Author Topic: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists  (Read 18815 times)

Offline Donzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
      • http://www.bops.us
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #210 on: April 23, 2008, 04:02:59 PM »
Evolution is a strong theory. Perhaps the strongest of all scientific theories. It is supported by an insurmountable amount of evidence  - an IDer saying "there's no fossil/DNA evidence" does not negate the fact that there is so much evidence only complete ignorance excuses such statements - and the lifestyles you all lead today is a direct result of it being this way. The antibiotics you take when you are ill, the flu vaccine you take so you don't get ill, the dog you walk, the food you eat, the lawn you mow, the fertilizer you use to kill the weeds in the lawn you mow, are all evidence that our understanding of the way life works, adapts and evolves is accurate and no "magic happens" explanation is needed.


What is all of this insurmountable evidence you speak of?  Can you give general examples?

You say the theory of evolution is a strong theory....why?  Does it not predict that the missing fossils should be there?

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #211 on: April 23, 2008, 04:10:23 PM »
It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),
that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!"

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here,
so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,
this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!"

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he,
the elephant is very like a snake!"

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!"

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,
"I see," quothe he, "the elephant is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!

John Godfrey Saxe (1816 - 1887)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #212 on: April 23, 2008, 04:32:45 PM »
Of course, when time ceases. Do I know how long it will be 'til that occurs? Certainly not, nor do I know how long since time began. I do believe that time and space as we understand it is not all that there is.

While all answers are replies, unfortunately not all replies are answers. You basically say "it ends when it ends", which is circular and doesn't really say anything. The fact of the matter is that we don't know if or when the universe ends; if there was anything before the big bang; if there is a god entity; exactly how life started; et cetera ad infinitum.

We simply don't know. And likely never will.

However, I refuse to let ancient superstitions designed to comfort and control primitive people play on my ignorance and dictate how I should live my life.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 04:39:06 PM by Lumpy »
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline SkyRock

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7758
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #213 on: April 23, 2008, 04:46:02 PM »
skyrock.. when you "get the picture" from incomplete data.. you are not being "smart" you are taking a shot in the dark.. you often end up with a picture that says man will warm the globe enough to have a rise in the sea of 30' by 2020 or that all petroleum came from fred flintstones pets.
It is not a "shot in the dark" if the picture is clearly viewable.  We can see evolution happening, we can actually do it ourselves.  As far as global warming and petroleum is concerned, I put less weight in the fringe theories that have risen from scientist' egos.  Gold was an egotist that wanted recognition before truth.


Those who believe in a creator should be able to say that just because we believe in god is no reason to say that evolution can't exist to a great extent.

lazs
I agree with this statement, and as I have stated before, no matter how life got started on this planet, there is much room for God in the universe! :aok

Triton28 - "...his stats suggest he has a healthy combination of suck and sissy!"

Offline SkyRock

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7758
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #214 on: April 23, 2008, 04:50:19 PM »
What is all of this insurmountable evidence you speak of?  Can you give general examples?

You say the theory of evolution is a strong theory....why?  Does it not predict that the missing fossils should be there?
If you're trying to prove it isn't the truth, a missing fossil here or there is a big deal I guess.  Try looking at the big picture.  Also it might help to have a greater understanding of what special circumstances are needed for a fossil to survive 2 billion years. :aok

Triton28 - "...his stats suggest he has a healthy combination of suck and sissy!"

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #215 on: April 23, 2008, 05:18:38 PM »

However, I refuse to let ancient superstitions designed to comfort and control primitive people play on my ignorance and dictate how I should live my life.

I wouldn't have it any other way, free will, free country and all. No man should have to answer to any other man for his beliefs/faith.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Torque

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #216 on: April 23, 2008, 05:19:07 PM »
it's quite simple... either you believe in all of the gods or you believe in none of them.

those that pick and choose only one god and dismiss the other gods are just dishonest atheists.... something like slave owners declaring all men are created equal.

the snooty religious zealots have always been a ball and chain to the progress of mankind tho.





Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #217 on: April 23, 2008, 05:23:17 PM »
I wouldn't have it any other way, free will, free country and all. No man should have to answer to any other man for his beliefs/faith.

I completely agree. (Been a while since I last could say that to you.)
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #218 on: April 23, 2008, 05:34:28 PM »

the snooty religious zealots have always been a ball and chain to the progress of mankind tho.


Progress huh? Guess you need a goal to determine progress. Your goal for mankind may not be the same as mine. Care to share what your goal for mankind is?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline SkyRock

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7758
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #219 on: April 23, 2008, 06:20:32 PM »
Progress huh? Guess you need a goal to determine progress. Your goal for mankind may not be the same as mine. Care to share what your goal for mankind is?
I hate to want to pull away from topic, but this would be interesting to hear.

Triton28 - "...his stats suggest he has a healthy combination of suck and sissy!"

Offline Samiam

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #220 on: April 23, 2008, 06:29:09 PM »
What is all of this insurmountable evidence you speak of?  Can you give general examples?

You say the theory of evolution is a strong theory....why?  Does it not predict that the missing fossils should be there?

It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.

Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm.

The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.

This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both  interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.

Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method  - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.

Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.

Offline lambo31

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #221 on: April 23, 2008, 06:48:47 PM »
It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.

Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm.

The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.

This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both  interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.

Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method  - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.

Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.


I was going to respond but have run out of time. I'll try to later.

Lambo
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 06:55:47 PM by lambo31 »
Ingame ID: Lambo

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #222 on: April 23, 2008, 08:44:39 PM »
Progress huh? Guess you need a goal to determine progress. Your goal for mankind may not be the same as mine. Care to share what your goal for mankind is?

"If God meant man to fly, he'd have given us wings."

That we can fly is progress against a closed minded religious based argument.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #223 on: April 23, 2008, 08:55:44 PM »
"If God meant man to fly, he'd have given us wings."

That we can fly is progress against a closed minded religious based argument.

I like flying but an argument might be made that flying hasn't necessarily improved life for mankind or increased our chances for survival. How many have been killed because of flying bombers? How many might be killed in another world war?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Donzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
      • http://www.bops.us
Re: Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists
« Reply #224 on: April 23, 2008, 09:02:05 PM »
If you're trying to prove it isn't the truth, a missing fossil here or there is a big deal I guess.  Try looking at the big picture.  Also it might help to have a greater understanding of what special circumstances are needed for a fossil to survive 2 billion years. :aok

Fossils of soft-celled organisms from before, during, and after the Cambrian period survived yet fossils of predecessors to animals that show up in the Cambrian period do not survive?