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

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

Coca-Cola on 23 April 2008

is $10,000 reward still available?
That's nuts! or good marketing?
I saw this movie and I don't think any young students will like it - it'll to boring for them.



Around the Network
misterd on 23 April 2008
timmytomthegreat said:
This movie is about Neo-Darwinism not being allowed to be questioned in the educational community.

This would come as a great shock to Lynn Margulis, who is a professor at the UMass, and a neoDarwinian skeptic. Her theory of endosymbiosis to explain the rise of complex traits (such as chloroplasts and mitochondria). While her theory was originally disregarded, she managed to get the scientific community to finally recognize its validity by demanding equal time for endosymbiosis in classrooms, criticizing the scientific community for suppressing her beliefs, challenging orthodoxy in court, putting pressure on politicians, and making pro-endosymbiosis movies starring low rent comedians.

 No, wait. She proved her case by doing RESEARCH and providing EVIDENCE. Which is why she's a REAL scientists, her idea a REAL SCIENTIFIC theory, and why she has the RESPECT of the scientific community.

 

TOO BAD BEN STEIN COULDN'T FIND HER NAME OR THEORY MENTIONED IN A HIGH SCHOOL TEXTBOOK

(like this one: http://www.millerandlevine.com/chapter/17/index.html )

 



The_vagabond7 on 23 April 2008

So now the real question is, will TimmyTom stop thinking that evolution is incorrect? Or will he simply change the parameters of what would prove him wrong?



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

kenzomatic on 23 April 2008
misterd said:
kenzomatic said:
Sense reffers to physiological methods of perception. You use that to interpret everything including science experiements.

Common sense based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding.

Understanding reffering to the conclusions people draw. Conclusion are formed through reasonning, Reasonning icludes various forms of logic.

Logic is a piller of common sense, and thus your statement wrong and in need of clairification.

The problem being that common sense is often wrong and built on faulty logic. Most of my students believe crocodiles are green, that NY is warmer in the summer because we're closer to the sun, and that ice packs radiate cold energy. The entire reason that Mendel's work is significant (and served to launch the field of genetics) is that it completely defied common sense. Hell, the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Rutherford, and Einstein defied common sense too. 


Ahh the good old days when I would argue with kasz. If I remember most of that argument I think it was all about symantics. And for some reason no one ever realizes that with out defintion you can be arguing 2 different meanings of a word. Or 2 different understanings.

Next Subject. For all the people who wish not to debate the film but religion.

I really do enjoy when people say things like the bible says earth is ten thousand years old or that it says people walked with dinosaurs.

But better than that is when people tell you what your interpitation of the bible is.

Some of you need a reality check there is a spectrum of believe in the christian community as there is in the scientific community or any community. The pope last time I checked endorsed evolution, well the last pope. Some think the bible is literal, some a metaphore, some literal but from the peoples perspective. Also it does not say even literally how old earth is.

I also enjoy statements like anyone with a brain would know there is no god. I really am not sure how you could be more ignorent. HERE IS MY OVERLY GENERALIZED STATEMENT, Anyone who thinks they can comprehend the entire unvirse and everything in it, is an idiot. Do you think scientist in ten thousand years will agree with all of your theroies?

There are athiest that believe life was brought here by aliens. Some think on a rock some think with a spaceship. Do these things not require some faith? Sure there are things to indicate it is plausible maybe in some opinons highly plausible. But is it plausible to believe there is intellegent life out there? Is it plausible to think things can exist in multiple dimension including that said life? Would that being not be consitered a god?

How can we even calculate the probablity of life on other planets? Many use the requirments Water Oxygen and tempiture. Yet there are animals here on this earth that live in the same condtions as venus. Some scientist even think there may be life on venus.

misterd had a good point todays well held believes and common sense, could easily be turned on there head tommorow.

OH and one last thing ID has a pretty large spectrum of thoughts as well. So try to not to put all those people together too.



"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
Final-Fan on 23 April 2008

@ vagabond:
That's why we need to lock him down on definitions BEFORE making any such attempt. Not that it'll solve the problem.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
misterd on 23 April 2008
kenzomatic said:
misterd said:
kenzomatic said:
Sense reffers to physiological methods of perception. You use that to interpret everything including science experiements.

Common sense based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding.

Understanding reffering to the conclusions people draw. Conclusion are formed through reasonning, Reasonning icludes various forms of logic.

Logic is a piller of common sense, and thus your statement wrong and in need of clairification.

The problem being that common sense is often wrong and built on faulty logic. Most of my students believe crocodiles are green, that NY is warmer in the summer because we're closer to the sun, and that ice packs radiate cold energy. The entire reason that Mendel's work is significant (and served to launch the field of genetics) is that it completely defied common sense. Hell, the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Rutherford, and Einstein defied common sense too. 


Ahh the good old days when I would argue with kasz. If I remember most of that argument I think it was all about symantics. And for some reason no one ever realizes that with out defintion you can be arguing 2 different meanings of a word. Or 2 different understanings.

Next Subject. For all the people who wish not to debate the film but religion.

I really do enjoy when people say things like the bible says earth is ten thousand years old or that it says people walked with dinosaurs.

But better than that is when people tell you what your interpitation of the bible is.

Some of you need a reality check there is a spectrum of believe in the christian community as there is in the scientific community or any community. The pope last time I checked endorsed evolution, well the last pope. Some think the bible is literal, some a metaphore, some literal but from the peoples perspective. Also it does not say even literally how old earth is.

The Bible also does not say that the Bible is literally true in every word. It is amazing how many believers in Biblical inerrancy are unaware that the Bible was assembled by political committee, and that they risk violating the second commandment. 

I also enjoy statements like anyone with a brain would know there is no god. I really am not sure how you could be more ignorent. HERE IS MY OVERLY GENERALIZED STATEMENT, Anyone who thinks they can comprehend the entire unvirse and everything in it, is an idiot. Do you think scientist in ten thousand years will agree with all of your theroies?

No, and I know no scientists who believe that. However, the longer a theory is researched, the more lines of evidence that converge to support it, the less likely that it will be overthrown completely. More likely, these theories will be "tweaked" as was Newton's, as was Darwin's. But scientists are generally very guarded about speaking to absolute certainty. 

There are athiest that believe life was brought here by aliens. Some think on a rock some think with a spaceship. Do these things not require some faith? Sure there are things to indicate it is plausible maybe in some opinons highly plausible. But is it plausible to believe there is intellegent life out there? Is it plausible to think things can exist in multiple dimension including that said life? Would that being not be consitered a god?

If you believe that Little Green Men came here and seeded Earth as we would a garden, then yes, faith is needed. If you are talking about exogenesis - that the basic elements of life were brought here by comets- that is a very testable hypothesis. 

OH and one last thing ID has a pretty large spectrum of thoughts as well. So try to not to put all those people together too.


That's part of the problem with ID - there is no true, single "theory." It'd be like saying every naturalistic explanation of life fell under the same theory of evolution. IDers make no consistent claim to the age of the Earth, or to the degree that natural processes influence evolution (some say at the species level, others just back to the creation of the first cell). Each time research shows that an adaptation is not "irreducibly complex", like the eye, or flagellum, or clotting factors, they either pretend that they never heard about it, or move the line back to the next thing scientists haven't done much research on (yet). They even refuse (generally dishonestly) to say who the designer is.



kenzomatic on 23 April 2008
misterd said:
kenzomatic said:
misterd said:
kenzomatic said:
Sense reffers to physiological methods of perception. You use that to interpret everything including science experiements.

Common sense based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding.

Understanding reffering to the conclusions people draw. Conclusion are formed through reasonning, Reasonning icludes various forms of logic.

Logic is a piller of common sense, and thus your statement wrong and in need of clairification.

The problem being that common sense is often wrong and built on faulty logic. Most of my students believe crocodiles are green, that NY is warmer in the summer because we're closer to the sun, and that ice packs radiate cold energy. The entire reason that Mendel's work is significant (and served to launch the field of genetics) is that it completely defied common sense. Hell, the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Rutherford, and Einstein defied common sense too. 


Ahh the good old days when I would argue with kasz. If I remember most of that argument I think it was all about symantics. And for some reason no one ever realizes that with out defintion you can be arguing 2 different meanings of a word. Or 2 different understanings.

Next Subject. For all the people who wish not to debate the film but religion.

I really do enjoy when people say things like the bible says earth is ten thousand years old or that it says people walked with dinosaurs.

But better than that is when people tell you what your interpitation of the bible is.

Some of you need a reality check there is a spectrum of believe in the christian community as there is in the scientific community or any community. The pope last time I checked endorsed evolution, well the last pope. Some think the bible is literal, some a metaphore, some literal but from the peoples perspective. Also it does not say even literally how old earth is.

The Bible also does not say that the Bible is literally true in every word. It is amazing how many believers in Biblical inerrancy are unaware that the Bible was assembled by political committee, and that they risk violating the second commandment. 

I also enjoy statements like anyone with a brain would know there is no god. I really am not sure how you could be more ignorent. HERE IS MY OVERLY GENERALIZED STATEMENT, Anyone who thinks they can comprehend the entire unvirse and everything in it, is an idiot. Do you think scientist in ten thousand years will agree with all of your theroies?

No, and I know no scientists who believe that. However, the longer a theory is researched, the more lines of evidence that converge to support it, the less likely that it will be overthrown completely. More likely, these theories will be "tweaked" as was Newton's, as was Darwin's. But scientists are generally very guarded about speaking to absolute certainty. 

There are athiest that believe life was brought here by aliens. Some think on a rock some think with a spaceship. Do these things not require some faith? Sure there are things to indicate it is plausible maybe in some opinons highly plausible. But is it plausible to believe there is intellegent life out there? Is it plausible to think things can exist in multiple dimension including that said life? Would that being not be consitered a god?

If you believe that Little Green Men came here and seeded Earth as we would a garden, then yes, faith is needed. If you are talking about exogenesis - that the basic elements of life were brought here by comets- that is a very testable hypothesis. 

OH and one last thing ID has a pretty large spectrum of thoughts as well. So try to not to put all those people together too.


That's part of the problem with ID - there is no true, single "theory." It'd be like saying every naturalistic explanation of life fell under the same theory of evolution. IDers make no consistent claim to the age of the Earth, or to the degree that natural processes influence evolution (some say at the species level, others just back to the creation of the first cell). Each time research shows that an adaptation is not "irreducibly complex", like the eye, or flagellum, or clotting factors, they either pretend that they never heard about it, or move the line back to the next thing scientists haven't done much research on (yet). They even refuse (generally dishonestly) to say who the designer is.


I hope you didn't take evrything I wrote as directed at you.

Also only the sith speak in absolutes



"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
damkira on 23 April 2008

@timmytomthegreat

Its a little bit obnoxious to quote a long post and reply with a link.

 



Rath on 23 April 2008
damkira said:

@timmytomthegreat

Its a little bit obnoxious to quote a long post and reply with a link.

 


Especially considering that my post was in reply to an article which he had copy pasted from the same site XD 



misterd on 23 April 2008
kenzomatic said:
misterd said:
kenzomatic said:
misterd said:
kenzomatic said:
Sense reffers to physiological methods of perception. You use that to interpret everything including science experiements.

Common sense based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding.

Understanding reffering to the conclusions people draw. Conclusion are formed through reasonning, Reasonning icludes various forms of logic.

Logic is a piller of common sense, and thus your statement wrong and in need of clairification.

The problem being that common sense is often wrong and built on faulty logic. Most of my students believe crocodiles are green, that NY is warmer in the summer because we're closer to the sun, and that ice packs radiate cold energy. The entire reason that Mendel's work is significant (and served to launch the field of genetics) is that it completely defied common sense. Hell, the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Rutherford, and Einstein defied common sense too. 


Ahh the good old days when I would argue with kasz. If I remember most of that argument I think it was all about symantics. And for some reason no one ever realizes that with out defintion you can be arguing 2 different meanings of a word. Or 2 different understanings.

Next Subject. For all the people who wish not to debate the film but religion.

I really do enjoy when people say things like the bible says earth is ten thousand years old or that it says people walked with dinosaurs.

But better than that is when people tell you what your interpitation of the bible is.

Some of you need a reality check there is a spectrum of believe in the christian community as there is in the scientific community or any community. The pope last time I checked endorsed evolution, well the last pope. Some think the bible is literal, some a metaphore, some literal but from the peoples perspective. Also it does not say even literally how old earth is.

The Bible also does not say that the Bible is literally true in every word. It is amazing how many believers in Biblical inerrancy are unaware that the Bible was assembled by political committee, and that they risk violating the second commandment. 

I also enjoy statements like anyone with a brain would know there is no god. I really am not sure how you could be more ignorent. HERE IS MY OVERLY GENERALIZED STATEMENT, Anyone who thinks they can comprehend the entire unvirse and everything in it, is an idiot. Do you think scientist in ten thousand years will agree with all of your theroies?

No, and I know no scientists who believe that. However, the longer a theory is researched, the more lines of evidence that converge to support it, the less likely that it will be overthrown completely. More likely, these theories will be "tweaked" as was Newton's, as was Darwin's. But scientists are generally very guarded about speaking to absolute certainty. 

There are athiest that believe life was brought here by aliens. Some think on a rock some think with a spaceship. Do these things not require some faith? Sure there are things to indicate it is plausible maybe in some opinons highly plausible. But is it plausible to believe there is intellegent life out there? Is it plausible to think things can exist in multiple dimension including that said life? Would that being not be consitered a god?

If you believe that Little Green Men came here and seeded Earth as we would a garden, then yes, faith is needed. If you are talking about exogenesis - that the basic elements of life were brought here by comets- that is a very testable hypothesis. 

OH and one last thing ID has a pretty large spectrum of thoughts as well. So try to not to put all those people together too.


That's part of the problem with ID - there is no true, single "theory." It'd be like saying every naturalistic explanation of life fell under the same theory of evolution. IDers make no consistent claim to the age of the Earth, or to the degree that natural processes influence evolution (some say at the species level, others just back to the creation of the first cell). Each time research shows that an adaptation is not "irreducibly complex", like the eye, or flagellum, or clotting factors, they either pretend that they never heard about it, or move the line back to the next thing scientists haven't done much research on (yet). They even refuse (generally dishonestly) to say who the designer is.


I hope you didn't take evrything I wrote as directed at you.

Also only the sith speak in absolutes


1. No, I didn't. But I still felt like commenting upon it.

2. Like "All things in moderation," that statement is an internal contradiction.