, can not prove anything. I.D. followers really do make a poor attempt at polluting the minds of innocent children and i'm ever so glad that we live in the era of modern science. people have massive amounts of info available at their fingertips and truly can see both sides of an argument. and you have no argument, so by default, we win! we have the fossils! u r a waste of time
ha. exactly the response I'd expect from a blind little sheep. You have no better argument other than your pathetic use of labeling anyone who doesn't blindly follow your "theories" as religious. For one, I'll not waste my time doing your home work. I've spent plenty of time on this blog and others with details. Take the time to read. For two, Expelled the movie has plenty of examples of I.D. science. Three... read David Berlinski's book, "The Devil's Delusion." A Jewish non-religious author.
listen to yourself "the devil's delusion". written by a jewish non-religious author!?!? the DEVIL's delustion?! understand there is no such thing as I.D. science. this is not my opinion, it's fact. i'm not arguing it, because it's not arguable. the very nature of the concept of I.D. (the supernatural) cannot have anything to do with science. how does this make me a blind sheep? that's rhetorical, i don't want an answer. how am i "blind"? i HAVE evidence, i HAVE facts that i can SEE. you don't.
There is NO scientific findings that Intelligent Design uses to prove it has a point. What are these findings? Where are the peer reviewed Journals? They don't exist. It also has no place in a science class room. It is not science it is thinly veiled creationism. There is no obstruction of Freedom here. I wonder if you would feel the same way about including Intelligent Design in the science class if at its conclusion Allah was noted the designer and not the Judea/Christian God?
I can tell you don't know much about I.D. nor have you taken the time to see the movie you criticize. Legitimate science is used when observations are being made. Mathematics and cell structure are key. Watch the movie and hear the numbers of professionals who have been attacked, fired, lost tenure when they've attempted to report findings. It's also ignorant to "ass"ume that anyone who believes intelligence was involved in life's origin is "Christian." Less than 10% of the world are atheist.
I still want to know what this evidence is? Where is it? Can you point me to the research? Which reputable Universities are actively researching these "key" Intelligent Design elements? Does any of the research in 'Mathematics' or 'Cell Structure' stand up to Peer review? I don't see what 10% of the worlds population being Atheist has to do with anything? Or are you assuming that only Atheist's believe in scientific method and therefore the 'Theory of Evolution'?
Since you're so eager to challenge the movie, watch it first and you'll get answers to most of your questions. The 90% that believe in some form of "creator" are comprised of many religions, not just Christianity. That was my point. Evolution is not the debate here. Evolution came after the origin of life.
No the movie doesn't, actually it doesn't answer much at all. The movie takes a shot gun approach to the subject listing dozens of people many of whom are quoted out of context seem to support Intelligent Design and in same cases their support is only possible when they are quoted out of context. Of course Evolution is at the heart of the debate. But you are right Evolution doesn't cover the origin of life for that you should look to the study of Abiogenesis.
Me thinks you underestimate the film too much. I'm pretty convinced you've never seen it but rather pass along the rumors that began before the film was even released. It explains far more than you give it credit for and I've met a number of the scientists etc. that were in the film... they were not taken out of context in the least.
I get your point but my original quip was more a statement to reflect the original posters stance that it was infringing on his "freedom". I was mussing the concept of a Named Creator I suppose. Would the original posters be as willing to accept Intelligent Design if the named Creator was "Allah"? Would any follower of the Judea/Christian faiths for that matter.
When it comes to a "religious" concept of life's origin I think most religions are on the same page. The general consensus being that something... greater and beyond our understanding... was involved and responsible for life. It's everything past that initial concept that starts to get murky and divisive. Aside from the spiritual concepts though there is plenty of evidence in nature that suggest intelligent causation. Like I said, professionals in the movie explain some of those. Watch it.
OK I have watched it. And I have also done some more research. As far as I can tell all of the evidence presented in the movie is erroneous, misleading and poorly understood. Then to make matters worse either unwittingly or intentionally represented falsely. Expelled doesn't present any good science at all or even a scientifically defensible alternative to The Theory of Evolution.
So once again I ask; Where is this evidence in nature that suggests intelligent causation? Because I can't see it.
You didn't watch it; not really. You attacked it. Your mind was already made up, closed and your ears were filtered. That's the only way you could make the claims that you have. The clearest example that what I'm saying is true is in your statement that "Expelled doesn't present a defensible alternative to Evolution." What the...? You've missed the entire premise of the movie. Replacing Evolution? You've gained nothing and only dug yourself deeper into a close minded dogma.
Ironically that's the complete opposite of what I have done. I knew we were in trouble when we had uniformed Germans in the opening frames. My fears confirmed when before long the rather common Science= Atheism parallels came out. I asked for the evidence, you said the movie presented it. So I watched it again, I looked at it evidence it presents, I did some very basic research to test its plausibility and very quickly discovered its evidence was flawed. So once again where is the evidence?
Oh you want evidence of Intelligent Design? Sorry... can't give you that. Can you give me evidence that life is a random fluke, that popped up out of nowhere? I don't think so. The movie isn't about proof of I.D. nor is it about the replacement of Evolution. It's about suppression of ideas, thoughts, research, science, funding... the opposite of what science is supposed to represent and everything Nazi Germany did. You missed the symbolic purpose. You miss the entire point of the film.
Evolution cannot support it's Neo Darwinian premise that all life derived from a single cell through a series of mutations and natural selection yet it is taught profusely as if it proves all that and more. It leaves questions unanswered and holes in it's theories unfilled. I.D. does not attempt to fill those blanks with a sweeping gesture that "God Did It." I.D. is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence... a detection of intelligent causation.
no scientific explanation = God did it
ehm..how times has this been said throughout human history?..
deists may very well be right, nontheless without evidence of ANY sort it is unreasonable to believe there had to have been intelligent being.
And as for the biblical God,only people that haven't read the Bible or complete hypocrites capable of twisting their holy book to suit their purposes can believe in that monster.
mastnejsalam 2 months ago
Ben Stein Rocks!
egwpisteuw 5 months ago
*chuffed*
ELCummins73 5 months ago
Knowing God as I do I imagine he's chugged to see His babies all busy trying to out shine each other whilst He's getting on with the important house matters. Creation is ongoing and we are all part of it. Maybe the question you should bother about is where is God taking us? Nothing is revealed without his say so. Be glad you have been designed with the gift of creativity. God is Great and nothing is impossible with Him.
ELCummins73 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says in Genesis 1:24-31 that all land animals (so that includes dinosaurs) and people were created on the same day. The geologic record shows that the large dinosaurs died out at least 65 million years before humans showed up on the planet. Figure it out. The Bible is just old myths and legends, not truth. Religion is like history class - without the facts.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
"we don't know so god dun it, duh i'm hunt'in wabbits so be berry berry quit" Ben Fudd
FUwogs 1 year ago
@FUwogs
That's original... So is it more "intelligent" to say "we don't know so God didn't do it? Just asking because your statement, as tired, pointless and ridiculous as it is, really has nothing to do with the argument.
minksseattle 1 year ago
@minksseattle Actually, it would. But I think he simply meant "We don't know so we can't claim we know it's God." It's more intelligent because to say, in effect, "We don't know so we DO know it's God" is inherently contradictory whereas saying, "We don't know but we know it's NOT X. So it must, by definition, be something outside X," is not. Thus, it's more intelligent and logical. As stated, I don't think that's what he was trying to say. I think he was pointing out the contradiction.
