Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[Lumpy]

Ever had a dog? All domesticated dog breeds are the result of selectively breeding wolves. Selectively bred by humans to promote whatever traits their masters desired; survival of the cutest. That's how evolution works in nature too ... selectively breeding to promote survival. I.e. survival of the fittest.

[moot]

you are correct.  I should have stated that disciples of the religion masquerading as scientists have been busily chasing every lead, performing a myriad of hypothetical experimentation, jumping to conclusions or stretching and twisting data to arrive at their foregone conclusions.  at this point in time they are grasping at straws.  given the advances in science, technology, unlimited funding and carte blanch permission to dig anywhere launch anything into deep space in order to find even a shred of evidence that will disprove a creator and yet they still fail.

Supporting evidence?

I will maintain an open mind but I get great entertainment value reading about fools and their follies in their endless quest in the different publications and on the web.

This isn't about entertainment Storch, where's your dispassionate approach?  BTW if you can't back up what you say, you should admit you're making things up and dispassionately retract it all.

here's an idea, why not set off an explosion in a printing shop and see if the result of said explosion is not a complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly.  feel free to perform this experiment until you are successful.  once the package arrives at my residence I'll cry uncle and admit my error.

That's such a myopic way to put it, I don't know what to say.  You think the universe crunched down in size is comparable in matter and energy to a printing shop?

but far less complex than our universe including all possible life forms on how many yet to be discovered systems. 

So you're saying your sense of what complexity and order are sets the universal standard?  Should we rename the Hubble constant the Storch constant too?

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. Lewontin illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.

Lambo

And?

I have a question on this. How many chemical variations did these animals try before they got the "right" stuff that they wanted to keep?  Or did they get it right the first time?  In order for them to have survived it must have been the first time, I guess. Wonder how they knew which concoction would work?  I think God made them that way from the get go, sounds far better to me .

Lambo

You're kidding right?   It sounding better to you is the criteria for reality now?  Will you be quoting Nostradamus next?

[moot]

Take your time SkyRock.  Can you give some examples of this evidence you speak of in the fossil record that supports evolution...that is one species changing to another?

Species are a man made category.  How can you argue against something that you don't even understand?  Is that an agenda in your pants?

[lazs2]

so lumpy... any of you breeders ever change a dog into something other than another dog?

This whole thing is pretty silly.  I believe that the universe was created by god.  I believe that he made rules for it to work by.   We need to understand these rules but.. there are some that we can never understand.

That does not mean we should not try but.. Science has become arrogant.  claiming they know how the global climate works when they don't understand a fifth of it.  claiming man is the cause of climate change and using computer models to predict with "90% certainty" that man is the most significant impact on global climate and a myriad of disasters for the year 2100... when.. they can't even predict climate change for next year.

Science is more political now than at any time in it's history... more perverted.   ever more shrill and fantastic visions of looming disaster by flood, fire or earthquake or disease and famine.. all using data that is incomplete or made up and all to fill the coffers of their "research facilities"  the end justifies the means...  Karl Marxs.. meet science..

Science takes theory and studies it and puts it forth..  that is fine.. what it has done in my lifetime tho is to use a few data points to make some snake oil pitch at a carnival of journalisim.

Fred flinstones pets made the gasoline in your tank..  the world was gonna be in an ice age cause of the smog.    Billions would die by 1990 from overpopulation.. the populations of your-up would be elbow to elbow by 2000...   we would run out of dozens of essential items by now..  earthquakes would shear off kalifornia by now.. opps.. they are back on that one...  Killer bees!!! anyone recall that one?  by now we should have nothing but killer bees...

Every year a new and dire prediction of doom and gloom to rival any biblical fire and brimstone.

Take a class at the local college.. you see profs that are so out of touch with reality that they are laughable..  none you would want to be around unless you had to be.  Idiots..


And... I really don't think that any of you can win Ben Steins money.

lazs

[moot]

Once again it's not the Science, it's the people who are supposed to be doing science.  (simplified analogy: ) Ron Paul is a Politician just as Clinton is, but there's quite a margin between the two, on a scale of corruption.  A similar analogy would be religious ministers being more or less corrupt.

Science isn't the source of the problems you're describing Lazs, it's the failure of people to flawlessly apply the science.  Just as they have trouble being faithful to religious values, as in "the spirit is strong, the flesh weak".

Science isn't arrogant.  Not any more than guns or religion are.

And another thing.  Science is mostly boring.  You don't get any glamour from scientific journals, so, VERY OFTEN, the science gets reported in exagerated form and/or flat out erroneously.  "If it bleeds, it leads".
A recent average example:  Titan, Saturn's moon, is covered in a certain chemical species.  This species is a very popular one on earth, because of its name and because of its applications. This species, though, is really nothing special, and just one of countless if you look for it in a chemical encyclopedia.
The species is "organics", meaning it has carbon, which lights up people's memory either in the "life" meaning, or in the "petrol" meaning.  Neither of those two are wrong, but the discovery of those compounds on Titan reported as "Organics discovered on Saturn moon!" is almost everytime misleading to the common reader.


Now, if there's something truly amiss with the scientific process, concerning evolutionary theory, then it's the theories that need to be refuted, and the people who are wrong to be corrected.  It's not the freakin scientific process that's at fault.
Science isn't about pleasing people's religious or emotional or entertainment senses.

[RTHolmes]

lazs ever met a 1000yr old dog breeder? because thats about how long you would need to observe adaptation in a dog. evolution into another distinct species would take numerous orders of magnitude longer, so I would say its unlikely dog breeders have directly observed evolution in their animals.

I think its very unfortunate that many people share your wariness of science. I can think of a range of explanations for this, but its a whole new topic really. what you describe is either bad science, or badly represented.


edit: hehe simulpost with same points

[lazs2]

moot.. I agree.. but....

How do you separate the science from the scientists? 

It seems fair that if you can't separate the religious sects from the god that you shouldn't separate the science from it's priests.

what is the fundamental difference in the man who scoffs at science because of the horrible way that scientists and academics are representing and perverting it claiming to know what they don't... what is that difference in that and the way that some religions misrepresent god and claim to know what is not knowable?

There is good work by the religious and there is good work by the scientists but... it is often hard to see because the representitives we see are so bad... all we see is bad science and arrogance on the one hand and bad religion and arrogance on the other.

If science can recognize the big bang theory it can recognize the theory that god created the universe.. it does fit into science.. all other explanations are exhausted.. big bang and god are all that is left.    and big bang is lacking in some essential things like..  you can't bang nothing against nothing and get something.. 

God did it.   It is the only thing that makes sense at this time... teach that it is one of the possibilities.  That it is not measurable at this time and may never be.

lazs

[potsNpans]

Quote from Skyrock:"You wanted me to mention 1000 insects by name?  Let me mention 4 animals that use chemical defense by mixing 2 chemicals. He mentioned the bombadier beetle, which is a great example of chemical defense(it uses 2 tubes to secrete 2 different chemicals, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide).  But the use of chemicals as a defense is not unique at all and appears to have evolved in many different species.  So lets look at another animal which uses 2 chemicals from 2 glands the Aplysia (Aplysia californica) sea slug.  It uses the chemicals hydrogen peroxide and an amonia acid mix.  The opilionid's(daddy long legs) also use a 2 chemical defense, methyl and benzoquinone.  The skunk also uses a 2 chemical defense system with methyl and butyl thiols.  So we have this occuring in insects, mollusks, arthropods, and mammals.  Where are these species found? Bombadier beetle/Africa, the skunk/the Americas(except for 2 species found in indonesia and phillipines, sea slugs/the oceans, and opilionids/the americas.  I see diversity from evolution. the fossil record is far from being finished, but I feel there is enough evidence out to support evolution.  Don't have time right now to debate, but will be back on Sunday night"

Well you've stated the obvious observation of diversity amongst creatures using good design nothing more. Arguing the fact of numbers exactly how again demonstrates evolution? Is it A; because several species use chemical mechanisms. Therefore B; Evolution is true. Or in reality if A; You contain 2 chemicals which react explosively when they come in contact and don't have a proper mechanism to apply them for a useful purpose of survival at a safe distance. Therefore B; Your ability to survive and reproduce is in doubt. So in conclusion the evolutionist continues to hold to the statement this beetle bug just appears with the correct apparatus perfectly fitted in working order after its ancestors collected all that was needed, even though they survived not being able to use or need a disassembled apparatus prior to its current state. Which part of this argument is unbalanced? Is there not doubt inferred upon the evolution theory as the only explanation of origins of life. 
 

Quote from RTHolmes;storch, you seem to be under the impression that the worldwide scientific community is engaged in an ongoing campaign to disprove the existence of god.
i'm not up to date with the literature, so perhaps you can tell me roughly how many papers were submitted for peer review arguing the hypothesis "god does not exist" in the last year?

That is the point. Specifically in the U.S.A. If you attempt to explain a designer of life, you are accused of introducing God into the debate. Which then is extolled as a violation of the separation of church and state principle, (another myth). Not just a few school curriculum has been challenged as unconstitutional for this notion, a simple web search should attest to that. History teaches me however that the federal capitol held Christian worship services and states attribute the blessings of liberty from God. Mostly our rights come from God as enumerated by Americas founding documents.   

[moot]

Lazs,
How to separate the science from the scientists?  The Constitution doesn't belong to Ron Paul. It's easy enough to see that he and the Constitution are two separate things.
Just so, Science the process, and science the data presented by some "scientist", are two separate things.  If the data he produces/presents is not true to the scientific process, then he doesn't fit the "scientist" moniker.

You've got it exactly here:
"what is the fundamental difference in the man who scoffs at science because of the horrible way that scientists and academics are representing and perverting it claiming to know what they don't... what is that difference in that and the way that some religions misrepresent god and claim to know what is not knowable?"
The difference is human error

The problem with

science can recognize the big bang theory it can recognize the theory that god created the universe.. it does fit into science

is that Science doesn't deal in issues of faith. It deals in ideas you can test in practice.  Science can't prove or dis-prove God, Lazs  What it can do is provide a holistic explanations for all things we finite humans can figure out by finite reason from finite perception of infinite reality.  It doesn't rule out that God made all things, but it doesn't prove it either.  It's a learning process restricted to material reality.  This material reality doesn't "need" supernatural elements.. Those elements will be obvious enough to everyone (supposedly) once they die and are brought back to God (depending on which faith we base this on).

In the mean time, the possible explanations aren't exhausted. A few decades ago material reality as we pictured it was limited to a flat earth. Today we're saying the best guess is something like a predictable macro-scale physics and unpredictable micro-scale physics (quantum physics).. Tomorrow, we'll keep progressing, but all along it's really beside the point what religious faith says.  Science and Religion do not conflict nor overlap with each other.  Only some people who mistakenly mix the two would have you believe so:

"God did it.  [...] That it is not measurable at this time and may never be."  Exactly.  But that's not science.  I'm convinced this should be taught, but not in science classes - in philosophy.  It should be taught.

[lazs2]

moot.. I am sorry but I see no difference between the big bang theory and "god did it"  there is no proof of either and.. if anything.. the big bang theory is incomplete and explains nothing while "god did it" is the only explanation... at this time.. that fits.   Nothing else works.   It is only a theory if you like but to some of us.. it is clear.   I admit that it is faith based..  I admit that I will never see it any other way.  that at the root of it all is gods hand.

nothing else works.

lazs

[moot]

Fair enough.... Give it a bit more time and it will be refined, just as round earth "theory" was refined from the raw data of some greek egghead using geometry to recognize the curvature of the Earth from experimentation and geometry of his experiments using a very high tower.
Again, (sorry for repeating it) science doesn't apply to the supernatural.

Don't be sorry   The truth always rises up through the muck.  Just give it some time.

[Donzo]

Species are a man made category.  How can you argue against something that you don't even understand?  Is that an agenda in your pants?

Explain to me what I don't understand, moot.

Are species not part of the evolution terminology?

[lazs2]

moot.. each and every one of us will know the truth soon enough.   no one gets out alive.

I don't think science will ever explain the creation of the universe because it is outside the bounds of science.

lazs

[Toad]

Maybe or maybe not Laz.

If you die and there's nothing, you or your spirt/soul/essence/whatever will probably not have time to realize or assimilate that there's nothing.  Not a bad thing but you won't "know".

If you die and there's something and the essence of you persists, you may know there is something. But if the individual awareness is melded into some common energy the "you" in you may not realize that either.

So, we may find out...or not. 

[Mini D]

The truly odd thing is you think the muck is religion. Even with the "earth is flat" theory... do you think that was purely religion based? You don't think there were any scientists at the time that believed it, taught it and argued with anyone that didn't believe it? Hell... do you think the church came up with the idea that things likelyness to float was based on their shape or do you think a group convinced the church this was the way it was? What do you think that group would do when shown to be wrong? Just admit it and move on?

The problem with evolution is it's being touted as science. It is not. It is religion. The amount of data needed to even remotely support theories with 1 in a trillion chances is staggering. "It could happen" is not science. Evolution is "the earth is flat" belief of the 20th century. Just look at how persecuted those are that don't believe it.