RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/18/2008 1:34:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat I agree. I'm very VERY left-wing and have always considered Michael Moore an embarrassment. He raises good issues, make good points but does it in such a juvenile way that it hurts to watch him. And, anyone relying on Michael Moore to shed light on matters should hang up their political boots. He was on a politic debate show over here one time (on a panel with various others). Another American bloke was on the panel and made a comment in support of US foreign policy. Moore's response: "you're in England now, you can't fool these people". 'Totally cringeworthy, and it went down like a lead balloon. Talk about having zero respect for your hosts. Obviously, he doesn't know England as well as he thinks; the debate is won on the strength of the argument rather than some half-arsed playing to the gallery effort. That man doesn't impress me one iota. Edited for grammar.

meatcleaver -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/18/2008 1:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Now I remember the reek of this "film" - Before you go rushing out to applaud it (or block book a theatre for your group) consider the experience of P.Z. Myers at the duplicitous hands of the producers of this festival of distortions. In short, having tricked him into an interview under false pretenses, they edit his responses to fit their thesis and drop them into the real film. Then they promote the fake film as a confrontation of himself, Dawkins and other similarly tricked participants. If this is any indication of their integrity and intellectual honesty we can expect a propaganda piece long on accusation and void of science. If you read nothing else, skip to the bit where Myers is expelled from the movie's premiere, just for showing up - while the zealous producers allow his guest, Richard Dawkins into the screening. Dawkins proceeds to rip a strip off the producers in the post show Q&A, not only for their duplicity in gathering the footage used, but for their own expulsion of a critic of their dogma. LMFAO!! Talk about 'hoist on their own petard. How do I spell hypocrite? B E N S T E I N. Z. Z, Not arguing against your points, because I have zero knowledge of this film and the events surrounding it (yet). However, I couldn't but help find humor that you seem to be saying the same thing about this film, that many on the "right" side said about Michael Moore's films ... There is some symmetry here. [:)] Firm I'm no Michael Moore fan but his stuff isn't aimed at me, its aimed at people who don't read books or investigate issues in any depth but Moore is right when he points out that American healthcare is sick and that countries with gun control have less gun crime and mass killings like Columbine. Ben Stein however, is entitled to his opinion but from what I understand, its an opinion served up in complete ignorance of the theory he is attacking.

Marc2b -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/18/2008 6:42:44 AM)
quote: Oddsmakers did. There are better odds of intelligent life coming from rock soup if you spread the theory of its origin over a wider area. When it starts to get as big as the cosmos, almost anything seems possible. One planet? Not so much. But... If we accept as a given that intelligent life has a greater chance of appearing over a wide area (i.e. the universe) versus a small area (i.e. one planet) then the small area where it does appear (i.e. Earth) is where the intelligent life will be asking "what are the odds it could happen here." A question for those who believe in Intelligent Design: Why do men have nipples? A plumber wouldn’t be very intelligent if he put a faucet where there was no pipe.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/18/2008 9:41:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b A question for those who believe in Intelligent Design: Why do men have nipples? A plumber wouldn’t be very intelligent if he put a faucet where there was no pipe. You might find this interesting, Marc, just in the interest of finding a better analogy... http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/milkmen.html I had a call this afternoon from someone who had just seen a screening. He said it was an interesting take, and raised some good points, without getting preachy. I generally trust his judgement on that sort of thing. It'll be DVD or HBO when I see it.