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747: You guys all use the same argument that can easily be turned around on you as I've shown. No one is denying certain forms of evolution exist. The argument lies in theories of the beginning. Your side is content with the notion of a fact-less big bang theory, void of any intelligent involvement. You think that's somehow the final word on the subject and all other theories are nonsense and should be band from the discussion. That's just fact-less, unscientific, hypocritical bologna.
JordanCliffs 11 months ago
@JordanCliffs I'm sure you've been told this but "the beginnings" isn't of concern regarding evolution. When economics comes up with a theory, it need not explain the origins of money and how clams evolved and came to be used as a monetary currency pre-BC. When psychologists devolop a theory to explain human behavior, they need not explain how matter from the brain came into existence via the big bang. Music theory doesn't need to explain the origins of soundwaves. Why is evolution different?
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747: I said in both of my last 2 posts, that the argument is more about the beginning than it is about evolution. The argument Expelled is focused on, is that evolution is being used in academics, to imply something that it clearly doesn't even address. In our schools it's used to imply that life appeared organically via evolution. Can you admit this is true? Darwin's theory has been hijacked by atheists with an agenda. There's 2 theories. Neither based on facts. Only one allowed. Why?
JordanCliffs 11 months ago
@JordanCliffs Look, evolution is fact. We understand it. We've known about it for 150+ years. No credible biologist will say they know how life started. That's a question for biochemists, not evolutionary biologists. Creationists like to confuse the 2. And there's only 1 credible theory on the table. The alternative (ID) isn't even a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's saying, "I don't know so I do know." You don't see a problem there? And I doubt the pope is atheist. Just sayin.
Ripley747 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Intelligent design? As Dawkins points out, its about as likely as aliens putting us on this earth and tending to us like pets. Just because its feasable doesnt make it a serious argument when we know so little about even whats at the bottom of the sea.
Evolution isn't the anti-god, its just somebodies attempt at the solving the puzzle.
purplemonkeyelephant 1 year ago
@purplemonkeyelephant
As "DAWKINS" points out???
You're not serious... The man actually stated in the movie, that there ARE signs of intelligence in our existence, but when asked what he would attribute that intelligence to, he actually suggested we may have been planted by a being from another planet! HE WASN'T JOKING... The part you are referring to was when he said God was about as likely as the spaghetti monster, etc... To him, God is unlikely but Aliens are not.
minksseattle 1 year ago
@minksseattle I was actually referring to the fact that he points out its just as unlikely as any other god/thesis. You are right, he has said that we MAY have been planted here by aliens but he doesnt blindly believe it. It doesnt have any scientific backing and he knows that, he just accepts the possibility.
To him aliens are plausible, and so is god theoretically - however as he points out... Why believe in either theory if there is absolutely no basis for it?
purplemonkeyelephant 1 year ago
@purplemonkeyelephant Because he's the one who put a wrench in his own argument when he admitted there was clear signs of intelligent involvement to our existence. My guess is that he's regretting that statement to this very day.
minksseattle 1 year ago
@minksseattle No, he wasn't joking. But he wasn't exactly endorsing that position either - watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM.
That's not as bad as Ben Stein being asked if he believed in evolution and his response was, "Absolutely." But my favorite is atheist Ray Comfort admitting, "There is no God."
Yup. Quote mines ARE fun, aren't they:).
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747: Of course Stein believes in evolution. Certain forms of it are obvious. It doesn't however, explain the beginning of life, which is where this argument stems from. That said, we've still not seen proof of evolution from 1 species to another, which is pretty much the cornerstone of the theory. It's a house of cards without that proof, and without it the entire theory teeters on the verge of collapse. Yet we still force-feed it in our schools and outlaw all other theories. Why?
JordanCliffs 11 months ago
@JordanCliffs Google "Observed instances of speciation." Google "Ring species." Read a book called "The mating mind" by Geoffery Miller regarding sexual selection. And why are you confusing "origins of life" with "speciation"? You realize they are not the same thing, right? They are about as similar as biology and cosmology...oh wait...nevermind.
We outlaw theories? What theories do we outlaw in school? I'm aware of none?
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747: You're a hard one to debate because you don't really read my posts, it's obvious. Last reply... My comments on proof of species evolving into different species, was an aside... as in, I have serious doubts about the theory as it is, but that's not what I'm debating here, as I know and I've stated 3 times with you now, that evolution is not about the origin of life. I hope that you can read that before you respond again as if I don't already know this. Either way. I've said my piece.
JordanCliffs 11 months ago
@JordanCliffs Crap. You're right. I missed that. My apologies. I'm glad we agree that evolution is not about the origins of life and I hope you understand that, "We don't know so we know it had to be designed externally" isn't an argument. It's a fallacy from incredulity. Abiogenesis is a branch of o-chem that is working on the origins of life. It's a new study so we don't know much.
It's true evolution has holes in the theory but there aren't as many as you think. Gravity is more of a prob.
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747: Really glad we finally got on the same page about that. But you would be completely disingenuous if you were to insinuate that evolution is not used by countless many to imply that it does explain life's origin. You did this yourself by saying there's only 1 credible theory on the table. This is why Expelled was produced. Certain aspects of Evolution are fact. There are zero facts to our origin but it is implied that creationists are nuts. That's hypocritical, dogma.
JordanCliffs 11 months ago
@JordanCliffs The theory I was talking about was evolution. There are currently no theories to explain origins of life (only hypotheses). And if someone uses evolution to explain the origins of life then they don't understand evolution.
IMHO, creationists ARE nuts. How does it make sense that fully formed organisms popped into existence ex nihilo, along with fully developed humans with arms, legs, lungs, brains, etc.? Common ancestry is a fact.
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747: 1st, not all creationists see it exactly that way. It sounds like you wouldn't believe an intelligent entity could have played any part of it at all, whether it was in creating the "big bang" that started it all, or the fully developed beings. I don't see how either of those "hypotheses" are any less believable than yours that believes it all happened organically on it's own. Don't you see how disingenuous your perspective is. You're no closer to proving yours yet you mock the other.
JordanCliffs 11 months ago
@JordanCliffs I'll send you a PM.
Ripley747 10 months ago
I can only conclude that "No Intelligence Allowed" refers to those that would go to see the film. They could screen them at the ticketing booth:
"How old is the Universe?" Anything under "13 billion years" gets you in.
It seems Stein knows that God lives in the gaps of human knowledge. God used to be responsible for everything but these days Abiogenesis and The Big Bang are the only major things that haven't been sorted out completely.
But stay tuned. Saying "God did it" leads nowhere!
warren52nz 2 years ago
Okay... If evolution and atheism is truly the only real answer. Then you you must agree perfectly with this movie's message. After all if the theory is true then it should be perfectly able to stand the criticism it gets in any specter, in the class room or else where. No matter how widely accepted a theory is, the history of science has shown that it can very well be wrong.
Also it is good to note that Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are also the BIGGEST things to be sorted out
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
I agree, sort of. Evolution should be and has been tested and put through the gauntlet for 150 years and counting. And nothing has been able to knock it over. Evolutionary theory evolves like all theories of course but it's no theory that Evolution is what produced the diversity of species, that's a fact. The Theory of Evolution is about how it works, there's no disputing the fossil record, the DNA record, plate tectonics, cosmology, palaeontology, etc. All fields support Evolution.
warren52nz 2 years ago
Sure... But that does not prove it is true. For Thousands of years the theory of spontaneous generation stood all tests yet in the end it still proved wrong. The same thing with Ptolemys (spell?) theories on the sun going around the earth.
