Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 56 57 58 > >>
This straw man still hasn't been burned enough...

BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.


This is the only point I won't argue with, science only cares about empirical evidence, not how many people believe something. That's why just because a ton of people believe in god, that doesn't make god real. You need empirical evidence to support yourself in science, not a consensus.

BlueCollarJoe
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.


... "evolutionist followers". Yeah, cause we say "relativityist followers" and "gravityist followers", "thermodynamicsist followers". Theories supported by evidence are like a religious institution? Really? Religion tells you to take things on faith, science tells you to take things based on empirical evidence, or, rather, try to invalidate the theory by providing yet more empirical evidence.

BlueCollarJoe
Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.


... The hell? I doubt Darwin ever did say that because he wouldn't know what a random mutation was, you see, he had no idea how genetics worked, no idea about DNA. So what makes you think he'd ever say "it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution?" And what does that even mean? That you need more than one random mutation to be a different species? Well, duh, mutations, while very rare, are still common enough so that at fertilization alone there are multiple inheritable mutations not present in either of the parents. Plus you seem to be forgetting to mention that all important "natural selection" bit. You see, random mutations in the genome creates the changes, but selection non-randomly selects for those mutations, it's in this way that greater complexity can happen not by chance, even if mutations are by chance.

BlueCollarJoe
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.


... What does "missing link" mean? There are hundreds of thousands and millions of different common ancestors, but there are multiple extinct "links" from a common ancestor to a modern species anyway.

BlueCollarJoe
Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.


Except it happens to be "god" in creationism.

BlueCollarJoe
Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.


Except that "someone/thing" happens to be god in ID. After all, if it's aliens those aliens still needed to come about, you can't stick just to ID unless you bring in god in the beginning. It's creationism in a cheap tuxedo, Cdesign propoinists, Wedge Document, honestly, it was created by people just to get creationism taught in classrooms and the guy who is credited with the movement has even said that there's no real evidence for it and it's completely unsupported while evolution has solved any and all major problems.

BlueCollarJoe
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.


... Except biological systems are not like a car, the minor changes happened over time, it's like going from the model T to the DB9 as technology grows. It's not suddenly you have a DB9. Evolution functions by random mutations selected non-randomly which allows for greater complexity in life... over long periods of time, it'd make sense you'd end up with a DB9 or something of far greater complexity, like the human brain.

BlueCollarJoe
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.


That's most certainly not evolution, that's the worst straw man I've ever heard... in fact, if two monkeys did nail a goat and come up with a squirrel, you'd absolutely invalidate evolution. I mean you'd invalidate it on epic proportions, as only two closely related animals can even mate successfully, and their offspring would pretty much be sterile. If you go far enough back, say, a goat and a monkey, they share a common ancestor LONGGGGG ago, they should not be able to mate, and if they do and produce a squirrel, you've just shattered the entire phylogenetic tree. Common descent would be utterly rejected.
Lady_Imrahil's avatar

Gracious Reveler

10,900 Points
  • Battle: Defender 100
  • Tested Practitioner 250
  • Battle: Cleric 100
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.


I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.
I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
In conclusion: Ken Miller is not a scientist.
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.


I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
You're dodging again. How does ID qualify as science? How is it testable, how is it falsifiable. If it isn't both, it is not science. Prove that ID is testable and falsifiable, or concede that ID is not science.
ElectricTerra's avatar

Feral Kitten

5,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • First step to fame 200
I found this website through an article discussing Expelled - they'd linked to one of the clips from the movie and I searched to see if they had more, and they most certainly do! I refuse to pay to go see this movie in theatres because I will not financially support these dishonest movie makers, so this is a good way for anyone who agrees to watch a good bit of the movie. Maybe then Lady Imrahil and her mother will stop whining that nobody's seen it.

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=search&substring=expelled
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.


I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd


Both are the same, how do you not get that? Hell, if we stick purly by design, you'll need a supernatural element at some point, why? Well, if aliens, non-supernatural, seeded the planet, what created the aliens? More aliens? Ok, and before that what created those aliens? More aliens? You only have a limited number of years to go back (13.7 billion) before you run out of aliens to seed other aliens, so you'd need a supernatural component to bring those into life. ID, in EVERY way, needs a god to be true.

However, considering that the textbook used for ID was originally a creationist text, and considering that ID again has NO testable hypothesis (please please please PLEASE provide one, just one, state how it's testable AND falsifiable), only THEN can you claim ID isn't creationism relabeled. But as it stands, the main advocates of ID, the Discovery Institute with their Wedge Document make it fairly clear ID is creationism in a cheap tux. It's most certainly not science, it's not even a hypothesis (again, PROVIDE ONE, before you go claiming it's anything more than creationism), it's simply creationism. It was made as a creationist ploy, and it still remains a creationist ploy.
A Confused Iguana
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.
I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
In conclusion: Ken Miller is not a scientist.


Nor is he a catholic according to IDiots (creationists), can't believe in god and evolution eh?

By the way, anyone else confused with how Behe doesn't deny common descent, supports ID, and essentially is going for the pure argument of ignorance "well... our conclusions are right, but our explanations are wrong, my proof, I have none"?
Katherine1
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.


I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
You're dodging again. How does ID qualify as science? How is it testable, how is it falsifiable. If it isn't both, it is not science. Prove that ID is testable and falsifiable, or concede that ID is not science.


Get used to her s**t, she and and her other account (mrshercudel) are masters of slimy semantics and acting stupid in order to get points ignored.
vipr230
Rao the Zen Android
Katherine1
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.


I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd
You're dodging again. How does ID qualify as science? How is it testable, how is it falsifiable. If it isn't both, it is not science. Prove that ID is testable and falsifiable, or concede that ID is not science.


Get used to her s**t, she and and her other account (mrshercudel) are masters of slimy semantics and acting stupid in order to get points ignored.


I noticed, I read when you two were arguing in the beginning of this thread... I kinda wanted to jump in and strangle them for all the dodged points.

Edit: "He/she" rofl


This is nothing, you should have seen the 4 or so "SISTERHOOD" threads. She has like two other accounts, keep an eye out.
Well, I am going to eat supper, and then drive back to my dorm. I'll be back in an hour or so. Hopefully she'll be back on by then.
BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.

Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.

Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.

Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.
Posts like these are why I've been called an elitist when I say ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions. Evolution isn't random at all, in any way. Life began with chemicals, not single celled organisms. For the last time the Creationist textbook and the Intelligent Design textbook ARE THE EXACT SAME except that the word creator has been changed to designer and creation has been changed to design. THEY ARE LITERALLY THE SAME BOOK. Until you go and compare the two books please stfu. The F***ing end.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games