DomKen -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 7:29:51 AM)
Expelled is pretty awful as a film. It isn't even a well made film in the most basic sense. They can't seem to stick to a single thesis. The film is supposed to be about the manufactroversy that several supporters if intelligent design were mistreated in academia over their beliefs. Strangely all those claims are demonstrably false. It then wanders into some of the tried and true strawmen of the ID movement. Claims that racism and antisemitism are somehow based on evolutionary theory even though both predate the human concept of the theory of evolution by at least a thousand years. The production of the film where Myers, Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and others were lied to in order to get them to sit for interviews is of course deeply troubling ethically and seems to violate one of those pesky commandments christians are supposed to live by. I got in to see it free at one of the advance screenings after which I wished I'd spent those 2 hours doing almost anything else. I would recommend not spending hard earned money on it.

bipolarber -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:01:12 AM)
Well, you guys can go see this smelly turd of a film if you want. I'm not going to advocate silencing anyone. However, if by halfway through the thing, you realize what a mistake you've made, please remember that you CAN and SHOULD get up, walk out, and demand your money back if you feel their advertising misled you into putting money into the pockets of creationists. Or, just wait for it to hit the $1.00 flicks. Or, just wait for it to show up on Fox, or it's affiliated channels. They'll play anything into the ground. Or, just wait for the pirated version to be put onto streaming video for free. As I recall, Kansas spent about $20 million on the legal fight against teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" (creationisim) in classrooms. They lost, even though President Bush endorsed the idea of teaching religion in science classes. Of course, now, the seperation of church and state has been heavily weakened, and perhaps the creationist nutjobs can now get the camel's nose under the tent. The idea that, just because we don't currently know what started life on Earth,* that it should be immediately attributed to a divine being, is a little primative. It's just as wrong as early people attributing rain to the gods because they didn't understand the Earth's water cycle of evaporation, condensation, and rain. *actually, we DO have a pretty good idea how it began... most people just don't want to research the theory of organic chemistry, the rise of amino acids, and the formation of the first early cellular organisims. From there, evolution pretty much explains everything else.

Sanity -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:07:37 AM)
We're almost to the point where we're reaching out to the stars ourselves. It isn't inconceivable that sometime in the future we'll be building cosmic arks and setting in motion a series of events that could lead to someone somewhere else very far away asking the exact same things you did here. As to your "plumbers" question; Let's say you were a genetic engineer. Would you never take a shortcut? Or would you waste years and years meticulously duplicating all work that had been done previously. Besides, nipples can be very useful even on men. For example, one can peirce them, and hang various things there. quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Oddsmakers did. There are better odds of intelligent life coming from rock soup if you spread the theory of its origin over a wider area. When it starts to get as big as the cosmos, almost anything seems possible. One planet? Not so much. But... If we accept as a given that intelligent life has a greater chance of appearing over a wide area (i.e. the universe) versus a small area (i.e. one planet) then the small area where it does appear (i.e. Earth) is where the intelligent life will be asking "what are the odds it could happen here." A question for those who believe in Intelligent Design: Why do men have nipples? A plumber wouldn’t be very intelligent if he put a faucet where there was no pipe.

Marc2b -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 12:52:28 PM)
The Heretic said: quote: You might find this interesting, Marc, just in the interest of finding a better analogy... http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/milkmen.html That fact that some men lactate doesn’t change the fact that it is the female, not the male, that evolved to nurse our young. Lactating men – besides being the exception that proves that rule – are also the evidence to the real answer I’m looking for, the answer that creationists don’t want to hear because it is evidence of evolution and not of special creation. Which I’ll get to in a moment. Sanity said: quote: We're almost to the point where we're reaching out to the stars ourselves. It isn't inconceivable that sometime in the future we'll be building cosmic arks and setting in motion a series of events that could lead to someone somewhere else very far away asking the exact same things you did here. Yes it is conceivable but until reliable evidence comes along to prove that we were seeded here by another race the simpler solution (that we evolved here on our own) is the preferred one. My point is that if you accept that life can evolve on it’s own in the universe then why is it so inconceivable that it evolved here? The odds may be against life evolving in most parts of the universe (and bear in mind that this is life as we understand it) but because the universe is so vast the law of averages say that sooner or later the right conditions will come together and intelligent life will evolve. Turns out that it happened in our neck of the woods. And so, here we are – scratching our heads and asking ourselves, "what are the odds?" quote: As to your "plumbers" question; Let's say you were a genetic engineer. Would you never take a shortcut? Or would you waste years and years meticulously duplicating all work that had been done previously. Besides, nipples can be very useful even on men. For example, one can peirce them, and hang various things there. What purpose does taking a shortcut do if it is not achieving a goal? Creationists say that life is designed by a higher power. Again I ask, what is the purpose in the design of putting a faucet (nipples) where there is no pipe (males – the occasional lactating man aside)? Evolution has no design in mind. It is a process with results that may look like design but rather result from the fact that systems seek equilibrium (which should never be confused with harmony). Faster prey gets away resulting in slower predators dying resulting in faster predators reproducing more faster predators and so on. The reason men have nipples is not because we evolved them but rather because they have been left over in the process of our evolution. Men have nipples not because they are a separate, designed, creation of some higher power that put them there for some unfathomable purpose. but rather because (ladies, feel free to smirk) males are modified females. Contrary to what the Bible would have us believe it was Eve who came first, not Adam. The writer(s) of Genesis got it backwards – female, not male, is the default gender. Essentially, we could say that male evolved from female. This actually occurred long before the human race evolved but we still bear some of the signs of that evolution.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 5:55:54 PM)
Or that the process of evoution and the desire to "seek equilibrium" is what was designed.