Secondly, I could say the same thing for Creation. All fields of paleontology, archeology, plate tectonics the fossil record etc. support Creation. Facts don't prove anything, it is your interpretation of those facts that the differences in theories emerge.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
Well of course in you can never prove a theory is true, that's reserved for mathematics. But I think that if you're truly looking for truth (and not just a bandaid for your fear of death) then Evolution is by far the best idea we've ever come across for our origins. They're never going to discover that we haven't evolved from "lower" species, that's a well established fact. It's possible they could find an external intelligence is manipulating genes, I suppose but I wouldn't bet on it.
warren52nz 2 years ago
Good point. But once again you are mixing fact with interpretation. We know what current man and animal looks like. That is a fact. We can also with a little less certainty see other creatures were like by looking into the fossil record. However it is our own theories and assumptions that presume that they all originated from a common ancestor. It is not a fact that all things evolved from a common ancestor. That is a historical assumption that cannot be proved in a lab, like a hard science.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
The basic idea is that we are looking at the same facts, we just have different theories on how they got there. So just throwing out raw "facts" will not progress the argument one way or another. As for saying "Evolution is by far the best idea, for origins", well that is open for debate, and opens up a whole field of debate on every scientific fact. I take the stand that Creation is the best way to explain our origins. There is not sufficient evidence to support that life can come from non life
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
The problem with saying "God did it" is that it stifles investigation because there's no way to test it and it answers every question in one hit (although not very usefully).
The other problem with standing for creation is there's no way of determining who the creator was. Muslims will say Allah did it and sound just as certain as you on your contrary position and every other religion will do likewise.
It's not a very satisfactory position and it doesn't add anything to our understanding.
warren52nz 2 years ago
First, every explanation of a historical event would then distort investigation. What's the difference between our stances. I say "God did it" you say "Evolution did it". To me the former seems far more likely in light of scientific facts but once again that is open for debate.
Secondly, for clarification I believe in the creation as referred to in the bible. As for all other explanations. Well all theories including naturalism can be debated in light of scientific hard facts.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
In fact the Biblical Creation worldview has brought much to our understanding. Most of the major fields in science were opened up by creationists. Issac Newton with physics, Mendel with genetics, etc. Many scientists with biblical worldview's have used this drive to find out how and why God created. Science is an excellent tool they found for exploring God's Creation. To the contrary the Biblical creation worldview has brought much to our current understanding.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
@warren52nz
Everything but "the big bang" has been figured out, eh? That's kind of the whole point now, isn't it? Until that's been "figured-out" don't expect this argument to go away. I'm staying tuned, brother... But saying God "didn't" do it simply because you have no proof either way, requires "tuning-out" completely my "nowhere-man" friend.
minksseattle 1 year ago
Crystalssssssssssss .... loooool .
Guys get a life ... Soon we will have email scandals about that stupid THEORY of Darwinism ...
MUD and lightning .... GET A LIFE !!!
cedyr123 2 years ago
i like to draw a ring around ben's head in his interviews, he never gets out of that ring haha! his head stands still when he talks.
Larvemannenz001 2 years ago
"The Most Controversial movie of the year"....trying to play the "taboo" card....hey Ben...I think you can work at Seven Eleven to make money for food.....
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
"PhillipThunderGrunge???" You for real, man? LOL... yea. right.
By the way, Expelled "was" the most controversial movie that year... by far. You just missed it because you were too busy trying to pass 10th grade at the time. Ironic a guy like you slamming a guy like Stein with cheap 7/11 jokes. I'm sure he's just devastated reading your post from his Hollywood mansion. Grow up son.
minksseattle 2 years ago
exactly Stein is in his mansion..I watched the movie....When he compared the expelled ID scientists to Nazi germany..I whole heartedly laughed....Stein is not a scientist..a intelligent person but not a scientist....He made money..not a statement against Evolution
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
At least now you're making an argument based on your perception of the film, vs pointless flame throwing. But you missed the point with regard to the Nazi Germany scenes. It was not comparing any scientist to Nazis. As a Jew it was especially meaningful for Stein to recall the effects of a regime that devalued human life, spawned by strong evolutionist ideals. It was also a comparison of a time of suppression and academically we are facing suppression today. Question is, where will it lead?
minksseattle 2 years ago
The suppresion you are talking about is no where near the magnitude as it was in Germany...Intelligent design isn't a scientific basis for anything...That's probably why they don't take any explanations for it.....If it is unknown..why immediately assume it's God?....once Ben Stein made a movie about scientists being expelled..when he himself is not a scientist nor a evolutinary biologist...that's where the movie becomes a film with his own personal opinion not scientific.....
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
The suppression I'm talking about is academic suppression lead predominately by a small group of atheists, but powerful and effective non the less. Intelligent design is a scientific theory and to deny that is either due to ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Ben Stein's roll in the movie was as a reporter in a documentary. By your reasoning, news anchors are all biased, opinionated frauds if they attempt to report on any profession other than their own.
minksseattle 2 years ago
well actually yes...they are biased and opinionated on subjects that they know little to nothing about..hmm does that sound like Stein?....oh yeah look at Faux news
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
LOL! You're one of those... Like CNN, MSNBC and ABC are shining examples of honest journalism. Too funny man. Missing my point completely, but then that's not surprising considering everything else you've said so far.
minksseattle 2 years ago
yeah do really journalists and reporters know anything on the war on drugs or anything of the public matter excluding thier personal lives..?....they use thier research instead of actually studying it themselves...They are professional reporters...I was proving the point that Stein..goes on TV and gives his opinion..about evolution..and tells Fox News and goes CBN..to tell them his view as if he were a scientist himself...which he is not..Why don't we let Jimmy Kimmel tell his view?
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
My friend, you didn't really watch Expelled. You went in with a preconceived opinion. Stein made no attempt to explain science. He asked questions of professionals and exposed an academic suppression lead by a small group of atheists. If you look at Stein's history, going back as early as his college days, he has long been a "human rights" activist and that is the category in which he falls under with regard to his interest in this topic.
minksseattle 2 years ago
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory"
NO! It most definitely is NOT as proven in court at the Dover trials. In fact that was one of the main conclusions... ID is NOT a Science. It can't be falsified and it has no supporting evidence.
Denying ID is a science isn't ignorant, it's a fact... saying that IS a science is ignorant.
Your thinking's backwards.
warren52nz 2 years ago
Since when was science determined in court? What happened to keeping politics out of science. The courts ruling is irrelevant to truth
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
LOL. The point is that Hitler didn't go to war in the name of evolution, he was just obsessed with ruling the world and Arian breeding was in the agenda.
Just as Christians will distance themselves from guys like Kent Hovind and Ted Haggard for their criminal behaviour, Atheists don't have to align themselves with people who may be Atheists but are motivated by evil.
Every time I point out another bad boy Christian raping children I get "They're not true Christians". Like soap in a shower
warren52nz 2 years ago
What is your point? The movie is not claiming that all atheists turn out like Hitler. It is merely showing where the logical conclusion of atheism can lead. Why was "Arian breeding" on his agenda? Let me ask you the question, How can you tell what is "evil"?
