A Challenge ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
email468
Well-Known Member
What's a sure-fire way to prove your science is pseudo-science?
Make a movie about it instead of publishing your EVIDENCE in peer-reviewed journals.
It would help IDs cause greatly if they would provide evidence for their case rather than take pot-shots at evolution through natural selection. Give us evidence and we will consider it science.
And what is up with poo-pooing the guy who suggested aliens may have started life here - i mean substitute God for aliens and that is pretty much ID isn't it?
Make a movie about it instead of publishing your EVIDENCE in peer-reviewed journals.
It would help IDs cause greatly if they would provide evidence for their case rather than take pot-shots at evolution through natural selection. Give us evidence and we will consider it science.
And what is up with poo-pooing the guy who suggested aliens may have started life here - i mean substitute God for aliens and that is pretty much ID isn't it?
medicineman
New Member
Theres science everywhere. All you have to do is look at the earth going through the warming and accept it.....Of course man is adding to the natural causes. How could he not be, I mean there are 5-6 billion of us wonderful creatures using up the natural resources as fast as we can, burning everything from forests to coal to fuel rods, hell even ciggarette smokers contribute, even you potheads and your infernal Bongs. (LOL) get over it, you've been proven wrong time and again and your tired old arguements put forth by paid quasi-scientists is getting oh so boring. Don't ask me for proof, the proof is out there, look around. I challenge you to watch Planet Earth, the whole series, and refute it.
email468
Well-Known Member
you do realize i was talking about ID vs. Evolution through natural selection since that is what this thread is about (Ben Stein's Expelled). Or am i posting in the wrong thread?
But it is interesting you thought i was talking about climate change.
pokey
Well-Known Member
It seems a lot of people here think natural selection = evolution. Not so. Natural selection does happen, those black and white Peppered Moths from England are a good example. It is not that the moths morphed into darker moths when their surroundings got darker, as was previously assumed, it's simply that the lighter moths stood out and got eaten, and the darker ones didn't, and vice versa when the area was cleaned up. Similarly, natural selection happens on the plains of Africa and anywhere else where predators attack herd animals. The fast animals are able to run away to live and reproduce, and the weak animals, be they young, old, or simply sick, get eaten.
It is sad that so many creationists and such get wrapped up in thinking that natural selection is part of evolution, and try to claim it doesn't happen/exist. It is very visible to see, and while Darwin was one of the first to study it, associating it with him doesn't make it a theory, unlike some of his other work.
Furthermore, on that note, Evolution is still just "the theory of Evolution" regardless of how most people approach it today, including Academia. It has not been proven, and remains simply one mans idea of how life might have come to be. Somehow in the past 100 years that has become twisted, with people thinking that Evolution is scientific fact, when in reality it has no more proof and standing than any other creation theory.
Well, I have races to go win this weekend, plus it's my birthday today, so laters all.
It is sad that so many creationists and such get wrapped up in thinking that natural selection is part of evolution, and try to claim it doesn't happen/exist. It is very visible to see, and while Darwin was one of the first to study it, associating it with him doesn't make it a theory, unlike some of his other work.
Furthermore, on that note, Evolution is still just "the theory of Evolution" regardless of how most people approach it today, including Academia. It has not been proven, and remains simply one mans idea of how life might have come to be. Somehow in the past 100 years that has become twisted, with people thinking that Evolution is scientific fact, when in reality it has no more proof and standing than any other creation theory.
Well, I have races to go win this weekend, plus it's my birthday today, so laters all.
email468
Well-Known Member
Oh my - lots of problems here.
First - you are talking about adaptation not evolution through natural selection. Evolution is the result of natural selection -- not sure how you are separating the two unless you are again confusing natural selection with adaptation.
Ah the old "it's just a theory" and so isn't proven argument. Theory doesn't mean guess - do you know gravity is also just another theory? The Earth revolves around the Sun is yet another theory.
Evolution has the fossil record, genetics, astronomy - literally millions of pieces of evidence in its favor. It sounds like you haven't kept up with the evidence and science regarding Evolution through Natural Selection - its not like it stopped evolving (haha) after Darwin's death.
