http://www.movieweb.com/video/V08B0269dnpvzR
New movie from Ben Stein.
Basically, the movie isn't about who is right and who is wrong. ID or Darwin.

It's focusing on people who aren't allowed to pursue their ideas or even talk about them.
It's part of Dawkins agenda I have talked about in the past.

I've visited some websites where people have left some responses and I have seen several like the one below.


Where to begin? every word of every sentence by creationists are so soaked in complete ignorance and misinformation it is difficult to come to terms with.. there is no "scientific status quo" For the billionth time: Science is a METHOD, not a creed.

Ben Stein: ..random chance and chemical processes..

"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"

Get it? now repeat that 4,7 billion times, and lets see how it evolves to

"I'm a stupid fucking hack creationist, and I'll never, ever get it."

This guy is an asshat.
It seems more about revenge of some kind then it does about science.
Sad. Especailly coming from people who claim to only want peace threw understanding.

Well, Inviolable, you have to admit that there's hate coming from both sides. And it's silly, because if you ask me this is one issue with an easy compromise. God COULD have created the earth and planned for evolution. Evolution theory does not deny the possibility of a divine creator at all. Evangelicals who take the Bible as the literal word of God obviously don't see a compromise, but I think most Christians (including you, Inviolable :))are a little more reasonable than that. The Bible was written by men. It is not infallible.

http://www.movieweb.com/video/V08B0269dnpvzR
New movie from Ben Stein.
Basically, the movie isn't about who is right and who is wrong. ID or Darwin.

It's focusing on people who aren't allowed to pursue their ideas or even talk about them.
It's part of Dawkins agenda I have talked about in the past.

I've visited some websites where people have left some responses and I have seen several like the one below.


This guy is an asshat.
It seems more about revenge of some kind then it does about science.
Sad. Especailly coming from people who claim to only want peace threw understanding.
Have you read about Ben Stein? He equates the theory of evolution—or "Darwinism" as he calls it—to genocide. Genocide. I don't blame some random guy for being pissed at him.

Well, Inviolable, you have to admit that there's hate coming from both sides. And it's silly, because if you ask me this is one issue with an easy compromise. God COULD have created the earth and planned for evolution. Evolution theory does not deny the possibility of a divine creator at all. Evangelicals who take the Bible as the literal word of God obviously don't see a compromise, but I think most Christians (including you, Inviolable :))are a little more reasonable than that. The Bible was written by men. It is not infallible.
I can see where both sides are upset, sure. Only problem is one side is destroying peoples lives over the issue and the other isn't.

You have people who have devoted their entire lives to science and evolution.
They're just allowing for ID to have happened. The simply mention of ID is enough to destroy someones career.
It just seems as if science is afraid of it.
You do have people who allow for evolution having their lives swept away because Dawkinism is taking over.

This guy is an asshat.


He is also correct.

I also think DF was spot on.

Have you read about Ben Stein? He equates the theory of evolution—or "Darwinism" as he calls it—to genocide. Genocide. I don't blame some random guy for being pissed at him.
I have, he isn't a scientist. In the least. I know that he talks about natural selection as if Hitler took it to heart.
The man knows nothing about the theory of evolution.
Thats not what I'm interested in.

He does however have dozens of scientist, who have devoted their lives to the subject, coming forward and telling him why they have lost their livelihood.
It's all because they allowed for ID.

I used to have so much respect for Ben Stein.

But I guess even the smartest of people can turn into the most addled of loons. Thomas Edison in his later years turned into an incorrigible nutjob.

I would like to meet some of these scientists who've lost their livelihoods. It's the only way to tell whether they really lost their jobs because of bigotry, or because of stupidity.

If something like that happens to you, why just go to Ben Stein, someone you know will be sympathetic to your claim whether he knows it happened the way you claimed it happened or not? Call the newspapers! Call CNN! Call Fox News!

If something like that happens to you, why just go to Ben Stein, someone you know will be sympathetic to your claim whether he knows it happened the way you claimed it happened or not? Call the newspapers! Call CNN! Call Fox News!
I guess they were reaching out to whoever approached them. Ben Stein did say the media was in on it. Matter of fact he made a list of who is against ID and made the announcement that he was warned several times to not pursue the subject.

He even asked Dawkins about it.

Of course Ben Stein will say the media is in on it. Everyone with a conspiracy theory says the media is in on it. I think Ben Stein is likely taking innocuous statements out of context.

And there's sure to be somebody who will take you seriously. These are private news agencies we're talking about. They're not required to listen to you. They pick what news prints, not you.

Have you read about Ben Stein? He equates the theory of evolution—or "Darwinism" as he calls it—to genocide. Genocide. I don't blame some random guy for being pissed at him.

Ben Stein is a true Genius.Had a great TV Game show.
It got fellow catholic Jimmy Kimmel started.
But Stein,no matter how Intellectual, is a Repubbie and therefore
shown only scorn,by many.
Just goes to prove how much certain Hollywood types really
put their demand on Smarts to the test.
If Republican,no mater how genius,one need NOT apply.
Nice lesson in Liberality.
As far as Steins New Movie,it is Proof Positive that the mere mention
Of God Literally throws even the most harried,Einsteins of the World
at a loss.TOTALLY.

-- God does not play dice -- !

I used to have so much respect for Ben Stein.

But I guess even the smartest of people can turn into the most addled of loons. Thomas Edison in his later years turned into an incorrigible nutjob.

I would like to meet some of these scientists who've lost their livelihoods. It's the only way to tell whether they really lost their jobs because of bigotry, or because of stupidity.

Because the very thought of bein a Good Little Atheist,just
tickles yer Pink cotton Candy slippers,slightly upward like a
Keeber elf.

Nappy wears "pink cotton candy slippers"? Sexy. :D

I've got one of Stein's books. I read it with great interest. The man does know how to make it. But it seems, he also knows how to chase at windmills.