Christians do wrong and bad things just as much as everyone else. That is the whole point is Christ dying as a payment for our evils. He didn't come to save the "perfect", it was for bad people like me.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
You don't need religion to define evil. It's acts that are detrimental to individuals or society as a whole. It's evolved into humans who, faced with tools that can kill but not with the morals to prevent it had to develop a code of practice in order to survive. Those that didn't develop morals died out over time. Watch Piranhas. They're fierce eating amchines but they don't eat each other. Did God give them morals to not do so?
If you want to find evil look through Leviticus.
warren52nz 2 years ago
Then its not truly evil. To make sure we are on the same page when I say evil, I am referring to doing wrong. What determines that (detrimental to society) as your standard? If there is no God, then that is your humble opinion. I could turn around and say, no I decide what is right and wrong. Which one of us is right? Hitler thought what he was doing was right. That is why God gave us absolute moral standards.
The fact is we as a world seem to rarely obey them.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
"I could turn around and say, no I decide what is right and wrong."
You COULD say what's right and wrong but if what you say is to the general detriment of society then others can say with confidence that it's "wrong" or immoral. You don't need an external supernatural being to give you a reference for this. In fact, as you will have heard from others, the Bible is HARDLY the place to go for morals unless you're willing to ignore huge parts of it in which case why not cut out the middle man?
warren52nz 2 years ago
I ask again, who or what determines that benefiting society is the ultimate standard? What forces me to obey that standard? Is truth decided by majority? What to you mean by "detriment" and who defines it? Hitler and every other tyrant thought they were benefiting society by their actions. Besides what happen to survival of the fittest? I could say the strongest gets to decide whats right and whats wrong. If there is no absolute standard, I could say murder is fine, after all it works in nature.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
"I ask again, who or what determines that benefiting society is the ultimate standard?"
I guess the question's tricky. I can start by saying it's evolved into what we see today, of that I"m certain (although I understand that you're not). Here's how I view it:
Humans are not well equipped to kill each other bare-handed. This is unique amongst carnivores. So we don't have the same natural inhibition not to do so. Religion was invented by man partly to answer the "death question" but also...
warren52nz 2 years ago
Okay... you are assuming that your standard is correct. How do you know that the standard exists in the first place. But regardless how it could have "evolved", under that standard Hitler was perfectly justified in killing the Jews and launching the largest war the world has ever known. He is justified because seeing as there was no one to determine what "benefiting society" means, he made up his own definition. Under the naturalist worldview Hitler was perfectly right and good in his actions.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
If HItler was justified in his plan then he wouldn't be considered the world's most evil 20th century leader. But he IS because his plan was anti-social.
In a different post you said "I say God did it you say Evolution did it. To me the former seems far more likely in light of scientific facts"
That's simply incorrect. Please tell me how science supports creation because I could cite thousands of ways it supports Evolution but can't think of even ONE way it supports creation.
warren52nz 2 years ago
Last question then. How do you know he was the most evil ruler of the 20th century? I can assure you, if had won the war, we would not hold him in such esteem.
Scientific facts are neutral, we just look at them through different worldviews and then come to different conclusions. Its all based on interpretations.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
I have the growing feeling that our views of reality are so diametrically opposed that there would seem little point in debating it any further.
My stance is based on the evidence and yours is based on faith, there's no common ground really so I guess we're done.
Thanks for keeping it friendly.
And next time you see God ask Him to drop in on me sometime, I'd love to hear from Him/Her/It.
Cheers
warren52nz 2 years ago
Yes, thank you for your time to discuss these issues. I agree, there comes a point when you can only debate an issue so far.
It is nice when two people can discuss an issue without it becoming a blasting match. I thank you as well letting this be friendly
Last of all I agree, but I would honestly wonder whether we we both rely on faith, yours in science, mine in God.
Cheers
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
Thanks TheFreeOrator. At the risk of rekindling this, I can't help but point out that every "modern" person puts their faith in Science. You bet your LIFE on it when you board a jet. If you had a fatal but curable disease would you go to your scientifically trained doctor or simply pray for a cure? The PC you're using right now came from Science, so did your house, its wiring and its plumbing. Every second of your life you're cashing in on Science's discoveries.
Religion does nothing for me.
warren52nz 2 years ago
not even when Hitler claimed god was with him was it acceptable or good to anyone that he had several milion people killed - he even hid it from his own population and military peers as best it could be done, HE knew himself what he was doing was not a good thing to do..
please, don't be an asshat and pretend you're projecting that onto others you cannot claim to speak for at all fucktard.. go eat your own feces in a corner and be ashamed, be very ashamed!
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
Really? How do you know that was not "good" for him to kill several million people? He believed he did the world a service getting rid of the Jews. He did not hide it. The concentration camp workers were openly paraded through the city. The Gestapo kept records off all their wicked deeds How do you know right from wrong. Different people have different standards and ideas.
Secondly, if you wish to debate, than please keep it friendly. Rude language does nothing to advance your points.
TheFreeOrator 1 year ago
It is your right to hold whatever opinions you wish, but if you consider it an action worthy of appraisal to kill several milion people then you are a person with low moral standards.
Morality is something that is partly natural to us, and partly cultural - it is not absolute, nor given by a god or gods.
You stated "Under the naturalist worldview Hitler was perfectly right and good in his actions."
Since i am a naturalist, i take offense to this, thus my rudeness is well warranted...
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
Okay. You state that "Morality is.. natural to us, and partly cultural". Then if the culture accepts it and you accept it than it is right? In Islamic countries it is perfectly acceptable to kill people of other religions and happens all the time. It is acceptable to the people and the culture, is it right? Was the terrorist attack on 9-11, right? Every culture is different and has different morals, which is right?
I am not claiming you believe this, I just ask that you explain inconstancies.
TheFreeOrator 1 year ago
You say there are no "Absolutes". Well then who sets the bar? How do we know what Morality is, what determines that? How do we know that is true. If the standard is not absolute, why should we obey it? Without God we cannot have an absolute moral standard, a right and wrong. Without God there is no morality. Just random occurrences.
TheFreeOrator 1 year ago
why can't we have an absolute moral standard without your definition of a god? prove this statement please.
Why would we need an absolute moral standard at all in order to behave well, in order to not-rape, not-kill, and not-destroy?
Is there an absolute moral standard for cats? dogs? other primates?
If alien species exist, do they have their own absolute moral standards you think?
Morality is defined by us, and we try to uplift it to hold higher meaning than it can and does, sadly..
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
In short: would you, or would you not conceed, that you are such a despicable and horrible person, that your craving for power and bodily pleasure is so strong, that you yourself have no control at all, save for obeying the moral law of the god you worship, your religious faith being the only thing holding you back from becoming a raping, pillaging murderous destroyer of all things you approach?
If you can answer this, please consider whencefrom your answer cometh ;)
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
There are milions, even bilions of people who condemn the slaughter of ethnic minorities by the nazis during WW2, and there are similarly many that condemn the suicide bombings of the WTC as well as the near-daily bombings around middle-east.
It was not widely accepted by the demographics in the middle east what was done 9/11, it was critisized, and empathy was shown at great lengths from the region!
fringe groups or individuals do not reflect societies, nations, or religions, as you know.
GronTheMighty 1 year ago
...also to provide moral standards that were well adapted to survival of, if not the species, at least the tribe. In those early days, religion would have been useful and so would have been successfully selected for (by Evolution). However such power inevitably led to corruption and religion subsequently has been responsible for endless war and atrocities.
Now that social systems have evolved into a modern regime we don't need religion and in fact I think Evolution will snuff it out in time.
warren52nz 2 years ago
As pointed out above without a biblical worldview there is no way of determining right and wrong.