And if the theory didn't "work" scientists would abandon it. But the predictions made using evolution do work and every time this happens the case for evolution grows stronger.
Jointsmith
Well-Known Member
Evidence is key to 'knowledge'.
Decartes said 'I think therefore I am', this is talking about what anyone can 'know' (which is nothing except that they exist).
How do you know the sky is blue? Because you SEE it as blue, and you TRUST your eyes.
Look at the evidence at hand, not unfounded statements/guesses. Thats the best way not to look Ignorant.
Decartes said 'I think therefore I am', this is talking about what anyone can 'know' (which is nothing except that they exist).
How do you know the sky is blue? Because you SEE it as blue, and you TRUST your eyes.
Look at the evidence at hand, not unfounded statements/guesses. Thats the best way not to look Ignorant.
pokey
Well-Known Member
I can't resist being an idiot and arguing on the internet
so here goes!Natural selection IS adaptation, but through outside forces. That's exactly what I am talking about! Seems it is not just the creationists. Evolution is a theory of creation THROUGH natural selection, but while Evolution cannot exist without natural selection, natural selection can and does exist without Evolution. Using my African plains animals example, let me explain. Those strong creatures that go on to reproduce, they breed, and pass on stronger genes, which may cause more muscle mass, lowered susceptibility to disease, etc... However, they do not create a new species. That is how I differentiate. Nature picks the strongest, but the strongest don't then in turn go on to become something that are not because of it. I am saying that natural selection happens all the time, and nothing new comes of it. Which is to say, natural selection without any evolution of species.
As for it being a theory, it is. Granted, most theories are not guesses, but that doesn't also make them true. The fossil record doesn't help evolution any more than it helps any other theory. Carbon dating is nice and all, but when attempting to date anything older than a supposed 60,000 years, you can't count on it too much for accuracy. For items supposedly millions of years old, you'd only be accurate within a few hundred thousand years, if that. Of course, people can post whatever numbers they wish and who is to dispute them? It's really all just educated guesses anyways.
Also, you talk of predictions made with evolution, I'm sorry, but we have not existed with the theory of evolution long enough to test or observe any of it, and by the time we have (if we don't blow ourselves up, etc...) I doubt people will even remember what we puny ancients thought of our creation.
Another thing, you say evolution didn't stop after Darwin's death, well, apparently it did. We have not found any of his creatures, nor have we found any creature that is between species, that has some sort of adaptation/mutation that makes it better than it's own relatives yet is not a new species yet. According to Darwin, we are constantly evolving, so how come mankind just happens to be in a place where all the creatures have finished evolving or decided to take a break? Does evolution have a stopping point? A place where all creatures are somehow perfectly evolved for their niche and so mutations can only be for the worse and get weeded out?
What I am trying to argue is that there is no way to prove any of man's theories of creation. There is no point in trying to say one is correct, although there is great fun in trying to prove them all wrong. There is no solid evidence for any one theory, and there's been enough bullshit on all sides to make you wonder how you can believe anything else put out by said sides.
email468
Well-Known Member
OK - what evidence would convince you that evolution through natural selection is the more valid theory?I can't resist being an idiot and arguing on the internet
Natural selection IS adaptation, but through outside forces. That's exactly what I am talking about! Seems it is not just the creationists. Evolution is a theory of creation THROUGH natural selection, but while Evolution cannot exist without natural selection, natural selection can and does exist without Evolution. Using my African plains animals example, let me explain. Those strong creatures that go on to reproduce, they breed, and pass on stronger genes, which may cause more muscle mass, lowered susceptibility to disease, etc... However, they do not create a new species. That is how I differentiate. Nature picks the strongest, but the strongest don't then in turn go on to become something that are not because of it. I am saying that natural selection happens all the time, and nothing new comes of it. Which is to say, natural selection without any evolution of species.
