Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[moot]

I'm beginning to wonder if myelo is a priest and you a deacon.   

I see data, you see intent.

RTHolmes, I just think he enflamed things more than was needed with the atheist call to arms.

[potsNpans]

Quote from: potsNpans on Yesterday at 01:28:50 AM
Irreversible complexity is a sound scientific theory that can answer questions logically stronger than evolution can. For instance consider the fact that there are no transitional fossil evidence, if there was the theory of evolution would be called something else. Just think how many failed mutated fossil species that should be around along with subsequent successful mutated fossil evidence. Any one ever hear of the bombardier beetle, though not. Within this creature are organs that contain chemicals that when combined produce an explosive reaction. It uses this as a defense by expelling them at such a precise manner that no harm is done to itself. If any of its mechanism did not function perfectly it would destroy itself and its prodigy. There have been attempts to explain this by evolutionary mutations but this creature raises so many questions and counter arguments to provoke Inquiry. Steins movie demonstrates the true institutional cult of evolution stifling honest investigation. Of course it considers a creator, so does our countries founding documents which would be listed under political science.

God made everything for its contemplated end, and also the wicked for the day of evil (proverbs16:4)

Quote fromSkyRock: "God may be the creator, but animals evolved on this planet!  You failed to mention the other 1000's of insect species that use chemical defense."

You should have stopped with just God the creator or whatever higher power you've imagined. Animals evolved, of course. Micro evolution as certain traits within a species either amplify or wane within the DNA threshold. Macro evolution which is the transitory leap to a higher functioning specie which has not been evidenced to date. If your honestly trying to prove a point, failure to mention 1000's of particular insect traits does not demonstrate support of your position, only your false argument.
In regard to  resistant bacteria,seems they are developing within a threshold of DNA tolerance, or maybe they will observably change into hydra and then eat those pesky resistant bacteria. Thereby proving evolution and saving lives

[Torque]

science is peeling the non-fiction wrapper off of the bible... so they have to come up with a new contemporary twist like ID...yet still they get torn down on every point it seems.

funny tho.... if they broke a bone or got cancer the first people they all run to are those egotistical scientists and their evil medical procedures.

[Holden McGroin]

by the same token myelo, science has been busily trying to prove the theory for the last one hundred and fourty nine years and is equally stalled.  

True science does not try to prove evolution.  True science just attempts to explain observable phenomenon.

If evolution were not a strong explanation of observable phenomenon, it would have been discarded long ago.

[storch]

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.

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.

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.

[Lumpy]

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.

Of course. It is impossible to prove a negative. You try: Disprove that evolution exists.

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.

A "complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly" is a far more complex structure than the first lifeforms that were formed in the Archean period 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Simple electrochemical processes creating organic macromolecules.

[storch]

Of course. It is impossible to prove a negative. You try: Disprove that evolution exists.



A "complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly" is a far more complex structure than the first lifeforms that were formed in the Archean period 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Simple electrochemical processes creating organic macromolecules.

but far less complex than our universe including all possible life forms on how many yet to be discovered systems.  think things through son, don't just accept what you read or hear at face value.  you religionists are so bound by dogma it's frightening.

[Lumpy]

The universe is made up of extremely simple things. There are just so many extremely simple things that it becomes incredibly complex for our feeble minds to comprehend.

[Yknurd]

I'm beginning to wonder if myelo is a priest and you a deacon.   

Don't go into the lab with him, he just wants to touch your genes in the name of science.

[SkyRock]

You should have stopped with just God the creator or whatever higher power you've imagined. Animals evolved, of course. Micro evolution as certain traits within a species either amplify or wane within the DNA threshold. Macro evolution which is the transitory leap to a higher functioning specie which has not been evidenced to date. If your honestly trying to prove a point, failure to mention 1000's of particular insect traits does not demonstrate support of your position, only your false argument.
In regard to  resistant bacteria,seems they are developing within a threshold of DNA tolerance, or maybe they will observably change into hydra and then eat those pesky resistant bacteria. Thereby proving evolution and saving lives

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

[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?

[lambo31]

True science does not try to prove evolution.  True science just attempts to explain observable phenomenon.

If evolution were not a strong explanation of observable phenomenon, it would have been discarded long ago.

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

[Donzo]

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

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?

[lambo31]

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

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

[RTHolmes]

the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

implicit philosophical bias lol. no, just basic application of the scientific method:

hypothesis: adam and eve were created about 6500 years ago, all of humanity is descended from them.
test: is there any evidence for humans before 6500 years ago?
evidence: yup, lots and lots
result: hypothesis rejected

next...