To your second point, when you are saying "social systems" I assume you are referring to government, correct? If that is the case... government fails catastrophically in "replacing" religion. Look at what the UN has
done... nothing. Rwanda, Cold War, Dar fur, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Communism etc. Modern systematized government with the naturalistic worldview to guide it has failed.
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
Also let me ask you this. If someone commits a crime against another person is it MORAL for a third person to be prosecuted for the crime?
Because that's what the Jesus story is all about. Is God so powerless that He can't just FORGIVE humanity??? Why does he have to sacrifice His only son for the cause???
I know the answer. Christianity evolved from the pagans who sacrificed animals to wash away human sin, Jesus is just the new scapegoat. It's clear in the history if you're unbiased.
warren52nz 2 years ago
The answer is that the God is a righteous and just God, who must punish wrong doing (sin). Thus we as a world are all doomed to be punished (in hell), since we all sinned. Christ came and paid that punishment FOR US, in OUR PLACE. It had to happen this way, or else God would be lying when he said he would punish sin. God is not only righteous and holy but also a loving God. That is why he sent his only son. All that remains is for us to do, is simply believe that he died for us. 1 Cor. 15:1-4
TheFreeOrator 2 years ago
Can someone tell me how they explain the evolution of the flagellum into a propellor motor, video? And while at it, the DNA transformed into RNA, information telling molecular machines to produce this or that, more complexed than any computers we have, how do evolutionnists explain that and how much of it there is found in the cell?
Serge1965 2 years ago
lol what douche bags
WonderBread006 2 years ago
How to become a Christian. Click on
Godisreal101
GodIsReal101 3 years ago
I can respect when people have differing opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I do not respect it when they have to resort to slander and pettiness to get their beliefs across. If your proof doesn't stand on it's own two legs without the need to 'downgrade' the research of others: find better proof.
ThemDarnCats 3 years ago
Don't look now you just described the argument EXPELLED has made... To date there is no proof to suggest that I.D. was not involved in the origin of life and yet it's treated as a joke while theories of random chance, space aliens and magic crystals are seriously considered and taught without proof. You call that objective reasoning? Is that the respect you're referring to? Who's REALLY doing the downgrading of others and attacking anyone daring to suggest alternate ideas?
minksseattle 3 years ago
there was no proof to suggest that ID was not involved in the origin of life?
what kind of a stupid teacher teaches like that
"now students today i am going to teach you about something and even tho there is no evidence for it, there is no evidence against it so lets treat it as fact."
liber8me 3 years ago
What kind of teacher teaches that life just happened by fluke chance without any form of intelligent guidance, when there's not a shred of evidence to support such a claim? Answer... all of them because by law that is all they're allowed to teach. That's what I call "stupid."
minksseattle 3 years ago
teachers are only supposed to teach what there is evidence to support.
if you teach god made the world then what do you say made him? did he happen by fluke chance without any form of intelligent guidance?
god is even more unlikely to exist then us because he would be even more complex.
isnt that how your argument works? the more complex a thing is the less likely it is to exist? funny how you dont apply it to your god.
liber8me 3 years ago
Good point. So why do teachers imply in their teaching that evolution = life? There's no evidence to support life occurred suddenly on its own. We all know that certain forms of evolution have occurred but the "origin of life" and "new species" can not be explained, supported or proven by evolutionary science. So your own argument breaks down. Funny you don't apply your rule to the teachers.
minksseattle 3 years ago
evolution doesnt say anything about how life started, it just explains the reason for the diversity of life on this planet.
abiogenesis is the theory that most scientists accept as the explanation for how life began but they i dont think ive heard of a school that has ever taught it is great detail because as you can well imagine a lot of it is speculative.
liber8me 3 years ago
My friend... you and I both know that it is strongly implied in classrooms that life happened by fluke. (Big Bang - and then evolution.) That is the argument. There is no proof of that anymore than I could prove an intelligent designer was involved. But only one of the two possibilities is being permitted in the curriculum. That's absurd.
minksseattle 3 years ago
furthermore science is supposed to be agnostic.
how does it help someone to say "god did it?"
if they had kept on saying that about disease and that it was too complex to ever know and kept this mentality we would never have found the cures that we have.
liber8me 3 years ago
How could a science that implies the origin of life was natural and unguided, claim to be "agnostic?" The very definition of agnostic implies neither faith nor disbelief in God. To suggest life's origin was fluke, random chance, clearly takes the position of disbelief in a creator. A person of such mindset could no longer be considered agnostic, but rather atheist which in actuality is a faith in and of its self since there is no proof and the rule of science is broken and guided by atheism.
minksseattle 3 years ago
which sounds more realistic:
the universe has always existed and undergoes a series of changes over billions of years naturally
or there is an invisible being creating everything with magic, even more complex and unlikely to exist and defying the laws of physics?
liber8me 3 years ago
What does it matter what I or you think is more realistic? We're bound to disagree and to your point that science is supposed to be agnostic, that's not even a question that should be asked. Both concepts should continually be considered/examined. That's my point. Personally though I can more easily imagine that something made everything out of nothing rather than to consider everything always existed. In all things we know there is a beginning and an end. Why would this be any different?
minksseattle 3 years ago
People are actually calling this movie fair and objective? The part that sticks out most in my mind was the 'life may come from crystals' comment, which afterward we got a cheesy old movie clip with a magician and a crystal ball. Fair and objective? Seriously? How about we just try to defame and ridicule everyone when scientific theory goes over our heads instead of putting forth our own proof and speaking about our theories.
ThemDarnCats 3 years ago
Science can't answer everything, it has no answer as to where the first cell came from, and I have no problem with Creationists....
but it's when you get the creationists that are so naive and ignorant, they won't even listen to empyrical evidence...wow, talk about the blind leadin the blind.
It's like "wait...so you really believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old??" I might as well ask if you got a brain because the answer is obviously no.
Sarah Palin anyone??
Cornporn69 3 years ago
(in reply to cornporn69) u call us naive and ignorant when you're just doing the same thing only on the opposite view. so i wouldn't be talking. There IS a God and the earth IS only 6000 years old. I have looked into the other side of this argument and i still believe that God is there. Maybe you should look at our side and then think about it.
callie7078 3 years ago
LOL, YES a perfect example to prove me right...
Ok Callie, so what you're saying is.....Dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test your faith?
Cornporn69 3 years ago
no, what i'm saying is that people will say anything to lead u away from ur faith. who knows? maybe i am wrong, maybe the earth is more than 6000 years old. But there is still a God out there. and by the way, it didn't prove u right. ur argument was that creationists weren't openminded, so u just proved that ur just close-minded. have u looked at our side yet? obviously not.
callie7078 3 years ago
science can't answer everything: You are right, but it tries to explain everything in nature/reality.
It has no answer to where the first cell came from:
Wrong, there is a little something called chemical abiogenisis which is one of several scientific hypothesis which explain where the first cells came from.
NYjon888 3 years ago
Hey there. Well the abiogenisis isn't 100% conclusive, I didn't want to mention it. And I replied to you because you are rational.
Callie...you sound sooooo logical...let's see you try to dig yourself out of this one.