As for it being a theory, it is. Granted, most theories are not guesses, but that doesn't also make them true. The fossil record doesn't help evolution any more than it helps any other theory. Carbon dating is nice and all, but when attempting to date anything older than a supposed 60,000 years, you can't count on it too much for accuracy. For items supposedly millions of years old, you'd only be accurate within a few hundred thousand years, if that. Of course, people can post whatever numbers they wish and who is to dispute them? It's really all just educated guesses anyways.
Also, you talk of predictions made with evolution, I'm sorry, but we have not existed with the theory of evolution long enough to test or observe any of it, and by the time we have (if we don't blow ourselves up, etc...) I doubt people will even remember what we puny ancients thought of our creation.
Another thing, you say evolution didn't stop after Darwin's death, well, apparently it did. We have not found any of his creatures, nor have we found any creature that is between species, that has some sort of adaptation/mutation that makes it better than it's own relatives yet is not a new species yet. According to Darwin, we are constantly evolving, so how come mankind just happens to be in a place where all the creatures have finished evolving or decided to take a break? Does evolution have a stopping point? A place where all creatures are somehow perfectly evolved for their niche and so mutations can only be for the worse and get weeded out?
What I am trying to argue is that there is no way to prove any of man's theories of creation. There is no point in trying to say one is correct, although there is great fun in trying to prove them all wrong. There is no solid evidence for any one theory, and there's been enough bullshit on all sides to make you wonder how you can believe anything else put out by said sides.
medicineman
New Member
Ever hear of the missing link?
email468
Well-Known Member
not sure what you mean about not finding the coelacanth - they exist today.
many, many so called "missing link" fossils have been found - including those leading to us. It is true that us guys backing evolution do have it easy if all you need is evidence.
Now keep in mind this is an atheist saying this.... evolution does not explain how life originates - which is why many folks see no compatibility issues between religion and evolution since science hasn't yet completely explained the "spark of life" - though science does get closer every year.
I really don't mean this insultingly when i say, it sounds like you haven't kept up with all the science that supports evolution.
natrone23
Well-Known Member
Finding evidence of evolution is just like homicides are investigated, the police might not have wittnessed the crime or even have a witness, but they collect evidence after the crime was committed..........blood trails, ballistics matches,foot prints, DNA........very similar to palentolgist, biologist collecting the evidence (Fossils , carbon dating, plate tectonics, DNA ect...............All the evidence keeps pointing in one direction, over the last 4.5 billion years life on earth has been evolving through the process of natural selection. Any creationist/Inteligent design is welcomed to submit their theory to a peer reviewed science journal
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Happy Birthday, Pokey. 
I disagree with you but I hope you have good day.
Whenever people argue against natural selection I ask them to explain genetics. Then I ask them to explain the fancy goldfish. Look at what humans can do in an amazingly short period of time (practically punctuated equilibrium) to goldfish, yet one would deny that other forces could effect physiological changes..? Makes no sense to me.
And this is coming from someone who believed what Mahatma Ghandi said, "All religions are true."
Bigger fan of Joseph Campbell, though.. Carl Jung was pretty alright, too, but he didn't quite speak to me the same way.
I disagree with you but I hope you have good day.THANK YOU!
Whenever people argue against natural selection I ask them to explain genetics. Then I ask them to explain the fancy goldfish. Look at what humans can do in an amazingly short period of time (practically punctuated equilibrium) to goldfish, yet one would deny that other forces could effect physiological changes..? Makes no sense to me.
And this is coming from someone who believed what Mahatma Ghandi said, "All religions are true."
Bigger fan of Joseph Campbell, though.. Carl Jung was pretty alright, too, but he didn't quite speak to me the same way.
email468
Well-Known Member
Hey SeaMaiden - i'm getting the impression from the movie that people think scientists ban together and decide what theory they like best and keep all other theories from being heard - how absurd!?!?Happy Birthday, Pokey.
THANK YOU!
Whenever people argue against natural selection I ask them to explain genetics. Then I ask them to explain the fancy goldfish. Look at what humans can do in an amazingly short period of time (practically punctuated equilibrium) to goldfish, yet one would deny that other forces could effect physiological changes..? Makes no sense to me.