Real_Trouble -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 6:04:33 PM)
Before this gets totally off the rails, I would like to interject that if you want to have a scientific debate, you should go back and read my initial post (it is the second in the thread). What we have now is just pontificating; the essence of science and supported theories demands testing. Unless both sides are willing to propose testable and falsifiable experiments to demonstrate their point of view which are coherent with regard to their underlying theories, it's just a bunch of hot air.

Sanity -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 6:11:50 PM)
There is evidence that we were seeded by another race, but not everyone gets an opportunity to see it. My own close encounter occurred in the summer of 1990 at about 4:30 a.m. one morning while I was driving to work on interstate 184 between Mountain Home, Idaho and Boise, Idaho. It about made me shit my pants, and I've had the best we have come right over head and dropping 500 pound bombs onto targets right in front of me before. What I saw that summer morning was definately a craft that we don't have. I'm not the only one who has ever seen a ship like this either - far from it. Pilots, astronauts, people of all walks of life and through the ages have reported seeing visiting ships. Just their reported presence should be considered to be highly significant when pondering our origins. When I say we would have faced long odds "evolving" here I'm using the term "evolve" very loosely. I mean, everything that had to come together perfectly is hard to imagine. The planet had to have perfect distance and spin and chemical composition. Life spontaneously erupting in muddy sulphuric water with an unimaginably harsh atmosphere, then reproducing and "evolving" upward to what we see today, and what we know has walked the earth in the past... the odds against all of this coming together on one single planet are just incredible. Beyond incredible... unfathomable. But imagine it as a task, instead. Like building a skyscraper, only on a larger scale and with far more to consider. First thing, build an interstellar ship and stock its freezers with every DNA sample imaginable. Make it a big ship, possibly with small cities and farms... colleges, hospitals. Everything that's needed to support an entire society. A "Death Star" but only for life. Next go forth and find planets near stars meeting certain criteria. Move the planets to their needed orbits rotations and introduce genetically engineered forms of "primitive life" designed and built with the ability to live in each planet's unique harsh poisonous conditions, and that will begin to make breathable air and livable soil. Gradually engineer and introduce higher and higher life forms as needed... and monitor their natural evolution carefully. Sometimes mass extinctions may have been necessary... perhaps the dinosaurs were there more for fertilizer than anything else. We don't really know. Your nipple fascination doesn't mean anything in my opinion. People used such science to argue that the earth was the center of the universe much like you're using your nipple idea to "prove" that we evolved from sterile rocks. Sorry, no disrespect meant, but it just doesn't wash with me. I think you're one of the more intelligent people on collarme, Marc, and I know that my ideas in this regard are "out there" but I don't care. Why care... it's just an idea, just like everyone else's ideas. No better or worse really.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 6:25:37 PM)
Real_Trouble: There's a pretty big difference between theory and faith. I don't think your point is as clever as you think it is. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Sanity -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 7:13:27 PM)
There is evidence that we were seeded by another race, but not everyone gets an opportunity to see it. My own close encounter occurred in the summer of 1990 at about 4:30 a.m. one morning while I was driving to work on interstate 184 between Mountain Home, Idaho and Boise, Idaho. It about made me shit my pants, and I've had the best we have come right over head and dropping 500 pound bombs onto targets right in front of me before. What I saw that summer morning was definately a craft that we don't have. I'm not the only one who has ever seen a ship like this either - far from it. Pilots, astronauts, people of all walks of life and through the ages have reported seeing visiting ships. Just their reported presence should be considered to be highly significant when pondering our origins. When I say we would have faced long odds "evolving" here I'm using the term "evolve" very loosely. I mean, everything that had to come together perfectly is hard to imagine. The planet had to have perfect distance and spin and chemical composition. Life spontaneously erupting in muddy sulphuric water with an