*refer to Callie's retarded reasoning (above)
Cornporn69 3 years ago
While you are right about it not being 100% conclusive, nothing in science is. But i catch your drift, it doesnt have nearly the amount of evidence backing it as evolution or the theory of gravity, which is also true. But it does propose several different ways in which the first cells came about
NYjon888 3 years ago
Wait a minute... most of Newtons theories can be proven repeatedly, as well as Ensteins. Its past tense conception that cant be proven and never really will be. Michaelangelo said that it is passion that fuels creativity. Just what if faith can insipre scientist to study new feilds in the DESIGN of nature? What if every plant had a healing purpose we arent yet aware of? would u really want to close ur eyes to that?
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
name one of newtons theories that is 100% proven.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Id say theres a substansial more amount of evidence in comparision to darwins theories, u can test gravity, how do u test the ape to man transition? U cant, yet we have an evolutionary chart documenting the whole thing like darwin saw it happen. ur testing edisons theories right now by reading this on an electric screen. I think the wright brothers proved Da Vinci was right. I wouldnt even call alot darwins work theories...more like assumptions...
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Well we can test our dna.... Look for markers that link us to the other great apes, and we have found 2 very major markers. One is a fusion of 2 chromosomes making up one of our chromosomes. Which means we use to have the same number of chromosomes as the rest of the primates. The other is retroviral dna markers, which we share multiple markers with the apes. Which only feasible conclusion is common decent.
NYjon888 2 years ago
dude, youre looking at the pixels, not seeing the big picture. Modern science has allowed their intellectual arrogance to limit them to HOW it works, not how it has to. Im not saying evolution isnt a part of life, but it isnt the initial cause. Its just one cog in a very big machine. U believe in evolution in animals, but how about minerals, & plants. Life changes in order to adapt.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
I dont anyone who have claimed evolution is an initial cause..... Evolution, summed up, is just the change in life over time via changes in its genetic code. And by modern science im going to assume you mean modern scientists (being arrogant), and many of them devoted their lives to the study of their specific field. I wouldnt appreciate it if someone who barely knows what they are talking about tries to tell me im wrong if i spent my entire life devoted to studying that field.
NYjon888 2 years ago
But what if ones "feild" or "medium" was that of natural phylosophy, the origin of all science. Like Da Vinci, Galleleo, Aristotle, all men, who believed in, and were inspired by creation. Most of these men had little to no education. (That of a middle schooler, by todays standards). Yet they made discoveries of epic porpotion, ideas we can build on to for the good of man & the planet. Einstein was brilliant, but what did he contribute? E=mc2 = the atom bomb. Thanks Albert.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Im not saying that ALL smart men believe in God. Simply that the first alliance of scientific study should be for the benefit of humanity, & for someone like Dawkins, whos work has accomplished nothing but controversy twards faith, to insult the pioneers of science, who believe in ID, like Sir Issac H. Newton, is a disgrace, Dawkins research (if hes even done any aside from read Darwins work) is NOT an accoplishment,, its given nothing to masses, so frankly, I think he should shut his trap.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Well E=mc^2 revolutionized physics which gives us our current day nuclear power plants and weapons.... He also has relativity to his name which explains why gravity exists. On top of this he explained the photoelectric affect.... I would also like to point that the religious authority gave Galileo a life sentence in prison where he died because of his discovery.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Yeah & I dont think religious leaders should have ANY place in the lab, dude, dont take it the wrong way ID isnt a religion any more than athiesm is. But religious leaders seem to be the only ones that care about moral fortitude, & Dawkins has stated that he wants to wipe out religion, is that really a good idea? Bye, bye faith based groups..
Catholic Charities, K of C, Masons, Shriners, AA, NA, ect. but,I mean fuck the good of humanity, were talking science, folks!!!
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
I don't think ID is a religion. I think it is a tenet in many different religions, but by itself it's just a hypothesis.
NYjon888 2 years ago
The other way to test the mechanisms of evolution is see if mutations happen in species, the see if natural selection occurs within the species. If both are true what prevents the mutations from compounding? Really all evolution is, is a compounding of mutations in subsequent generations.
NYjon888 2 years ago
But its effect without the cause. Science is where we search for the awsners to
how it works. Religion is where we study why it must, we know there IS a natural balance what what is the cause if that effect if not God? The solar system, the eco system, gravity physics all work together in unity to promote life on this planet. & from what we can gather so far, only on this planet, u dont see how ID could answer questions? thats why the greatest minds in science have always been men of faith.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Well to use one of Dawkins arguments, if by god you mean something like a quantum fluctuation then im all for that hypothesis. There is simply no sound evidence that this "initial cause" has intelligence. Especially when we have no idea what this initial cause is and everything we do so far trying to determine what it is is just guess work (assuming you mean the origin of the universe).
NYjon888 2 years ago
Dawkins thinks the space alien theory is a sound argument. Why is in our nature to create? In not in an apes nature to express themselves in articulation. We were designed in the image of a creator who desiigned us to create. Music, Movies, books, magazines, the majority of the internet are all forms of how we create and express ourselfs. Animals do not have the passion that drives us. But we do. We are creators of things and ideas forged in the existance of a creator of existance itself.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Dawkins does not think the space alien theory is sound, in fact he thinks we Evolved (he is an evolutionary biologist) through purely natural processes and that space aliens had nothing to do with it. I think you need to do more research next time. Also your hypothesis that a designer made us is pure speculation with no evidence to support it. And even if we were created, monkeys look like us and like you said they dont have these same motives for art and music, and yet im the were created too.
NYjon888 2 years ago
?!?!?!?He Does too!!! He says so in expelled!!! He says he thinks we were seeded by a more advanced civilization, that evolved through darwinian means (HE DID USE THE WORD DARWINIAN) SPACE ALIENS, DUDE!!!! FUCKING CREATURES FROM BEYOND THE STARS. But were dumb for believe in this whole ID thing. Yeah...were some kooky kids...
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
you need to re-watch that clip. The question was what is the possibility that ID would be the answer to some issues in genetics. So he had to give an example where ID was correct. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT, he simply says that IF id was correct then that is the most probable. You really need to do your research.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Ive watched it!!!!! Over and OVer!!!! He specifically endorsed the "seeding" theory!!! HIS WORDS ""WE WERE SEEDED HERE" THATS HIS MOST LIKELY EXPLAINATION!!!! HE ALWAYS DOGES THE ISSUE, HES NEVER GIVEN A STRAIGHT ANSWER ABOUT OUR ORIGINS, OR THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, OR THE NATURAL BALANCE, DNA, HE ALWAYS SHRUGS THIS SHIT OFF WITH A BUNCHA "I DUNNO, BUTTHEOLOGY SUCKS" JARGON. NOBODIES TALKING ABOUT THEOLOGY! JUST THE EXISTANCE OF ID!!!
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
You are not listening. The question was something like Can you give an example where ID is correct. IF ID is correct then dawkins would say that is most likely. HE actually believes we evolved naturally through abiogenisis. You really need to get your facts from places other than propaganda movies.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Propoganda movies??? Ben Stein didnt lie, or exageratte anything, he didnt even tell people what to belive, he wasnt telling dawkins to believe in God, just lay off those of us who do. Dawkins doesnt have any answers as to how life began, short of his E.T. theory, Penn & Teller dont know anything about addiction, but they put down AA because its a faith based program, may not be perfect, but wtf do they do to help people? All these neo-athiest do is, talk about things, never accomplish anything.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
The whole movie was an exaggeration of the facts. Just watch any debunking youtube video of expelled, you will realize most of those guys who were fired were fired not for their beliefs in ID but for a variety of other reasons. As for Dawkins he believes in chemical abiogensis not any ET theories. please try to get your facts straight. If you want to find out what he believes watch a video called Dawkins on the orginin of life. Not from a question asking how ID could be correct
NYjon888 2 years ago
Dude, Ive seen the shit, it didnt debunk shit, Dawkins is a joke, Hitchens is a drunk, & so is the YT buddy who doesnt get to share in the riches & spoils of their adventures, I gahter youre in the "Thunderf00t cult", the only thing worse that a religious cult, is an athiest cult, ESPECIALLY AN ONLINE ATHIEST CULT, at least religious cults stand for something as opposed to the lack there of. TF is a fuckin loser dude, u think he has a real social life as much time as he spends here on YT?
