Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[myelo]

myelo, thanks for citing these examples.  regarding dobzhansky's fruit fly experiments, I believe I can respond because I have read up on these experiments.  the impression that I come away with is that this series of experiments are simply an example of a laboratory induced physiological change in a specimen, even though they did involve genetic changes we must consider that the changes did not occur naturally.  it proves that man deliberately created the changes and in my view sort of proves the ID point of view.

In a nutshell, what they did was start with just one species of fly. Then to simulate what happens in the wild when groups of a species become separated by geography and can no longer breed with each other, they controlled which flies mated. They ended up with two types of fruitfly that couldn't interbreed, which is the one definition of a new species.

Although they used artificial selection instead of natural selection, the principles are exactly the same. Up to that point, some had argued that artificial selection could create changes within a species -- for example, chihuahuas and great danes are still the same species -- but could not not create a new species. 

[lazs2]

so you guys are saying that it is not only possible but...  a law of evolution that races of man would evolve differently and have different characteristics both physical and mental.. that those left behind would be different than those who left...  like the monkeys and such?

I believe in god.. I believe he created everything.   It is sorta like a big bang theory I suppose.   I have no proof either.   I believe a creator made us all and that he knew exactly how we would turn out.   I have seen monkeys and I have seen men.. I have seen old bones for both.. I have not seen the bones of the monkey men who would have had to have existed for a long time if evolution was absolutely correct.

I will also repeat that any science that will not recognize the possibility of the supernatural is no science at all.   What do you say to a person who has seen ghosts for instance?   I don't know if they have or not.  I have not..and.. I sure as hell don't believe someone who has not who says that his science says they do not exist.

I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and..  be completely wrong..  change their minds 180 degrees.   I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.

lazs

[midnight Target]

I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and..  be completely wrong..  change their minds 180 degrees.   I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.

lazs

Now lazs has made the greatest arguement possible to ensure that religion is never allowed in the science classroom. Assuming scientists have changed their views 180 degrees in lazs lifetime... the important point is that they changed their minds 180 degrees! Can you name a religion that has disavowed a dogma completely based on physical evidence?

[Hap]

When measuring the age of fossils, those who measure assume that the means they use to measure has remained constant.

The best objection is "what exists to suggest that is not so?"  I don't know the answer to that question.

I also know that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence. 

I'm not knowed-up on this.  What little I've heard 1st hand came from a geology professor stating a record of evolving species exists and a record of man exists.  The link between the two -- for those who say man evolved from lower species -- does not exist.

Has that changed since my 1993 - '94 stint in geology?

Mysteries exist.  And I say will always continue to exist.  Can't prove that last one at all.

I made the flip comment 7 pages ago that 2+ have seen the movie.  Anyone with more time on their hand than I care to tally those who say they have?

Hasn't made its way to Wyoming yet.

[Hap]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/enterflash.php

Lazs, just caught the 1st few seconds of the trailer.  But I immediately, for good or ill, thought of you.

[lazs2]

mt.. I do not subscribe to any organized religion.   I am not a part of their dogma.. just as I do not subscribe to the dogma of scientists who are "90% sure" of whatever their agenda is this week.

I have heard them talk of creation plenty.. like how oil was created.. why would they be right about the monkey men?

lazs

[Chairboy]

Science is made of questions that must be questioned.  Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered, and religion are answers that cannot be questioned.

The three are mutually incompatible and deserve their own discussions.  Trying to mix them together serves only to weaken each. 

[SirLoin]

so you guys are saying that it is not only possible but...  a law of evolution that races of man would evolve differently and have different characteristics both physical and mental.. that those left behind would be different than those who left...  like the monkeys and such?

I believe in god.. I believe he created everything.   It is sorta like a big bang theory I suppose.   I have no proof either.   I believe a creator made us all and that he knew exactly how we would turn out.   I have seen monkeys and I have seen men.. I have seen old bones for both.. I have not seen the bones of the monkey men who would have had to have existed for a long time if evolution was absolutely correct.

I will also repeat that any science that will not recognize the possibility of the supernatural is no science at all.   What do you say to a person who has seen ghosts for instance?   I don't know if they have or not.  I have not..and.. I sure as hell don't believe someone who has not who says that his science says they do not exist.

I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and..  be completely wrong..  change their minds 180 degrees.   I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.

lazs

Lazs,you sound like Gov Huckabee in stating you don't believe we evolved from monkeys.The theory of evolution does not demand that..We evolved from other primates(Neandrathals etc.)..If we decended from monkeys,we'd all look a bit like Gov Huckabee.

Then you say you believe in God but there is no proof to back this up..That is the definition of faith.Are you a Deist or a Theist?Do you beleive in a creator that made us(and that was the end of it) or a creator who intervenes in human affairs,watches over us 24/7,listens & answers prayers etc..?

You say science will not recognize a "creator"..I disagree.It says that there is not one shred of evidence to form a theory like ID..You can scour the Earth all you want for Moses's burning bush(or Noah's Ark) .The rest of us will dig the Earth for fossils & look upwards with the Hubble telescope.