unimaginably harsh atmosphere, then reproducing and "evolving" upward to what we see today, and what we know has walked the earth in the past... the odds against all of this coming together on one single planet are just incredible. Beyond incredible... unfathomable. But imagine it as a task, instead. Like building a skyscraper, only on a larger scale and with far more to consider. First thing, build an interstellar ship and stock its freezers with every DNA sample imaginable. Make it a big ship, possibly with small cities and farms... colleges, hospitals. Everything that's needed to support an entire society. A "Death Star" but only for life. Next go forth and find planets near stars meeting certain criteria. Move the planets to their needed orbits rotations and introduce genetically engineered forms of "primitive life" designed and built with the ability to live in each planet's unique harsh poisonous conditions, and that will begin to make breathable air and livable soil. Gradually engineer and introduce higher and higher life forms as needed... and monitor their natural evolution carefully. Sometimes mass extinctions may have been necessary... perhaps the dinosaurs were here more for fertilizer than anything else. Or entertainment... We don't really know. Your nipple fascination doesn't mean anything in my opinion. People used such science to argue that the earth was the center of the universe much like you're using your nipple idea to "prove" that we evolved from sterile rocks. Sorry, no disrespect meant, but it just doesn't wash with me. I think you're one of the more intelligent people on collarme, Marc, and I know that my ideas in this regard are "out there" but I don't care. Why care... it's just an idea, just like everyone else's ideas. No better or worse really.

Real_Trouble -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Real_Trouble: There's a pretty big difference between theory and faith. I don't think your point is as clever as you think it is. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory I'm not attempting to be clever, I'm attempting to be factually correct. The intelligent design issue has been repeatedly framed as a scientific debate, and one which should occur in science classrooms. If that is the case, it should be judged under the framework of scientific understanding, theory, and methodology. I'm not arguing about faith on any side here; I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what people want to say about faith as long as they don't say it in a science class. However, because we're discussing intelligent design in particular in this thread (specifically regarding Stein, the DI, etc) and they are framing the debate as scientific, I think that's a valid context to assume. This is my key point - Stein's movie, the Discovery Institute, the Dover lawsuit, etc are all a push to have intelligent design taught as a theory in a science class. Therefore, it must be judged on that standard. Likewise, anything someone is going to say about evolution in a science class needs to be held up to that standard as well (I have major problems with Dawkins parading his views as science, for instance). That's why this debate makes me so irritated; I'm not trying to be clever at all. It is a point that should be totally obvious. If one wants to assert this is a discussion of faith, then feel free, but that means one must necessarily disagree with many of Stein's points and the agenda of the Discovery Institute. If one want to assert this is an issue based around scientific theory, then let's hear some evidence and see some published research. You are right, there is a huge difference between faith and theory. That is precisely the point I am making.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:10:17 PM)
How does the theory of evolution fail to stand up to scrutiny then? I don't disagree with the rest of it except that my opinion of Dawkins differs - and I guess it depends on whether we are discussing his personal views or his actual theories and contributions to the progress of science.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:12:14 PM)
You don't even have to ask why men have nipples. (Or, I don't know, how about adenoids?) Just ask why God created retroviruses. I've never heard a cogent answer. quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The Heretic said: quote: You might find this interesting, Marc, just in the interest of finding a better analogy... http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/milkmen.html That fact that some men lactate doesn’t change the fact that it is the female, not the male, that evolved to nurse our young. Lactating men – besides being the exception that proves that rule – are also the evidence to the real answer I’m looking for, the answer that creationists don’t want to hear because it is evidence of evolution and not of special creation. Which I’ll get to in a moment.