And this is coming from someone who believed what Mahatma Ghandi said, "All religions are true."
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Knowing a few of them personally myself, that cracks my ass up.
Just look at how archaeologists go after each other for just having a different idea. They are fucking BRUTAL!
ViRedd
New Member
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Ben Stein Provokes the Liberals' Wrath[/FONT]
by Phyllis Schlafly, May 7, 2008
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Ben Stein is known to many as an actor on Comedy Central. But the funniest part about his latest movie called "Expelled" is not any clever lines spoken by Stein but the hysterical way the liberals are trying to discourage people from seeing it. [/FONT]
Stein's critics don't effectively refute anything in "Expelled"; they just use epithets to ridicule it and hope they can make it go away. However, it won't go away; even Scientific American, which labeled the movie "shameful," concedes that it cannot be ignored.
The movie is about how scientists who dare to criticize Darwinism or discuss the contrary theory called Intelligent Design (ID) are expelled, fired, denied tenure, blacklisted, and bitterly denounced. Academic freedom doesn't extend to this issue.
The message of Stein's critics comes through loud and clear. They don't want anybody to challenge Darwinian orthodoxy or suggest that Intelligent Design might be an explanation of the origin of life.
Stein, who serves as his own narrator in the movie, is very deadpan about it all. He doesn't try to convince the audience that Darwinism is a fraud, or that God created the world, or even that some unidentified Intelligent Design might have started life on Earth.
Stein merely shows the intolerance of the universities, the government, the courts, the grant-making foundations and the media, and their determination to suppress any mention of Intelligent Design.
The only question posed by the movie is why, oh why, is there such a deliberate, consistent, widespread, vindictive effort to silence all criticism of dogmatic Darwinism or discussion of alternate theories of the origin of life? Stein interviews scientists who were blacklisted, denied grants, and ostracized in the academic community because they dared to write or speak the forbidden words.
The liberals are particularly upset because the movie identifies Darwinism, rather than evolution, as the sacred word that must be isolated from criticism. But that semantic choice makes good sense because Darwinism is easily defined by Darwin's own writings, whereas the word evolution is subject to different and even contrary definitions.
The truly funny part of the movie is Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, whose best-selling book "The God Delusion" established this Englishman as the world's premier atheist. Dawkins is a leading advocate of the theory that all life evolved from a single beginning in an ancient mud puddle, perhaps after being struck by lightning.
Putting aside the issue of evolving, how did life begin in the first place? Under Stein's questioning, Dawkins finally said it is possible that life might have evolved on Earth after the arrival of a more highly developed being from another planet.
Aren't aliens from outer space the stuff of science fiction? And how was the other-planet alien created? According to Dawkins, life must have just spontaneously evolved on another planet, of course without God.
Stein spent two years traveling the world to gather material for this movie. He interviewed scores of scientists and academics who say they were retaliated against because of questioning Darwin's theories.
Stein interviewed Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist who lost his position at the prestigious Smithsonian Institution after he published a peer-reviewed article that mentioned Intelligent Design. Other academics who said they were victims of the anti-ID campus police included astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, denied tenure at Iowa State University, and Caroline Crocker, who lost her professorship at George Mason University.
Stein dares to include some filming at the death camps in Nazi Germany as a backdrop for interviews that explain Charles Darwin's considerable influence on Adolf Hitler and his well-known atrocities. The Darwin-Hitler connection was not a Stein discovery; Darwin's influence on Hitler's political worldview, and Hitler's rejection of the sacredness of human life, is acknowledged in standard biographies of Hitler.
Stein also addresses how Darwin's theories influenced one of the U.S.'s most embarrassing periods, the eugenics fad of the early 20th century. Thousands of Americans were legally sterilized as physically or mentally unfit.
Mandatory sterilization based on Darwin's theories was even approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing his famous line, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Stein also reminds us that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who wanted to eliminate the races she believed were inferior.
