Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[SkyRock]

I'm sorry, moot. Who's the evolutionist being burned at the stake these days? Or, are you saying that no christain has ever been tourtured, crucified or persecuted at any time in history? I'd be very curious to see what kind of "evidence" you come up with to support that lie.

You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure. This is a load of crap. Any group will ban together to restrict/resist/persecute another group. Religion is not needed. It's the irony of what is being called science today. It is the irony of "science" such as global warming that insisted there was no argument against it then changed their fight to "climate change" because, erm, they were wrong about the whole GW thing. These are all religions with the same social ramifications.

 

[storch]

For those scoring at home, let's summarize Storch's method of objective analysis.

1. storch is seldom wrong
2. storch is usually correct

3. storch is damned handsome man

Yep, hard to see any flaws with that approach.


He's Jewish, what do you expect?

well the correct answer would have been yes storch, but moses invests.  you silly scirelgionists.  oh and don't mention it.

[SkyRock]

well the correct answer would have been yes storch, but moses invests.  you silly scirelgionists.  oh and don't mention it.

Storch, I respect your passion for your faith, but I now put you in the lazs category.

[moot]

I'm sorry, moot. Who's the evolutionist being burned at the stake these days? Or, are you saying that no christain has ever been tourtured, crucified or persecuted at any time in history? I'd be very curious to see what kind of "evidence" you come up with to support that lie.

You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure. This is a load of crap. Any group will ban together to restrict/resist/persecute another group. Religion is not needed. It's the irony of what is being called science today. It is the irony of "science" such as global warming that insisted there was no argument against it then changed their fight to "climate change" because, erm, they were wrong about the whole GW thing. These are all religions with the same social ramifications.

What lie?
How is the abstract idea of science anything but pure?   
How is an idea based on the exact antithesis of religion, religion?

[moot]

there is no evidence to prove the big bang actually occured.  the scientific community has to rely solely on speculation and interpretation on this one.  as far as evolution is concerned the scientific community has even further mocked science with outright fraud in many instances.

I have yet to take the time to chase myelo's examples but I speculate (the same thing you brainy scireligious types do)  that it will be stuff akin to miller-urey, the homology of vertebrate limbs, haeckle's embryos, darwin's finches, the four winged fruit flies thing, the peppered moths and lastly but certainly not least archaeopteryx.

in short I am firmly convinced by my completely objective way of analyzing stuff that your examples are all probably hog wash, hooey, baloney, bullshirt and that you faithful of the scireligion cult have been bamboozled by their high priests.

personal interest and objectivity compells me to read whatever I get my hands on concerning this topic but since I'm not adherent and therefore susceptible to the wiles of either side of this argument I remain a believer with an open mind.

and before I forget, Jesus saves.

There's nothing objective about a leap of faith as anything more than a personal belief, e.g. as basis for science.
"No evidence for big bang".. There was no evidence for the earth being spherical either.  Why don't you take your superstitious arguments to e.g. Stephen Hawking...

[Mini D]

No idea is pure.

[Holden McGroin]

I don't think you can believe until you hear the knock and answer. Cause and effect are logical. Can you even have logic without cause and effect? Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?

My last post on this, as arguing religion is fruitless as argument is based on logic and religion is based on faith.

By definition, logic is faithless and faith is illogical. It is illogical to come up with something that requires a leap of faith, and a leap of faith defies logic.

You ask, “Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?” Quantum says that things sometimes just happen, so modern physics says that sometimes things are created from nothing.

You ask if it is illogical:  It is not illogical to believe the universe was created, as it exists.  But that is as far as you can logically go.  We cannot logically say something created it if we have no evidence that the whatever is was that did the creating exists.    Quantum says it could be that the creation just happened.

If you say God created it, then you must answer the question of who or what created God as in order for Him to exist, He must have been created, just as it is for the Universe.

[moot]

The only pure thing in existence are ideas.  <-- see what I did there?
Show how ideas are anything but pure, MiniD.

FWIW Holden put my point of view pretty much word for word as I understand things.

[Mini D]

Myelo, evolution is not supported by evidence in science. At least, not as it is being defined. I particularly like the link about previously unobservered genetic traits and how a new observed genetic trait is showing up. That's not science. There is not enough data to suggest that a trait has never existed before. There is no real refference to zero it. Hell, the technology to look at it has only been around for a microsliver of time.

Evolutionists have a tendancy to latch on to any result that can support a THEORY. They do not look at all results and then form a theory. The amount of data presented to originally support evolution was miniscule. The theory gained wider acceptance as people became disillusioned with religion yet still felt the need to explain the origin of life, the universe and everything. Science didn't really become the "weapon" of evolutionists for quite a while.

Now... "science" is the axe swung at every instant. I remember seeing a show on the missing link between reptiles and birds. I was interested in seeing the fossile that was presented (someone else mentioned this earlier). I looked at the photos of the fossile being evaluated and noticed the words "could be", "might be" and "suggests" used predominantly. This was evidence. It has since been shown to be wrong, but as long as results were "inconclusive", it was "evidence". What was funny was looking at the photos and wondering how the hell he was getting from point a to point b in his logic given the minimal data set he had (there were no clear markings indicating feathers or scales, just some subtle lines with no detail). Yet this was evidence.

It all reminds me of modern day misteries, where the hero takes a very minute set of data and makes a completely accurate assumption based on it. This does not happen in science. As data fills in, discoveries are made, but just exactly what is being discovered is not obvious until a butt-ton of data comes in. Evolution seems to be exempt from these basic rules of science. Hell... it's already a fact and we still do not have squat in the way of supporting data.

[Mini D]

The only pure thing in existence are ideas.  <-- see what I did there?
Show how ideas are anything but pure, MiniD.

There is no lack of irony to the things you want proof of and the things you're willing to accept on faith. I mean... I know you haven't reviewed all the data on Evolution and formed your own oppinions. You're nothing but a script bot on "these are the things that you say when someone questions evolution." Myelo kicks right in there too. It's so ingrained it's amazing. You cannot recite in matched rythm and call yourself  free thinkers.

I'm not going to argue with you on "pure ideas". The very notion is hillarious. The only possibilty for a pure idea would be someone who only ever had one idea prior to hearing, learning or seeing anything else and then died. I honestly don't think you know what the word "pure" means. That, too, is a bit ironic given your instistance scientific method.

[moot]

Alright, so you can't come up with a reason that ideas aren't the only pure thing..  Nevermind the high & mighty condescendence to some guy half your age that asks for nothing more than to learn from someone who apparently knows more than him.. How arrogant is that?

My basis for ideas' purity is in the Platonic sense.. There's nothing more pure than ideas.  Maybe it's your definition of pure that's crooked.  Why don't you give just one example of an idea not being pure?
So the context to this hair-splitting doesn't get lost:

You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure.

Italics is your erroneous assumption, bold is your explicit assertion which I think is bunk. 

I don't have anything against religion.  I was baptized myself and went from christian to atheist to agnostic.  My problem is with people who pretend to follow an ideal but don't, and so create a whole lot of misinformation by misleading people as in the case of Global Warming, or Flat Earth, or that God is a factual, unquestionable fact (nevermind when that idea of God is anthropomorphized). Blaming science for some crooked "scientists" is like blaming political philosophy or the Constitution for what rotten politicians have done "in their name".
The only faith I take for granted is that I'm not some brain in a jar in the solipsist sense.  Everything downstream of that is sanctioned (can't think of a better word in english) by logic.

I think I see what you think of by "pure".

[AKIron]

My last post on this, as arguing religion is fruitless as argument is based on logic and religion is based on faith.

By definition, logic is faithless and faith is illogical. It is illogical to come up with something that requires a leap of faith, and a leap of faith defies logic.

You ask, “Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?” Quantum says that things sometimes just happen, so modern physics says that sometimes things are created from nothing.

You ask if it is illogical:  It is not illogical to believe the universe was created, as it exists.  But that is as far as you can logically go.  We cannot logically say something created it if we have no evidence that the whatever is was that did the creating exists.    Quantum says it could be that the creation just happened.

If you say God created it, then you must answer the question of who or what created God as in order for Him to exist, He must have been created, just as it is for the Universe.

Well, guess I get the last word then.

If the universe, by which I mean time and space, was created then it stands to reason that there was a creator. Whether this creator is a benevolent all knowing "God" or the pressure of quantum probability (whatever that might be), it needn't have come to be in the same manner existent in it's creation. I would argue that the creator of time cannot be constrained by it's creation.     

[moot]

Iron, the problem is that time and space as empirical facts, could be subordinate to some bigger empirical framework.. God as a rational cause of what we can detect and tinker with till we understand is forever receding, in any such setting - where some something supernatural is given as explanation to something natural.

[SkyRock]

Can one of the religious guys please answer my question?  What was created first, the sea slug or the bombadier beetle? 

[myelo]

Myelo, evolution is not supported by evidence in science.

That the genetic characteristics of a population change over time is a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The only persons who deny this are either so poorly informed as to not understand the evidence or so biased by religious dogma as to deny the evidence.

Regarding the former, since you apparently can comprehend written English and have internet access, there’s really no reason you can’t learn the basics enough to at least understand the topic if you really wanted to.  A good start would be:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Regarding the latter, it’s true evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but so does the fact that the earth is not flat. But evolution doesn’t contradict the existence of God in general, because common descent could describe the process used by God. Many people believe both in the existence of God and in evolution, including a lot of biologists and the Pope.