I've got one of Stein's books. I read it with great interest. The man does know how to make it. But it seems, he also knows how to chase at windmills.

I remember reading a piece that Stein wrote in a Readers Digest
about Winners and Politeness.
He categorically proved how True winners are seldom late for
engagements like Dinner Parties,whereas those who always
seem to be late commers,are also the ones,with much less to do
in their life,yer still manage to be late.
And those same consistently late commers,are always the ones
who tend to be rude and might complain about the meal,in some fashion.
The true winner,seldom if ever Complains about their meal,and go about
happily consuming,whether or not they like it.It's a matter of
Politeness.One doesn't go to anothers Home to complain.
Just like a Winner,doesn't create a disturbance at that Party by
loutishly stating his views in a loud fashion.
The ones who always tend to be late,and complain of the meal,are also
the ones who are rude and overbearing in conversation.

The ones who always tend to be late,and complain of the meal,are also
the ones who are rude and overbearing in conversation.Then stop complaining and be prompt next time.

I've got one of Stein's books. I read it with great interest. The man does know how to make it. But it seems, he also knows how to chase at windmills.
Tilt. Tilt at windmills.

Attacking evolution? How could you do it? Evolution is the most successful scientific theory this side of the Standard model. No other theory has explained our world as elegantly and effectively as evolution. Biology was a mere scattering of disciplines, none of which could communicate with any of the others, before evolution came around and brought it all together.

But it makes a lot of religious types real nervous.

Then stop complaining and be prompt next time.
Foolsworth must be a real winner, then, eh?

Attacking evolution? How could you do it? Evolution is the most successful scientific theory this side of the Standard model. No other theory has explained our world as elegantly and effectively as evolution. Biology was a mere scattering of disciplines, none of which could communicate with any of the others, before evolution came around and brought it all together.

But it makes a lot of religious types real nervous.

I don't think Stein is out to make a full frontal assault on evolution.
He isn't exactly, to far from it though.

He, more or less is making the same point you did, only in reverse.

Which would look something like.

Attacking intelligent design?
Intelligent design is the most successful theological theory this side of the Standard model

But it makes a lot of scientist real nervous.

Evolution is a theory, but it can't be proven.

I'm just willing to say I have no freakin clue how I got here, and move on with my life.

Attacking intelligent design?
Intelligent design is the most successful theological theory this side of the Standard model

But it makes a lot of scientist real nervous.
LOL! That's too funny!

Evolution is a theory, but it can't be proven.
It's got a hell of a lot more evidence behind it that anything you will ever say, and anything the theists will ever come up with. How do I know this? Theists don't care about evidence. Only faith. You can't prove anything with faith.

ID is not science!!!!

I don't think Stein is out to make a full frontal assault on evolution.
He isn't exactly, to far from it though.

He, more or less is making the same point you did, only in reverse.

Which would look something like.

An Underlying theme of Stein's is to demonstrate just how open
to idea'rs and methodology,many a current scientist are,until.
Until the word GOD is mentioned.
Then they head to the hills,as if Pappy just cleaned out his
12 gauge and Sadie done come home agin,with a torn bra strap
and unbuttoned { just one big yellow button } skimpy hot pants.

Have you read about Ben Stein? He equates the theory of evolution—or "Darwinism" as he calls it—to genocide. Genocide. I don't blame some random guy for being pissed at him.

Maybe because :

The Voyage of the Beagle {1859}

" At last gleams of light have come,and I am almost convinced
that species are not {it is like confessing a murder} immutable. "

" I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the
existence of a God..... an agnostic would be the more correct
description of my state of mind."
-- Darwin { To Rev.J.Fordyce,July 7,1879 }

It's got a hell of a lot more evidence behind it that anything you will ever say, and anything the theists will ever come up with. How do I know this? Theists don't care about evidence. Only faith. You can't prove anything with faith.

You are right... it does have "a hell" of a lot more physical evidence. However, at the end of the day, there are man holes in evolution theory. It can't be proven.

Am I trying to put down evolution theory and encourage believing that God created us? no. Beleive what you want.. just don't try even hint that anybody had any idea of how we are here.

You are right... it does have "a hell" of a lot more physical evidence. However, at the end of the day, there are man holes in evolution theory. It can't be proven.

Am I trying to put down evolution theory and encourage believing that God created us? no. Beleive what you want.. just don't try even hint that anybody had any idea of how we are here.

I be hears,
Cuz I bee.
You gots a problem wit dat.

LOL! That's too funny!
It is.

However.
For all we know 50 years from now people could be wondering how anyone could have ever even considered evolution to be possible.
It could be seen just as mundane as once thinking the world was flat.

"It could"
I'm not trying to say it will. Neither am I going to try to suggest what might replace it, if anything.

There is no possible way for us to understand everything, because we'll always have questions.
Every single piece of evidence is another question.
From my perspective evolution has only given so much information in regards to the current evidence we have.
There are scientist every where with nothing but questions and no way to answer them.
I'm not saying we havent made leaps and bounds. I'm simply saying at the moment we have stalled out. No new answers seem to be fourth coming any time soon. The only thing I see breaking the chain is something revolutionary.
A discover never before thought of.

With millions of people lined up to jump on Richard Dawkins jock. I think the process will be stalled for a long time to come.
The man has drawn a line in the sand and no one is allowed to pass it.
His career, fortune and fame are all based in what he perceives as science.
With so many people begging to be a Dawkins straddle monkey the mans ego has undoubtedly gone through the roof.
Which to me means vanity and passion is definitely a part of science now.
Which also means there is only going to be one kind of information allowed to get by any form of peer review.
If it means possible ridicule or lack of social status by what we now sadly consider to be intellectuals. It wont be published.

ID is not science!!!!

"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"

It's not random either.

However, at the end of the day, there are man holes in evolution theory.
No. There aren't. Ask your biology teacher.

It is.

However.
For all we know 50 years from now people could be wondering how anyone could have ever even considered evolution to be possible.
It could be seen just as mundane as once thinking the world was flat.
No, there won't. As far as the earth being flat, as early as ancient Greece did people realize that the earth was round.

That the whole earth is flat would have been a sophisticated insight to primitive peoples, whose experience would lead them to believe that the earth was not flat, due to hills, canyons, and whatnot.

As for evolution, there is a significant enough body of evidence to say with a certainty that any further changes to the theory will be only refinements and not whole cloth rewritings.

"It could"
I'm not trying to say it will. Neither am I going to try to suggest what might replace it, if anything.

There is no possible way for us to understand everything, because we'll always have questions.
Every single piece of evidence is another question.
From my perspective evolution has only given so much information in regards to the current evidence we have.
There are scientist every where with nothing but questions and no way to answer them.
I'm not saying we havent made leaps and bounds. I'm simply saying at the moment we have stalled out. No new answers seem to be fourth coming any time soon. The only thing I see breaking the chain is something revolutionary.
A discover never before thought of.
Honestly, how qualified do you think you are to judge the current status of evolution science? Methinks you're talking out of your ass here.

With millions of people lined up to jump on Richard Dawkins jock. I think the process will be stalled for a long time to come.
The man has drawn a line in the sand and no one is allowed to pass it.
His career, fortune and fame are all based in what he perceives as science.
With so many people begging to be a Dawkins straddle monkey the mans ego has undoubtedly gone through the roof.
Which to me means vanity and passion is definitely a part of science now.
Which also means there is only going to be one kind of information allowed to get by any form of peer review.
If it means possible ridicule or lack of social status by what we now sadly consider to be intellectuals. It wont be published.
Do you honestly think that belief in God is the next step in evolution science?

However, at the end of the day, there are man holes in evolution theory. It can't be proven.
Scientifically, you're absolutely wrong. If the rigor and the standard of evidence necessary to give an idea the high status of "theory" isn't enough for you, there's not much I or anyone else can do for you, but in the realm of science, it's considered right up there with gravity. Actually, evolution is perhaps a bit further along than gravity, because scientists don't know exactly what causes gravity (the proposed graviton has never been seen in a laboratory). Biologists know at least some of the methods that cause evolution, such as natural selection and genetic drift. Could there be more things that cause evolution? Sure, we don't necessarily know everything about it. Is evolution a fact? You bet.

To use an analogy I saw printed in a book for different purposes, imagine a race of aliens that has one peculiarity in its vision: They can't see sharp juxtapositions of black and white. Zebras, NFL referees, and soccer balls are completely invisible to them. Now, imagine we take these fine fellows to a World Cup match, in order to give them a taste of humanity. Since they can't see the ball, the match confuses the hell out of them. Being scientists, these aliens come up with all sorts of charts and figures and theories about how the players behave. They notice that the players belong to two teams, that each player has a specific area of the field to cover, etc. They have all these rules, even though the game is pretty bewildering to them. Finally, a sharp-eyed alien happens to catch a unique event: When a goal is scored, he notices a bulge in the back of the net. All of a sudden the game makes a lot more sense to these aliens, doesn't it? And all its old theories, charts, and interpretations of the rules still apply. They still work even with the addition of the ball. They're just massively simplified. So it is with science, and evolution.

(My apologies to Prof. Leon Lederman for plagiarizing his analogy. It's from the book The God Particle, if you want to go read it, which I recommend you do.)

No, there won't. As far as the earth being flat, as early as ancient Greece did people realize that the earth was round.

That the whole earth is flat would have been a sophisticated insight to primitive peoples, whose experience would lead them to believe that the earth was not flat, due to hills, canyons, and whatnot.

As for evolution, there is a significant enough body of evidence to say with a certainty that any further changes to the theory will be only refinements and not whole cloth rewritings.
We're always growing. I'd say theres room for change in anything we currently know.


Honestly, how qualified do you think you are to judge the current status of evolution science? Methinks you're talking out of your ass here.

About as qualified as you. I'm not making a living off of it but I'm not keeping myself ignorant of it either.

Do you honestly think that belief in God is the next step in evolution science?
I cant say. I'm not trying to say where it should go.
All I'm saying is that we always have room for more information.
Information I think is hindered because of the views the current population of science is accommodating.

You're really failing to understand certain concepts here, Inviolable. Science relies on empirical study to come to understandings. When science says something, you can be assured that's the way it is. Like everything science says about gravity, you can rest assured, that throughout the next million or so years we exist in the universe, gravity will work exactly as the theory says it will. We might refine the theory, as Borg stated earlier, to allow for causation, but once we do, we don't just throw out the old theory. It'll still work. You seem to have this antipathy for evolution that isn't explainable by possible holes in the theory. It's illogical, and flies in the face of dozens of years of careful scientific research. There are no holes in the theory that will ever merit an about-face turnaround. It will continue to work exactly as the scientists say it works. That we have a common ancestor with all life on earth will not change. It's as verifiable as gravity is by dropping a ball from your hand. Empirical experimentation has borne the fact out, over and over again. You do not understand all the science behind it, so you dismiss it as mere theory, ignorant of the amount of work and experimentation it takes to get a proposition to the point where it can even be accepted as a theory.

You're really failing to understand certain concepts here, Inviolable. Science relies on empirical study to come to understandings. When science says something, you can be assured that's the way it is. Like everything science says about gravity, you can rest assured, that throughout the next million or so years we exist in the universe, gravity will work exactly as the theory says it will. We might refine the theory, as Borg stated earlier, to allow for causation, but once we do, we don't just throw out the old theory. It'll still work. You seem to have this antipathy for evolution that isn't explainable by possible holes in the theory. It's illogical, and flies in the face of dozens of years of careful scientific research. There are no holes in the theory that will ever merit an about-face turnaround. It will continue to work exactly as the scientists say it works. That we have a common ancestor with all life on earth will not change. It's as verifiable as gravity is by dropping a ball from your hand. Empirical experimentation has borne the fact out, over and over again. You do not understand all the science behind it, so you dismiss it as mere theory, ignorant of the amount of work and experimentation it takes to get a proposition to the point where it can even be accepted as a theory.