Stein's message is that the attack on freedom of inquiry is anti-science, anti-American, and anti-the whole concept of learning. His dramatization should force the public, and maybe even academia, to address this extraordinary intolerance of diversity.
Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/may08/08-05-07.html [/font]
by Phyllis Schlafly, May 7, 2008
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Ben Stein is known to many as an actor on Comedy Central. But the funniest part about his latest movie called "Expelled" is not any clever lines spoken by Stein but the hysterical way the liberals are trying to discourage people from seeing it. [/FONT]
Stein's critics don't effectively refute anything in "Expelled"; they just use epithets to ridicule it and hope they can make it go away. However, it won't go away; even Scientific American, which labeled the movie "shameful," concedes that it cannot be ignored.
The movie is about how scientists who dare to criticize Darwinism or discuss the contrary theory called Intelligent Design (ID) are expelled, fired, denied tenure, blacklisted, and bitterly denounced. Academic freedom doesn't extend to this issue.
The message of Stein's critics comes through loud and clear. They don't want anybody to challenge Darwinian orthodoxy or suggest that Intelligent Design might be an explanation of the origin of life.
Stein, who serves as his own narrator in the movie, is very deadpan about it all. He doesn't try to convince the audience that Darwinism is a fraud, or that God created the world, or even that some unidentified Intelligent Design might have started life on Earth.
Stein merely shows the intolerance of the universities, the government, the courts, the grant-making foundations and the media, and their determination to suppress any mention of Intelligent Design.
The only question posed by the movie is why, oh why, is there such a deliberate, consistent, widespread, vindictive effort to silence all criticism of dogmatic Darwinism or discussion of alternate theories of the origin of life? Stein interviews scientists who were blacklisted, denied grants, and ostracized in the academic community because they dared to write or speak the forbidden words.
The liberals are particularly upset because the movie identifies Darwinism, rather than evolution, as the sacred word that must be isolated from criticism. But that semantic choice makes good sense because Darwinism is easily defined by Darwin's own writings, whereas the word evolution is subject to different and even contrary definitions.
The truly funny part of the movie is Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, whose best-selling book "The God Delusion" established this Englishman as the world's premier atheist. Dawkins is a leading advocate of the theory that all life evolved from a single beginning in an ancient mud puddle, perhaps after being struck by lightning.
Putting aside the issue of evolving, how did life begin in the first place? Under Stein's questioning, Dawkins finally said it is possible that life might have evolved on Earth after the arrival of a more highly developed being from another planet.
Aren't aliens from outer space the stuff of science fiction? And how was the other-planet alien created? According to Dawkins, life must have just spontaneously evolved on another planet, of course without God.
Stein spent two years traveling the world to gather material for this movie. He interviewed scores of scientists and academics who say they were retaliated against because of questioning Darwin's theories.
Stein interviewed Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist who lost his position at the prestigious Smithsonian Institution after he published a peer-reviewed article that mentioned Intelligent Design. Other academics who said they were victims of the anti-ID campus police included astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, denied tenure at Iowa State University, and Caroline Crocker, who lost her professorship at George Mason University.
Stein dares to include some filming at the death camps in Nazi Germany as a backdrop for interviews that explain Charles Darwin's considerable influence on Adolf Hitler and his well-known atrocities. The Darwin-Hitler connection was not a Stein discovery; Darwin's influence on Hitler's political worldview, and Hitler's rejection of the sacredness of human life, is acknowledged in standard biographies of Hitler.
Stein also addresses how Darwin's theories influenced one of the U.S.'s most embarrassing periods, the eugenics fad of the early 20th century. Thousands of Americans were legally sterilized as physically or mentally unfit.
Mandatory sterilization based on Darwin's theories was even approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing his famous line, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Stein also reminds us that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who wanted to eliminate the races she believed were inferior.
Stein's message is that the attack on freedom of inquiry is anti-science, anti-American, and anti-the whole concept of learning. His dramatization should force the public, and maybe even academia, to address this extraordinary intolerance of diversity.
Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/may08/08-05-07.html [/font]
Last edited:
