By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Ben Stein to take on Darwinism on April 18

Smidlee on 07 March 2008

"please dont ever say that ID is a scientific theory...."

 

This is the whole issue there ; the monopoly of science , for they know that science is power and those who controls this power controls the American people. (at least their pocket books) Just look at the billions we spend to send a probe to a dead rock, Mars. I had notice that two Hollywood movies were made at the time to sell this crap to American people that somehow there was life on Mars. It's the same spending billions going to the moon in the 60's. Russia was smarter there since the most profitable and useful space programs are ones done a few miles up above us.
This is the heart of the movie , the monopoly and control of science and as with any power there are those who really to abuse it.



Around the Network
libellule on 07 March 2008

 

ABOUT ID 

 greenmedic88 said:

So it's a theory. With flaws and inconsistencies. But the evidence to support the theory far outweighs evidence to the contrary. It is not a reason to simply believe all of reality was simply "willed" into being.


==> so if ID is a theroy (if I get what u said)

if Id possess evidence,

 then give them to us plz, any links ?

(with active evidence pro-ID, not anti-evolution/darwinism comments)



Time to Work !

soccerdrew17 on 07 March 2008
libellule said:
Just a point to Creationist and life :

Some of you are pointing out that, even if evolution seems possible between living forms, the Evolution Theory can't explain how the Life has started from non-biological forms. I want to say to you one thing :
You are completely right. The start of Life is very difficult question that is not very well understood. There are some hypotesis but they are far from being solid and of course we are not able to replicate life in vitro.
But, what you also have to know is that even if Science is not able to prove how Life has started on Earth, there are also no evidence indicating the existence of a God (or similar entity with creative capacity). It means that this "black hole" in the scientifc model of Life is absolutely NOT an argument that u should use to prove that God exists and has created Life.
Then, IF you want to have scientific position on Life, u have to find your own evidence about God.

Then I m asking to Creationist :

what are your ACTIVE evidence that God exists or that "something" created Life ?
What are your explanation about Life's birth ?

If u don't have any evidence, except the lack of credibility of our actual scientific evidences at your eyes OR ur Faith, then u dont have a rationnal evidence that can be used in this discussion, then it means you are not talking about Science but Religion. In this case, this discussion is pretty useless.

Note : there are a lot of "black holes" in the Evolution Theory (even the most recent version) but a Theory is supposed to be a model, not the "TRUTH, but something that seems to explain what we are observing around us (here we are talking about LIFE). Also note a model is supposed to be destroyed or to be perfected with the time and new idea input. It is a scientific reasonnement that need to be proven and that can be destroyed/modulated with new ideas. It has nothing to do with a Religious claim ...

 one more question to add to these (great post) for creationist: how did the intelligent being come ito being?  either u admit that things are how they are and there was nothing to create them (destroying the notion that god created everything) or you admit that something created god, leading back to the original answer.



my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff

i officially boycott boycotts.  crap.

Coca-Cola on 07 March 2008

whether you believe in creation or evolution, we should watch the movie and comment on it.

@rocketpig
I think Creationists are alive and thriving all over the world - I think the point of the movie is that these scientists do not get recognized and even dismissed. I don't think you'd agree with that would you? These are not pastors, they are scientists. Let's hear what they have to say.



rocketpig on 07 March 2008
Smidlee said:
rocketpig said:
Smidlee said:
rocketpig said:
Wow. Just wow. The rampant ignorance in this thread is breath-taking. I'm getting the hell out of here before I go crazy.

Creationists still exist? Really? I thought we were past this sort of silliness.
Someone not knowing creationist still exist and knowing that some have a very sound mind is a statement of ignorance itself, is it not?

 


Sarcasm FTW.

I have no problem with people believing in Creationism, it's their right to believe whatever they like.

What I want Creationists to admit is that their entire argument is based on faith and faith alone. Evolution only piles more and more evidence in its corner as research into genetics improves. But, most importantly, it's based on the solid foundation of science where nothing is sacred and contrary information is not only welcomed, but often ends up changing the scientific community. Science is the antithesis to faith and one is the quest for knowledge while the other constrains it.