No I'm not failing to see anything.
You're failing to see what I'm saying.
Thats great that science relies on empirical study. I never even came close to saying other wise. Although I can understand where you have mistaken what I was saying. I apologize. I wasnt as clear as I should have been.

I'm saying, science is choosing what it wants to study.
I'm not saying anyone is going to ignore empirical evidence.
I'm simply saying, it wont go beyond what it already knows until the current fields of study bear some compelling results.
Which seems to have stalled out. The well is dry so to speak.
Not exactly in those terms but it'll do for a quick answer.
Because of Dawkins and people like him. Emotions are brought into play weather or not we want to see it. Which is effecting what people see as worthy or not worthy to pursue.

I'm not now or have I in the past few years said, evolution is full of holes.
I'm not trying to push a Christian agenda on the subject of evolution.
I am in no way trying to replace evolution with ID.

I am very simply trying to say, there is to much emotion in science.
I'm pointing out where it's coming from and how it got there.
It's ego based. To say the least.

Again, I apologize if I wasn't clear and I will make an effort to be more clear in the future.

Your analogy Borg.. and your statement Nap... don't explain how life just exploded onto our planet, or how lizards became birds, etc. You just can't explain that.

Your analogy Borg.. and your statement Nap... don't explain how life just exploded onto our planet, or how lizards became birds, etc. You just can't explain that.
Lizards did not "become birds". Birds evolved from dinosaurs, not lizards, and the evolutionary process is very well documented. A good starting point you could use to research this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

Decka - Evolution isn't meant to explain the origins of life.

There's research going into exactly that question as we speak. I remember reading an article about it a few weeks ago, about how the simplest forms of life may have arisen by the forcing together of molecules that happens when water is frozen.

But really, that's a biochemical question, not an evolutionary one. Just like DF pointed out.

Lizards did not "become birds". Birds evolved from dinosaurs, not lizards, and the evolutionary process is very well documented. A good starting point you could use to research this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

I say likewise.Atheists " evolved " from or because of God.
For w/o a God to speak of... The mere invention of Atheist
would be less than moot.
Which is pretty far down the food chain,in even The Devils Dictionary.

I remember reading an article about it a few weeks ago, about how the simplest forms of life may have arisen by the forcing together of molecules that happens when water is frozen.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice

I say likewise.Atheists " evolved " from or because of God.
For w/o a God to speak of... The mere invention of Atheist
would be less than moot.
Which is pretty far down the food chain,in even The Devils Dictionary.
Being a mere figment of your imagination does give your idea a certain cachet that could be considered attractive compared to other ideas backed by decades of experimentation and study.

Being a mere figment of your imagination does give your idea a certain cachet that could be considered attractive compared to other ideas backed by decades of experimentation and study.

" As long as there will be an unknown there will be a God.... "

" Theist and Atheist
The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called
God or shall have some other name. "
-- Samuel Butler

Decka - Evolution isn't meant to explain the origins of life.

They often get molded together...

i know billions of years ago.. supposedly a protein was formed, and then that evolved slowly into a human... I just don't think that scientifically they have enough proof to justify that explanation. If they can get it.. good. But there is just no way to know.. it's a theory.. not fact.

They often get molded together...

i know billions of years ago.. supposedly a protein was formed, and then that evolved slowly into a human... I just don't think that scientifically they have enough proof to justify that explanation. If they can get it.. good. But there is just no way to know.. it's a theory.. not fact.
That is not within evolutionary theory. And how many times do you have to hear about the scientific definition of the word theory before you get it? You consider gravity a fact, right?

Of course it's a fact.. it has never been unproven. I have never jumped up and just flew in mid-air, or gone straight upward.

Gravity is something that can be proven today.

The way we came to be cannot. We won't know the circumstances. We can theorize on ways how WE MIGHT have come to be.. and put evidence to back those theories up... but we can't go back in time, billions of years ago, and see what really happened. Because all we know, we were planted here, or God put all this science stuff into motion, or whatever other theory you want to entertain yourself with.

Oh, and unless you are talking on some nit-picking, ultra-mathematical, radical equation BS stuff... Gravity is well documented. Astronomy is full of proof of gravity.. it bends light, it determines how binary stars move, etc.

Well I'll let someone more scientifically minded explain this to you... I'm not extremely knowledgeable about this sort of thing.

Basically here's how I understand it: Gravity is a "theory", if you will, that explains all those things you mentioned (binary star movement, why we stay on the ground, etc.) Evolution is a similar explanation for observed events, facts, and trends.

Of course it's a fact.. it has never been unproven. I have never jumped up and just flew in mid-air, or gone straight upward.

Gravity is something that can be proven today.
I'm glad you realize this. But I wish that you would realize that the only reason you feel this way is because you witness the effects daily, it's a part of your life. Evolution has the same level of scientific inquiry backing the claims it puts forth.

The way we came to be cannot.
We can say that we all came from a single life form. We can describe in great detail with clear lines, how humanity evolved from primates from mammals from reptiles from early vertebrates from invertebrates going all the way back to the first life forms. It's clear, documented, plain as day. As clear as gravity.

We won't know the circumstances.
Read the article Borg quoted for current research into that very topic.

We can theorize on ways how WE MIGHT have come to be.. and put evidence to back those theories up... but we can't go back in time, billions of years ago, and see what really happened.
Even if we could, it wouldn't be a hundred percent conclusive. The failure you describe is one of semantics, not one of ability. We can define how life originally arose, and we will do so in the near future. And once we do, you foolish creationists will have to find another hole to stuff your God in.

Because all we know, we were planted here, or God put all this science stuff into motion, or whatever other theory you want to entertain yourself with.
Correction: Because all we care to believe, we might have been planted here. The evidence, the empirical evidence collected by hundreds to thousands of scientists, will argue differently, and only the force of belief will be able to question them. Whether you believe it or not, the evidence will be there.

Oh, and unless you are talking on some nit-picking, ultra-mathematical, radical equation BS stuff... Gravity is well documented. Astronomy is full of proof of gravity.. it bends light, it determines how binary stars move, etc.
You make a mistake if you think evolution is less documented. Even though Astronomy has millenia behind it, our powers to experiment and question have grown exponentially since then. Ten of today's years is worth more than the last two thousand years of scientific inquiry.

We can say that we all came from a single life form. We can describe in great detail with clear lines, how humanity evolved from primates from mammals from reptiles from early vertebrates from invertebrates going all the way back to the first life forms. It's clear, documented, plain as day. As clear as gravity.

I disagree.. it's not that clear. Scientists have no idea why the hell life all of the sudden just flourished.


Even if we could, it wouldn't be a hundred percent conclusive. The failure you describe is one of semantics, not one of ability. We can define how life originally arose, and we will do so in the near future. And once we do, you foolish creationists will have to find another hole to stuff your God in.

You can theorize on how life started, but we'll never know.

And this isn't a argument about creationists. I think God can exist WITHOUT the whole Adam and Eve and the 7 days thing...


Correction: Because all we care to believe, we might have been planted here. The evidence, the empirical evidence collected by hundreds to thousands of scientists, will argue differently, and only the force of belief will be able to question them. Whether you believe it or not, the evidence will be there.

evidence... not proof.


You make a mistake if you think evolution is less documented. Even though Astronomy has millenia behind it, our powers to experiment and question have grown exponentially since then. Ten of today's years is worth more than the last two thousand years of scientific inquiry.

cool. I'm glad you enjoy science so much!

Head-in-the-sand idiot creationists. *shakes head sadly*

I'm glad you realize this. But I wish that you would realize that the only reason you feel this way is because you witness the effects daily, it's a part of your life. Evolution has the same level of scientific inquiry backing the claims it puts forth.


well said

If you are talking to me Nappy.. go ahead and insult me for my beliefs. I am not a "creationalist" to the core.. I just happen to believe there is a God, and a spiritual realm. Maybe the world was created in 7 days, maybe not. We'll never know.. meanwhile, you get all pissed off at people like me who DARE question the most accepted but yet unproven theories of science..

get my drift?

I couldn't look at Ben Stein without laughing before, now I have to hold in vomit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxyj6iInMc

We can define how life originally arose, and we will do so in the near future. And once we do, you foolish creationists will have to find another hole to stuff your God in.

Nothing anyone else in this thread could have said would have defined my point more clearly then that Nap.

Thank you.

And thank you Decka, well played.

If you are talking to me Nappy.. go ahead and insult me for my beliefs. I am not a "creationalist" to the core.. I just happen to believe there is a God, and a spiritual realm. Maybe the world was created in 7 days, maybe not. We'll never know.. meanwhile, you get all pissed off at people like me who DARE question the most accepted but yet unproven theories of science..

get my drift?


Like Nappy said, gravity is not "proven" it is observed and based on those observations we make a "theory" (which is a fact by the way).


Same with evolution, etc., we observe the fossils, microbes, etc. and make a "theory". Just because you don't know about it does not mean it is not there. However it is indeed "observed" by scientists and that is why it so widely accepted.

But there are people who WILL not see it and REFUSE to see it. Don't be one of them.

Also, please don't compare questioning religion to questioning science.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable.
Yeah, thats what I said to. When you said you wanted to shove the Christian God in a hole.

Hence the title.

"a new form of control"

I didn't say I wanted to. You idiots are the ones who believe in the God of the Gaps.

You just don't understand the implications of the ideas you're pushing. By insisting that every scientific uncertainty should be explained by God, you are forcing God's kingdom to retreat every time a new scientific breakthrough is made.

The logic runs like this:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).

This is a ridiculous offering, and demeans both scientific inquiry and religious belief.

I didn't say I wanted to. You idiots are the ones who believe in the God of the Gaps.

You just don't understand the implications of the ideas you're pushing. By insisting that every scientific uncertainty should be explained by God, you are forcing God's kingdom to retreat every time a new scientific breakthrough is made.

The logic runs like this:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).

This is a ridiculous offering, and demeans both scientific inquiry and religious beliefs.

I agree with that.

Does evolution allow for ID?

From Wikipedia: "Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

No. Intelligent Design is an argument designed to replace evolution. It cannot exist in harmony with the current theory of evolution.

I agree with that.

Does evolution allow for ID?
In a manner of speaking. The theory of evolution says very basically that life, genes, etc. change over time, and specifies a couple of processes (natural selection, genetic drift) that facilitate evolution. You could say, "God created the Earth and the first form of life" and evolution wouldn't have anything to say about it. If, however, you want to claim that humans were created out of thin air about 6000 years ago, then Charles Darwin would like a word with you.

You could say, "God created the Earth and the first form of life" and evolution wouldn't have anything to say about it.
Such an argument is not Intelligent Design.

In a manner of speaking. The theory of evolution says very basically that life, genes, etc. change over time, and specifies a couple of processes (natural selection, genetic drift) that facilitate evolution. You could say, "God created the Earth and the first form of life" and evolution wouldn't have anything to say about it. If, however, you want to claim that humans were created out of thin air about 6000 years ago, then Charles Darwin would like a word with you.

Well, no. I'm not trying to say that exactly.

From my understanding. The big bang, evolution and so on has always allowed for ID. Thats not to say it was any God in particular.
Of course I'm a Christian so I'm not going to deny that I will believe it is my God.

All I'm saying very simply is, There is room for ID. I don't think it could be denied.
Like Nap said. We cant speculate what any "holes" may be.