As for scientists changing their minds,that is the beauty of science.It is ever changing..the evidence is pouring in and we look for patterns(DNA,astronomy etc) because we are "pattern seeking mammals"..a good human trait.We also have an inate sence of superstition..that we prefer a conspiracy(or junk) theory to no theory at all..a bad human trait.

Explainations that explain everything explain nothing(religion)..Science forms theories based on the newest evidence.Evolution is a theory.When tested it always works.When there is a new fossil discovery,it never points to the direction of an almighty creator.

If you want to prove the existance of God,you have all your work still ahead of you.

[Hazzer]

 We must except that their are people on these boards still going through the evolutionary process.You know who you are.

As an intolerant liberal,I suspect this film is tendentious pap,but since i have not seen it yet I'll reserve judgment..now where's that Bannana.

[AKIron]

If you want to prove the existance of God,you have all your work still ahead of you.

Or, just wait and see. You and I could know the answer this very day. I bet you think it won't be you but no one has any guarantees of tomorrow.

[iWalrus]

Laz - I believed that purple, celestial goats crapped out the universe after eating some bad grass. These goats are the creators. You can not prove this did not happen, so I would like this theory taught in our classrooms.

[moot]

I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and..  be completely wrong..  change their minds 180 degrees.   I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.

Lazs, that is scientific method you used.  There's science the process, and science the data that (e.g.) satellites out in space produce.

Science isn't concerned with what it can't prove.  If you see a 'scientist' claiming anything about the supernatural, he isn't doing science.  Science isn't some mystical force, it's a process.  It's a discipline that's only applied as well as the person who intends to follow it.

Science and religion have no overlap. They don't operate in the same jurisdiction, not even the same legal system or the same planet nor dimensions.  There can be no conflict between the two.


As far as evolution is concerned.. Evolution is a very extensive theory, with lots of competing variants to explain it (as any studied but as yet unexplained (completely) phenomena studied scientificaly usualy is), and TBH I never really gave it much attention because it was just boring.  But the link I posted earlier, on the skeptic.com website, has some general pointers on refutals of ID and/or creationism.  They're very extensive and I welcome any comprehensive refutals of them from any of the ID/Creationism posters here on the forum... If you really believe Darwinist/Evolutionary scientists are unduely discrediting your "science", you should easily be able to debunk those refutals I linked to.
My opinion of those two things is that they're not propoer science.  Sabre recommended two books which I haven't gotten the chance to read yet, but as far as I can tell, all the ID/Creationism researchers I've seen are people out to plant religious flags in scientific territory. They claim they've got evidence of some godly footprints, but regardless of where their theories go from there, it just reeks of Deus Ex Machina bias.

When you seek to solve a problem, you don't go into it pre-emptively choosing which evidence to ignore and which to favor.. What you're looking for is the answer to your query.  If some possible explanation for the problem seems likely, you try and see if it's right or not, either playing it out in your mind ('mental experiment') or trying it out in practice.  You don't tell yourself, "I know god's mind and can see thru his 'impenetrable ways' and recognize his footprint', deducing from that what the solution to the problem is.  That's the scientific flaw with ID/Creationism.
There is no scientific value in supernatural explanations (tentative as they might be) because they can't be TESTED.

[Lumpy]

Believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But when you examine the very foundation of Christian thinking, for example Proverbs 35-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." you come to realise that "faith" is just another synonym of "irrationality"; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence; not governed by or according to reason. Thus trying to appeal to a person's reason when that person's very core being is unreasonable is an exercise in futility.

[SirLoin]

Or, just wait and see. You and I could know the answer this very day. I bet you think it won't be you but no one has any guarantees of tomorrow.

Hi Iron..No i don't expect to die today,but if i did, i would want the Earth to close over me and that be the end of it.(like in the Old Testament & the Jewish Bible)

But no...With the New Testament and the advent of gentle Jesus meek & mild..we get the notion of Hell (eternal fire).The most horrible concept in ALL of scripture..Punishment of the dead.Telling mothers for centuries that because their baby died before being Baptized,their dead baby is to spend eternity in everlasting fire.Telling me that i am in debt to Jesus for other people's sins from before i was born.I never asked for that loan ty.

I would rather live in North Korea than a Christian theocratic state.NK is the most totalitarian state in the world.The current leader is the head of the army and party(& reincarnation of his father).The president(his father) has been dead for 17 years..Yes,NK has a sitting dead president.The whole country is set up for his 24/7 worship..You can be executed for thought crime at any moment etc...But at least with North Korea,you can die and escape from it.Once you are dead the leader is done with you.

Not so with Christianity.

Btw,the NK state was founded the same year George Orwell published "1984"..It's almost as if someone handed him a copy and asked "do you think you could make this fly?"

[moot]

Believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But when you examine the very foundation of Christian thinking, for example Proverbs 35-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." you come to realise that "faith" is just another synonym of "irrationality"; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence; not governed by or according to reason. Thus trying to appeal to a person's reason when that person's very core being is unreasonable is an exercise in futility.

And so you have to wonder.. What do people like Stein hope to accomplish by appealing to people's reason on matters of faith?