Real_Trouble -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro How does the theory of evolution fail to stand up to scrutiny then? I don't disagree with the rest of it except that my opinion of Dawkins differs - and I guess it depends on whether we are discussing his personal views or his actual theories and contributions to the progress of science. For the most part, it doesn't fail to stand up to scrutiny, from my vantage point. There are some parts of the entire evolution block of scientific thought that are conjecture; we still don't have immensely strong evidence for things like punctuated equilibrium's state change model (though we are getting there rapidly), and the actual literal origin of life is a conjecture (a very well supported one, but a conjecture no less) in my eyes simply because we don't really have a good experiment to replicate it or way to rule out alternative explanations conclusively. That doesn't mean it's wrong or that we have a better option, just that we need to keep testing and pressing ahead. I am arguing that all sides be held to an equal standard of proof, because that sorts the pretenders out from the real thing in the debate very quickly. My point is not that evolution is wrong. My point is that when a faith-based debate or bogus rhetorical devices masquerading as science are cloaked in the auspices of the scientific method, that's a serious red herring. So, in short, if we hold both sides to a strong standard of proof and proper methodology, I think the truth comes out very quickly about the strength of each side's arguments. You will notice from the tenor of my comments I am not in favor of intelligent design as a scientific theory. I think you have mistaken my stance and views on this issue. Edit - I am specifically referring to the God Delusion regarding Dawkins, which is a philosophical work, not a scientific one. I have no issues with his published research papers; those are science. My issue is that he's using his status as a scientist to push his views in non-scientific areas as more authoritative than they should be.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:35:42 PM)
No, I wasn't mistaking your views - generally we agree. I was just pressing a few points. After your last post, I'd say we agree entirely on this issue. Thanks for the clarifications.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 8:42:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity When I say we would have faced long odds "evolving" here I'm using the term "evolve" very loosely. I mean, everything that had to come together perfectly is hard to imagine. The planet had to have perfect distance and spin and chemical composition. Life spontaneously erupting in muddy sulphuric water with an unimaginably harsh atmosphere, then reproducing and "evolving" upward to what we see today, and what we know has walked the earth in the past... the odds against all of this coming together on one single planet are just incredible. Beyond incredible... unfathomable. I don't see your problem with the idea, Sanity. We are the ones that hit the jackport. Of course, since we have no real idea just how common life might be on other planets, it's hard to say just how big a jackpot it might have been. For anyone who might be thinking I'm all in with the ID side of the argument, I'm a heretic. I don't find any contradictions believing in both a higher energy, and that we evolved to what we are. I just thought the nipples analogy was a poor choice.

Sanity -> RE: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (4/19/2008 9:05:40 PM)
Its the number of spins it would take to hit that jackpot, my friend. One planet, one pull. With the entire cosmos figured in there are practically unlimited pulls. Always go with the odds, especially if you have some key inside information - as in, you had just seen an alien ship go by, or something like that. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I don't see your problem with the idea, Sanity. We are the ones that hit the jackport. Of course, since we have no real idea just how common life might be on other planets, it's hard to say just how big a jackpot it might have been. For anyone who might be thinking I'm all in with the ID side of the argument, I'm a heretic. I don't find any contradictions believing in both a higher energy, and that we evolved to what we are. I just thought the nipples analogy was a poor choice.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125