I'm not trying to shove any round pegs down some square holes.
I just think no matter what the designer has done, there is room for ID.
Hope that makes sense.

Such an argument is not Intelligent Design.

What is it?

Inviolable, your problem is that most creationist theories deny evolution. Now, some Christians try to claim that evolution was guided somehow by an intelligent hand they call God. They're trying to fit God into scientific paradigms and pass it off as science. That's ID in a nutshell. You can still believe in God. Science hasn't come up with a way to disprove Him yet. You could even say he created earth in accordance with the way scientists describe the functioning of the universe. But you will constantly run into problems. We're finding out more and more about the world. You have to understand that applying the term 'mere' does not fly when referring to the scientific theory of evolution. Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. It's that important. Denying it is like denying gravity.

It's not just a theory. It's one of the very bases for every single new biological advance we've had in the last fifty years. Creationism that denies evolution is riddled with horrendously huge fallacies and impossible to reconcile contradictions. That's exactly what Intelligent Design is, Inviolable.

Science is empiricism. Evolution is empirical. Natural selection is empirical. ID rejects empiricism and argues for supernaturalism. They cannot exist in harmony.

What is it?
It's not any current creationist theory being proposed right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

What Borg was talking about is much closer to Deism than anything else.

Of course I'm a Christian so I'm not going to deny that I will believe it is my God.

ahhhh there it is. Now you sound just like a mullah sitting in the Middle East. "My" God.

ahhhh there it is. Now you sound just like a mullah sitting in the Middle East. "My" God.

And I will pray to a big God as I kneel in the big church!

And my heaven will be a big hell,
And I will walk through the front door.

" So huge,so hopeless to conceive
As these that twice befell.
Parting is all we know of heaven,
And all we need of hell. "

-- Emily Dickinson

I think you have me wrong Nappy.

I'm not trying to prove God exists. You can't prove he exists.

I just want to say that, if gravity isn't "proven".. then neither is the wind, or inertia.. they are ALL just theories.. which is a misuse of the word. A theory leaves openings for alternate outcomes... facts are indisputable.. like gravity. It is 100% scientific fact: What goes up must come down. Comparing gravity to evolution is not a very good comparison at all.

You are wrong, Decka. Dead wrong. Just as gravity is a fact, so is evolution. You don't have the current ability to do yourself all the experimentation and research to see it for yourself, but other people have done so. Do you understand? Thousands of people have already done everything that needs to be done to prove it. All you have to do is go and look at it. With a careful, practiced eye, you can read for yourself all the relevant scientific studies, and journals, because they're all a matter of public record. Scholars, hundreds of scholars, keep all the records in carefully preserved archives for people just like you to look at. Skeptics who are unconvinced. You could reproduce for yourself every single experiment, should you have the equipment and tools necessary; look at all the research yourself. Tens of thousands of people have already done it, and they came to the same conclusion. Evolution is as much a fact of our existence as gravity is. It happens, daily, all around you. We have so far been unable to directly harness gravity to suit our purposes, but we have evolution. Without it, we wouldn't have modern biology. Our understanding of evolution has done more for mankind than gravity has; our understanding of it. From it, we have innumerable cures and understandings. All of the living creatures we find in nature can be classified and identified, with good, educated guesses made on stuff we haven't seen before. It is the most successful scientific paradigm change in the history of mankind.

You are wrong, Decka. Dead wrong. Just as gravity is a fact, so is evolution. You don't have the current ability to do yourself all the experimentation and research to see it for yourself, but other people have done so. Do you understand? Thousands of people have already done everything that needs to be done to prove it. All you have to do is go and look at it. With a careful, practiced eye, you can read for yourself all the relevant scientific studies, and journals, because they're all a matter of public record. Scholars, hundreds of scholars, keep all the records in carefully preserved archives for people just like you to look at. Skeptics who are unconvinced. You could reproduce for yourself every single experiment, should you have the equipment and tools necessary; look at all the research yourself. Tens of thousands of people have already done it, and they came to the same conclusion. Evolution is as much a fact of our existence as gravity is. It happens, daily, all around you. We have so far been unable to directly harness gravity to suit our purposes, but we have evolution. Without it, we wouldn't have modern biology. Our understanding of evolution has done more for mankind than gravity has; our understanding of it. From it, we have innumerable cures and understandings. All of the living creatures we find in nature can be classified and identified, with good, educated guesses made on stuff we haven't seen before. It is the most successful scientific paradigm change in the history of mankind.

you are wasting your time...

And I will pray to a big God as I kneel in the big church!


You do that. No different than the religious nuts out in Saudi Arabia. Just a different religion.

You are wrong, Decka. Dead wrong. Just as gravity is a fact, so is evolution. You don't have the current ability to do yourself all the experimentation and research to see it for yourself, but other people have done so. Do you understand? Thousands of people have already done everything that needs to be done to prove it. All you have to do is go and look at it. With a careful, practiced eye, you can read for yourself all the relevant scientific studies, and journals, because they're all a matter of public record. Scholars, hundreds of scholars, keep all the records in carefully preserved archives for people just like you to look at. Skeptics who are unconvinced. You could reproduce for yourself every single experiment, should you have the equipment and tools necessary; look at all the research yourself. Tens of thousands of people have already done it, and they came to the same conclusion. Evolution is as much a fact of our existence as gravity is. It happens, daily, all around you. We have so far been unable to directly harness gravity to suit our purposes, but we have evolution. Without it, we wouldn't have modern biology. Our understanding of evolution has done more for mankind than gravity has; our understanding of it. From it, we have innumerable cures and understandings. All of the living creatures we find in nature can be classified and identified, with good, educated guesses made on stuff we haven't seen before. It is the most successful scientific paradigm change in the history of mankind.

So,according to you,we have also figger'd outs The Loch Ness Mystery
as well Sasquatch and where man as during the Dinosaur age.
Did anyone bother to tell you that the ending of :
-- 2001 : A Space Odyssey -- {1968}
is open-ended and magnifique for a reason.
That a mere Monolith explanation for The Dawn of Man doesn't
nearly half approach the true intricacy of Man's origin.
It may never.
Quit tryin to outsmart that to which yer little brain and like-minded
Mad Scientist seem happy to compress for lack of sufficient time.
Now... Please explain > :


infinity

Decka, you have to understand the proper relationship between theory and fact. Fact is what scientists build theories from.

* Fact: Things fall.
* Scientific Answer: Theory of Gravity (Bet you didn't know there was one, did you? Guess what, it has more holes in it than evolution does.)

* Fact: Animals evolve.
* Scientific Answer: Theory of Evolution

Aha, good job Nappy. That's a simpler version of what I was trying to say a while ago...

You are wrong, Decka. Dead wrong. Just as gravity is a fact, so is evolution. You don't have the current ability to do yourself all the experimentation and research to see it for yourself, but other people have done so. Do you understand? Thousands of people have already done everything that needs to be done to prove it. All you have to do is go and look at it. With a careful, practiced eye, you can read for yourself all the relevant scientific studies, and journals, because they're all a matter of public record. Scholars, hundreds of scholars, keep all the records in carefully preserved archives for people just like you to look at. Skeptics who are unconvinced. You could reproduce for yourself every single experiment, should you have the equipment and tools necessary; look at all the research yourself. Tens of thousands of people have already done it, and they came to the same conclusion. Evolution is as much a fact of our existence as gravity is. It happens, daily, all around you. We have so far been unable to directly harness gravity to suit our purposes, but we have evolution. Without it, we wouldn't have modern biology. Our understanding of evolution has done more for mankind than gravity has; our understanding of it. From it, we have innumerable cures and understandings. All of the living creatures we find in nature can be classified and identified, with good, educated guesses made on stuff we haven't seen before. It is the most successful scientific paradigm change in the history of mankind.

With this issue do we not run into a problem similar to the Watch Maker Theory? I have always like the idea of god putting the world into motion but yet having no control over it now. Like rolling a snowball down a hill.

-Feetie

BTW I am no a believer in ID! Darwin Rules!

You mean the Watchmaker analogy? The argument outlined like this?

1. The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
2. As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

The analogy is both flawed, and dependent on incorrect information. Flawed in that a man's mother makes a man, not a God, and people, animals, and plants have many biological mistakes in their design.

The analogy is further damaged when you realize that the know-how it took to make a watch emerged from generations of watch-making. Such a scenario far fits Darwinian evolution than Intelligent Design, when you realize that watches themselves evolved over long periods of time.

You mean the Watchmaker analogy? The argument outlined like this?

1. The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
2. As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

The analogy is both flawed, and dependent on incorrect information. Flawed in that a man's mother makes a man, not a God, and people, animals, and plants have many biological mistakes in their design.

The analogy is further damaged when you realize that the know-how it took to make a watch emerged from generations of watch-making. Such a scenario far fits Darwinian evolution than Intelligent Design, when you realize that watches themselves evolved over long periods of time.
Another flaw is that the various parts of a watch have no natural affinity or attraction to each other. The various "parts" of biological organisms do have chemical affinities and attractions to various other parts.

You do that. No different than the religious nuts out in Saudi Arabia. Just a different religion.
lol

I'm on my way I'm making it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0FBi5Rv1ho
1:40

For Naps quote, its
3:08
Only he quoted it wrong. On purpose.

You mean the Watchmaker analogy? The argument outlined like this?

1. The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
2. As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

The analogy is both flawed, and dependent on incorrect information. Flawed in that a man's mother makes a man, not a God, and people, animals, and plants have many biological mistakes in their design.

The analogy is further damaged when you realize that the know-how it took to make a watch emerged from generations of watch-making. Such a scenario far fits Darwinian evolution than Intelligent Design, when you realize that watches themselves evolved over long periods of time.

No matter how the watch evolved "someone" had to build it in the first place. Right? That was my point. Somebody made the first watch! And yes I know very well about the flaws in the Analogy! Thank you for correcting my grammar. My point was only the idea that just because God created us does not mean that he has any type of affect on us right now.

-Feets

Trust me nappy.. I have looked at how we came from amino acids from the formation of our planet from a big bang which just happened to place a planet the perfect distance from the sun.

Let's take a look at the basis of the word theory, and all of it's meanings... BUM BUM BUMMMMM.. Dictionary.com!!!

Theory:
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6.contemplation or speculation.

7.guess or conjecture.

And then there is:

Fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms

Now.. looking at all of the definitions of the words.. MY analysis says this.

A theory is a group of things that work that can't be proven. There are other outcomes that can exist. It can range from a simple guess to a complete explanation that is lacking proper factual basis to be considered fact. While there is much evidence to support, a theory is still "the best shot we have" at knowing.

A fact is definite and absolute. It is known to exist, proven. It has been witnesses and has not, and cannot, be proven wrong.

That sound about right Nappy? As far as theory vs. fact.

Now do you agree or disagree with my assertion that evolution is not THE only way we could POSSIBLY be here. Is there NO other way?

lol

I'm on my way I'm making it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0FBi5Rv1ho
1:40

For Naps quote, its
3:08
Only he quoted it wrong. On purpose.
Every time I hear the song, I hear "heaven will be a big hell..."

The lyrics database I consulted tells me it's "heaven will be a big heaven..."

I just don't hear it.

you are wasting your time...Right you were.

Trust me nappy.. I have looked at how we came from amino acids from the formation of our planet from a big bang which just happened to place a planet the perfect distance from the sun.

Let's take a look at the basis of the word theory, and all of it's meanings... BUM BUM BUMMMMM.. Dictionary.com!!!
Apparently you haven't looked at all of it. Natural causes can account for every single thing theists point to as arguments for God. Every single one of them. Pure, blind chance. You just fail to realize.