As I have no problem with people who believes in the mythical creature that supposed to have been the anestor of both ape and man. As the writer in my article points out often believing is seeing even with evolutionists. I do try to understand why Darwinist believes what they do and sometimes they make give reasons to believe what they do.

Also just because I have faith doesn't mean there isn't any sound evidence or reason behind my faith. True Faith is never alone.


There is ample evidence of a man-like creature that preceded homo sapien, we just haven't found the entirety of the links that lead back to an ape-like creature (but we have found several). That's not surprising given the extreme rarity of fossilized creatures and the specific situations that cause longterm preservation to occur. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is plenty of evidence of evolution without bringing man in the equation.

BTW, I would love to see some of this sound evidence of your faith (at least you call it that). 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
rocketpig on 07 March 2008
libellule said:
@Rath,

I see ur point but I m not totally convinced. In a way, if there is a new character, what is the need to spread it on the whole population ?
I think all sould be linked to geograpical isolation that may be the "starter" of speciation.

I m not sure, Im just not convinced. and where starts a small group ?
2 ? 100 ? 1000 individus ?

The reason a small population is needed is because even creatures of the same species have varying genetic code. The smaller the population, the higher the chance of that evolutionary mutation taking hold before it is "watered out" of the genetic pool. A small isolated population increases the chance of a specific tool evolving and spreading to the entire population quickly, allowing a new species to emerge without mingling with the old species and either dying off or turning recessive.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 07 March 2008
Coca-Cola said:
whether you believe in creation or evolution, we should watch the movie and comment on it.

@rocketpig
I think Creationists are alive and thriving all over the world - I think the point of the movie is that these scientists do not get recognized and even dismissed. I don't think you'd agree with that would you? These are not pastors, they are scientists. Let's hear what they have to say.

Just to be open about it, I have no problem with this movie and will probably watch it. It's hard to properly defend an opinion if you never bother to learn the facts about your opposition and come to a sound conclusion based on as much evidence as you can collect.

After all, that is the entire basis of the Scientific Method.

I'm curious to watch the movie to see if some of the same people pop up from some of the ID/Creationism movies I saw in my Anthropology classes in college. I'm betting there will be a lot of crossover. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 07 March 2008
soccerdrew17 said:
libellule said:
Just a point to Creationist and life :

Some of you are pointing out that, even if evolution seems possible between living forms, the Evolution Theory can't explain how the Life has started from non-biological forms. I want to say to you one thing :
You are completely right. The start of Life is very difficult question that is not very well understood. There are some hypotesis but they are far from being solid and of course we are not able to replicate life in vitro.
But, what you also have to know is that even if Science is not able to prove how Life has started on Earth, there are also no evidence indicating the existence of a God (or similar entity with creative capacity). It means that this "black hole" in the scientifc model of Life is absolutely NOT an argument that u should use to prove that God exists and has created Life.
Then, IF you want to have scientific position on Life, u have to find your own evidence about God.

Then I m asking to Creationist :

what are your ACTIVE evidence that God exists or that "something" created Life ?
What are your explanation about Life's birth ?

If u don't have any evidence, except the lack of credibility of our actual scientific evidences at your eyes OR ur Faith, then u dont have a rationnal evidence that can be used in this discussion, then it means you are not talking about Science but Religion. In this case, this discussion is pretty useless.

Note : there are a lot of "black holes" in the Evolution Theory (even the most recent version) but a Theory is supposed to be a model, not the "TRUTH, but something that seems to explain what we are observing around us (here we are talking about LIFE). Also note a model is supposed to be destroyed or to be perfected with the time and new idea input. It is a scientific reasonnement that need to be proven and that can be destroyed/modulated with new ideas. It has nothing to do with a Religious claim ...

 one more question to add to these (great post) for creationist: how did the intelligent being come ito being?  either u admit that things are how they are and there was nothing to create them (destroying the notion that god created everything) or you admit that something created god, leading back to the original answer.

That's the real kicker, isn't it?

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Coca-Cola on 07 March 2008

@rocketpig btw -sorry about your 360.
If I win a lotto (I'm about to go check right now) I'll get you a new one



kenzomatic on 07 March 2008

You all "fear" being wrong so much because of the implication on both sides

1 There is no god
2 There is a god

it is sad.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.

ioi + 1