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
Job 26:7-8 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; He suspends the Earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in His clouds; yet the clouds do not burst under their weight." Satan will stop at nothing to keep people in the dark about God.
tudierudielovesJesus 3 years ago
So if we are suspended which way is down? And dosn't Job also say "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?" And in case you say translation Re'em the word used is not rimu which is hebrew for wild ox.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
(in reply to tudierudielovesjesus) awesome!
callie7078 3 years ago
History has proven religion stops any decent progression with science. Take a look at the Christian Dark Ages. The world was in a terrible state until Renaissance.
Islam which has been very successful at surpressing proper science has caused those countries to fall way behind in their developments.
Can't we just keep the two separated. Afterall, science doesn't deal with anything of the supernaturally. Its pointless trying to use scientific methods to prove God's doing in anything because.
eonuk 3 years ago 2
Evolution is a scientific theory that cannot be proven, the only thing that the pseudo scientists can say is that they have observed evolution in the microscopic in the mutations of viruses but that is merely an ADAPTATION, NOT EVOLUTION, viruses always will adapt to the environment just like us but that doesn't mean that we evolve, we rather devolve since we are copies of other HUMANS that were created ~6 000 years ago.
Serge1965 3 years ago
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence.
You clearly have no idea about how science works.
bubbah 3 years ago
So why only pick on one "theory" why not gravity, or bacteriology, or embriology. They were all arrived at by the same method. Facts and proofs are little more than data in science. I know for a fact that the sky is blue, and no scientist devotes his or her time trying to decide if it is blue or another color because its fact, science comes up with a theory of why its blue.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
First of all, evolution is falsifiable (and has not yet been done so), besides the weak attempts to do so by ID(creationist) proponents. We have observed evolution in the fossil record and in the laboratory (they have done something very interesting), they evolved ecoli over a 20 year experiment the ability to digest citrates, something no natural ecoli can do. Also we know there are mutations, how do these mutations not compound over time?
NYjon888 3 years ago
Proof that God exists:
-design in the text of the Bible, hidden codes, archeological proofs of the people's names, places and dates, prophecy fulfilled with 100% acuracy in the past tense and in the present tense which makes it highly sure that we're at the end of the age and that the rest of the prophesies will be fulfilled just as acurately.
- the motor in the flagellum, the round planets, the DNA as the most outstanding intelligent language of life, need more?
Serge1965 3 years ago
holy crap....you're a moron... lol
ootrustoo 3 years ago 4
So you must know where the unicorns of Job are? Or why there is not a single bit of evidance that any jewish slaves were around to work for pharoh.
wormbaby79 3 years ago
Really, dna is the most intelligent language??? Is seems like a pretty shitty language, if its so great why dont we start talking in DNA hahhahaha. no just messing with you. Secondly the motor in the flagellum was evolved (we even know the process by which it evolved!). Planets are round due to gravity (who doesn't know that?).... And finally the whole bible thing. Well stop believing everything you hear, every religion PROVES its holy text is right....
NYjon888 3 years ago
Religion is like anything, alot of it has to do with interpitation...
But, honestly, accepting the fact that its in your nature to create because you were created in the image of a creator that created u in his own image, is very inspiring. Most of the greatest minds in science where devotly religious Newton, Da Vinci, Edison, Franklin, Aristotle, Galleleo, Most of them, like Da Vavinci, simply studed the DESIGN of nature, which eventually led to the airplane. Faith inspires passion.
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
yes the brilliants minds of yesterday were religious, but many of the brilliants minds of today aer not religious: Einstein, Feynman, hawkings, darwin. Then again the best explanation for the origin of the universe and life was religiously oriented back then so it would make sense for them to be religious (which is not so anymore). By the way Edison was a diest and so was Franklin, so they rejected christian dogma, not very religious at all.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Also it is not a "fact" that we were created by an intelligence. But if we want to create things because we were created, why is it not true that our creation's want to create things? AND why did the "orginial" creator (you know the one that wasn't created) want to create things? And any answer you give how come that answer cant apply directly to us lowly humans.
NYjon888 2 years ago
All intelligent beings want to create things. Its what separates us from the animals. U ever seen a monkey preforming any form of sophistication, intellectualism, or trying to be deeply creative of mind? No. They dont have the higher calling of creativity. & y is it u guys make God out to be a meglomaniac? If being a celebrity, or diplomat makes u justifyably arrogant, what does literally being God do for ones ego?
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
I find it funny you use monkeys, who look like humans, so aren't they also created in god's image also? And celebrities dont require the acknowledge and praise of every little thing they do from everyone on the planet, if they did they would be a megalomaniac. As for monkeys intellectualism, they have gone days without food if obtaining the food hurts a monkey neighbor of theirs, I would say that requires some level of sophistication.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Dude, Im not denying we came from the same genetic stew, Im pointing out we have ingrediants that they dont. A higher intellect that makes us mentally superior, yes monkeys are intellegent, ut so are plants in a very weak way. All life on this planet is connected, Id never say otherwise, Im pointing out that our creativity, & higher standards of morallity are what separates us from them. Besides were physically inferior to apes, theyre stronger, faster, & more agile, because they must be (ID).
PsychoticSpasm 2 years ago
fair enough
NYjon888 2 years ago
teacher: in an unguided and undesigned way, the theory of evolution
stein: how did life begin in the first place?
teacher: for the last time, ben, the theory of evolution does not explain how life began in the first place. there is however, a theory for the origin of life. it's called abiogenesis. and evolution has NOTHING to do with how life began in the first place, because evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
cottonear 3 years ago
Then there should be no problem with teaching Intelligent Design which DOES use scientific findings to suggest a possible explanation for the origin of life. Ahhh... but Evolutionists don't want that theory to be spoken of do they? Here in lies the problem. Here in lies the academic suppression and obstruction of our basic freedoms.
benstein4president 3 years ago
creationism DOES NOT use scientific findings of ANY SORT to argue it's BELIEFS. all you have is a hypotheses, and in science, that's an idea. you, by scientific law, cannot take a hypothesis and call it a theory unless you have massive amounts of PROOF to back it up. so, it can be taught, just not in science class. perhaps "cultural studies" class, or something of that nature.
cottonear 3 years ago
wow, you really believe that? no one's saying intelligent design shouldn't be taught at all. all we're saying is it has NOTHING to do with science since christians use FAITH to back it up. you people are people of faith. there's nothing wrong with that. just don't try and prove something which, by DEFINITION, cannot be proven. that's part of the beauty of god. he would be upset if he heard that a group of imbeciles in the US were trying to prove his existence
cottonear 3 years ago
Your use of the term "Creationism" is interesting since the subject matter for Expelled is "Intelligent Design." That's typical... it's also "intentionally" inaccurate... they are not one in the same. You've also introduced the word "Christians" which also has nothing to do with the subject matter. I.D. is a study based solely on scientific data. Switching the words and introducing others doesn't change that. It only sheds light on your own ignorance or dishonesty about the subject matter.
benstein4president 3 years ago
ok. fair enough. so then please tell me how I.D. and creationism differ. how are they NOT the same thing, just relabeled? and please tell me how christianity has nothing to do with I.D.? maybe i should have said judeo-christian? right. and where's all this scientific data you so confidently speak of? i'm NOT ignorant and if i saw true scientific data, my view would differ. admit it, I.D. is beyond silly, and the only reason you might support it is because you have FAITH in it, and NOTHING ELSE!!
cottonear 3 years ago
ben stein's movie is just that. A MOVIE. he's not a documentarian because he distorts fact and intentionally leaves out counter arguments. let us not forget he is NOT a scientist!!!!
cottonear 3 years ago
If you're not ignorant then why are you asking so many questions about a subject matter you claim to know so much about? You're clearly just a sheep who's learned nothing more than what to repeat. You don't really have a clue what you're talking about. Not a clue. Maybe take that cotton out of your ears, "cottonear." All the answers to your questions are readily available if you really want the answers. Or keep quiet while you blindly follow like a good little sheep with cotton in your ears.
benstein4president 3 years ago
ha. exactly what i thought.you have no evidence, just faith on it's own. and that's not evidence. religion, by definition, can not prove anything. I.D. followers really do make a poor attempt at polluting the minds of innocent children and i'm ever so glad that we live in the era of modern science. people have massive amounts of info available at their fingertips and truly can see both sides of an argument. and you have no argument, so by default, we win! we have the fossils! u r a waste of time
cottonear 3 years ago
ha. exactly the response I'd expect from a blind little sheep. You have no better argument other than your pathetic use of labeling anyone who doesn't blindly follow your "theories" as religious. For one, I'll not waste my time doing your home work. I've spent plenty of time on this blog and others with details. Take the time to read. For two, Expelled the movie has plenty of examples of I.D. science. Three... read David Berlinski's book, "The Devil's Delusion." A Jewish non-religious author.
benstein4president 3 years ago
listen to yourself "the devil's delusion". written by a jewish non-religious author!?!? the DEVIL's delustion?! understand there is no such thing as I.D. science. this is not my opinion, it's fact. i'm not arguing it, because it's not arguable. the very nature of the concept of I.D. (the supernatural) cannot have anything to do with science. how does this make me a blind sheep? that's rhetorical, i don't want an answer. how am i "blind"? i HAVE evidence, i HAVE facts that i can SEE. you don't.
cottonear 3 years ago
There is NO scientific findings that Intelligent Design uses to prove it has a point. What are these findings? Where are the peer reviewed Journals? They don't exist. It also has no place in a science class room. It is not science it is thinly veiled creationism. There is no obstruction of Freedom here. I wonder if you would feel the same way about including Intelligent Design in the science class if at its conclusion Allah was noted the designer and not the Judea/Christian God?
craigjs 3 years ago
I can tell you don't know much about I.D. nor have you taken the time to see the movie you criticize. Legitimate science is used when observations are being made. Mathematics and cell structure are key. Watch the movie and hear the numbers of professionals who have been attacked, fired, lost tenure when they've attempted to report findings. It's also ignorant to "ass"ume that anyone who believes intelligence was involved in life's origin is "Christian." Less than 10% of the world are atheist.
minksseattle 3 years ago
I still want to know what this evidence is? Where is it? Can you point me to the research? Which reputable Universities are actively researching these "key" Intelligent Design elements? Does any of the research in 'Mathematics' or 'Cell Structure' stand up to Peer review? I don't see what 10% of the worlds population being Atheist has to do with anything? Or are you assuming that only Atheist's believe in scientific method and therefore the 'Theory of Evolution'?
craigjs 3 years ago
Since you're so eager to challenge the movie, watch it first and you'll get answers to most of your questions. The 90% that believe in some form of "creator" are comprised of many religions, not just Christianity. That was my point. Evolution is not the debate here. Evolution came after the origin of life.
minksseattle 3 years ago
No the movie doesn't, actually it doesn't answer much at all. The movie takes a shot gun approach to the subject listing dozens of people many of whom are quoted out of context seem to support Intelligent Design and in same cases their support is only possible when they are quoted out of context. Of course Evolution is at the heart of the debate. But you are right Evolution doesn't cover the origin of life for that you should look to the study of Abiogenesis.
craigjs 3 years ago
Me thinks you underestimate the film too much. I'm pretty convinced you've never seen it but rather pass along the rumors that began before the film was even released. It explains far more than you give it credit for and I've met a number of the scientists etc. that were in the film... they were not taken out of context in the least.
minksseattle 3 years ago
I get your point but my original quip was more a statement to reflect the original posters stance that it was infringing on his "freedom". I was mussing the concept of a Named Creator I suppose. Would the original posters be as willing to accept Intelligent Design if the named Creator was "Allah"? Would any follower of the Judea/Christian faiths for that matter.
craigjs 3 years ago
When it comes to a "religious" concept of life's origin I think most religions are on the same page. The general consensus being that something... greater and beyond our understanding... was involved and responsible for life. It's everything past that initial concept that starts to get murky and divisive. Aside from the spiritual concepts though there is plenty of evidence in nature that suggest intelligent causation. Like I said, professionals in the movie explain some of those. Watch it.
minksseattle 3 years ago
OK I have watched it. And I have also done some more research. As far as I can tell all of the evidence presented in the movie is erroneous, misleading and poorly understood. Then to make matters worse either unwittingly or intentionally represented falsely. Expelled doesn't present any good science at all or even a scientifically defensible alternative to The Theory of Evolution.
So once again I ask; Where is this evidence in nature that suggests intelligent causation? Because I can't see it.
craigjs 3 years ago
You didn't watch it; not really. You attacked it. Your mind was already made up, closed and your ears were filtered. That's the only way you could make the claims that you have. The clearest example that what I'm saying is true is in your statement that "Expelled doesn't present a defensible alternative to Evolution." What the...? You've missed the entire premise of the movie. Replacing Evolution? You've gained nothing and only dug yourself deeper into a close minded dogma.
minksseattle 3 years ago
Ironically that's the complete opposite of what I have done. I knew we were in trouble when we had uniformed Germans in the opening frames. My fears confirmed when before long the rather common Science= Atheism parallels came out. I asked for the evidence, you said the movie presented it. So I watched it again, I looked at it evidence it presents, I did some very basic research to test its plausibility and very quickly discovered its evidence was flawed. So once again where is the evidence?
craigjs 3 years ago
Oh you want evidence of Intelligent Design? Sorry... can't give you that. Can you give me evidence that life is a random fluke, that popped up out of nowhere? I don't think so. The movie isn't about proof of I.D. nor is it about the replacement of Evolution. It's about suppression of ideas, thoughts, research, science, funding... the opposite of what science is supposed to represent and everything Nazi Germany did. You missed the symbolic purpose. You miss the entire point of the film.
minksseattle 3 years ago
Evolution cannot support it's Neo Darwinian premise that all life derived from a single cell through a series of mutations and natural selection yet it is taught profusely as if it proves all that and more. It leaves questions unanswered and holes in it's theories unfilled. I.D. does not attempt to fill those blanks with a sweeping gesture that "God Did It." I.D. is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence... a detection of intelligent causation.
minksseattle 3 years ago