The dictionary definition relevant when discussing scientific theory, like that describing evolution, is the first one. Notice the lack of the words "conjectural," "speculative," "guess." That you cannot use a dictionary properly does not impugn the veracity of the Theory of Evolution. That you cannot understand the first meaning, and are incapable of establishing its relevance does not make evolution conjecture.

Now do you agree or disagree with my assertion that evolution is not THE only way we could POSSIBLY be here. Is there NO other way?
I completely, absolutely disagree. There is no other way. It is painfully obvious.

Every time I hear the song, I hear "heaven will be a big hell..."

The lyrics database I consulted tells me it's "heaven will be a big heaven..."

I just don't hear it.
Sorry about that.
I thought it was easily understood.

Thats weird that you hear hell.

I completely, absolutely disagree. There is no other way. It is painfully obvious.

Do you realize you have turned into a Dharmabum.
Go back and re-read his many blubberings.
They mirror what you just said,more than a tee.

Myself and Dharmabum share a lot more positions than we disagree on. I just hate the way he comes off. His argumentative style leaves a lot to be desired.

Apparently you haven't looked at all of it. Natural causes can account for every single thing theists point to as arguments for God. Every single one of them. Pure, blind chance. You just fail to realize.

I'm not making this a "creationist vs. science" argument.. you are.

The dictionary definition relevant when discussing scientific theory, like that describing evolution, is the first one. Notice the lack of the words "conjectural," "speculative," "guess." That you cannot use a dictionary properly does not impugn the veracity of the Theory of Evolution. That you cannot understand the first meaning, and are incapable of establishing its relevance does not make evolution conjecture.

Well you are the one trying to tell me what words mean, I just thought I'd get the official definition down. You really didn't have anything to say about that...

I don't deny that evolution is the most scientifically accepted THEORY.. but it is NOT scientific fact, no matter how much you want it to be. And I don't even see why it's so important for you for it to be so. I can think of other ways we could have come about, besides evolution, that cannot be disproven.. like the earth being seeded by another species "out there" in space... as "CRAZY" and "WEIRD" as that might sound, it sure as hell would explain the unnatural explosion of life that occurred. It is a possibility, which means evolution, as in we came from amino acids, is not fact.

If there were "ground-breaking" and "irrefutable" evidence that came out within the past 2-3 years of proof of evolution being WITHOUT A DOUBT the way we came to be.. I would have heard about it.

There are multiple ways to view the JFK assassination... while it's a fact that Oswald pulled the trigger (i think), Nobody knows if Castro, the mafia, or our own government was "in" on the assassination, and if there were multiple shooters, which there is much evidence that suggests. So it will never be "historical fact" that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Kennedy by himself, alone, out of rage... it will just be written that way by those who would wish the truth to be unknown.

I can agree to disagree with you on the subject Nappy.. I guess it's up to you and your ego.

This isn't about agreeing to disagree, this isn't about my ego, this isn't about the JFK assassination, this isn't about Castro. This is about the irrefutable fact that organisms evolve. It is completely and wholly been proven to happen exactly as the Theory of Evolution sets out. It's a description, not speculation. It is not theory the way you would like to think it is. It has been proven. Proven with thousands of experiments. Used daily, built upon daily. Yet you deny it, not for any holes in the theory itself, which we have already established is more solid than gravity, but for pointless, and completely wrong semanticizing.

Evolution will never be overturned. It is too complete; barring a complete utter about face in the way the universe runs, it will continue to be relevant no matter what new information surfaces. Because the data gathered by scientists has been gathered according to the scientific method, which is the most powerful tool humanity has for teasing out the details from the universe about how it works. Not imagining. Not religion. Not hiding your head under the sand and refusing to listen. Empiric, reproducible testing.

Why do I care? Because it pains me when people deny something so obvious, and they advocate solutions to problems rooted not in empiricism, but in supernaturalism. I don't care if you believe in God. But you cannot deny evolution. It is staring you right in the face.

Myself and Dharmabum share a lot more positions than we disagree on. I just hate the way he comes off. His argumentative style leaves a lot to be desired.

If I's was any mores astute,I'd virtually have to apply for
an Astute patent at the copyright office.
I wonder if their open durin the Easter Holiday.

You'd be wasting a trip. The US Patent and Trademark Office handles patents. The US Copyright Office handles copyrights.

Ya dig?

This isn't about agreeing to disagree, this isn't about my ego, this isn't about the JFK assassination, this isn't about Castro. This is about the irrefutable fact that organisms evolve. It is completely and wholly been proven to happen exactly as the Theory of Evolution sets out. It's a description, not speculation. It is not theory the way you would like to think it is. It has been proven. Proven with thousands of experiments. Used daily, built upon daily. Yet you deny it, not for any holes in the theory itself, which we have already established is more solid than gravity, but for pointless, and completely wrong semanticizing.

Evolution will never be overturned. It is too complete; barring a complete utter about face in the way the universe runs, it will continue to be relevant no matter what new information surfaces. Because the data gathered by scientists has been gathered according to the scientific method, which is the most powerful tool humanity has for teasing out the details from the universe about how it works. Not imagining. Not religion. Not hiding your head under the sand and refusing to listen. Empiric, reproducible testing.

Why do I care? Because it pains me when people deny something so obvious, and they advocate solutions to problems rooted not in empiricism, but in supernaturalism. I don't care if you believe in God. But you cannot deny evolution. It is staring you right in the face.

Ok...Ok ...I give.
Butts,like who decided that Dinosaurs must go.
The Dinosaur Police.

Bwa Haa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Of which you were no doubt a member.

Of which you were no doubt a member.

Hmmm... Now that remark is Totally reminiscent of the way I
Post.
Therefore the need to Post in Varied styles.
I don't want any single Poacher postin me words like it's
Their'n.

I thought science was based on the simplest outcome (Occam's Razor).. and also this site kinda backed up some of my thoughts on "holes" on the theory.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution8.htm