Ben Stein hates Darwin

[steggyD]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='532760' date='Aug 24 2007, 01:59 AM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]In the Book of Joshua (10:13) it is stated that God commanded the sun to stand still in the sky ... Really now? Pardon me ... but how is it possible that this omniscient god of ours, who created the earth and heavens, all by his divine lonesome, didn't realize the simple fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?[/b][/size][/font][/quote]
Well, for the sun to stand still in the sky, that would mean the earth would have to stop rotating.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='532760' date='Aug 24 2007, 03:29 AM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]In the Book of Joshua (10:13) it is stated that God commanded the sun to stand still in the sky ... Really now? Pardon me ... but how is it possible that this omniscient god of ours, who created the earth and heavens, all by his divine lonesome, didn't realize the simple fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?[/b][/size][/font][/quote]

Well, you're looking at a verse from a book that has been changed so often, that there are many inconsistencies in it. Dont let that be the determining factor.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='532729' date='Aug 23 2007, 11:06 PM']of course not, and as a matter of fact one of my all time favorite books is "finding darwins god" by kenneth miller, who is also a catholic.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497"]http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-...n/dp/0060930497[/url]

but of course the issue isnt so much the personal beliefs of the researchers, but that they have yet to provide any hard evidence for their argument. although, to be quite blunt about it, i really doubt the integrity of the statement describing that organization. however, even if it were to be 100% honest, simply having an agnostic on your board of directors isnt exactly the same as having many atheist researchers. adding an agnostic just seems to me as a lazy way of suggesting parity.

edit: it is more or less the suggestion that evolution is wrong and that nonscientific theory belongs in science class while seemingly avoiding proof, that is the big put off for me in terms of id. and yes, i do realize there are those who do not believe things are so simple. however, unfortunately they are the non-vocal minority.[/quote]


Fair enough, I guess what Im getting at is that what I saw in the short clip shown is obviously different from what you did. I saw a clip in which it is challenging the establishment on their biases towards those whom may disagree with them. You saw it as a 'god piece', Im not sure either of us really know what it is without seeing it.

The reason I saw that, and why I was excited about it was because of what happened to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html"]Richard Sternberg[/url]. I thought it was uncalled for and it showed at least to me how some take darwinism with a religous fervor as well, and that no competitng ideas should be allowed. That was the issue I had, Sternberg should have not been treated as a heretic.

[Go Tory Go!]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='532844' date='Aug 24 2007, 12:00 PM']Fair enough, I guess what Im getting at is that what I saw in the short clip shown is obviously different from what you did. I saw a clip in which it is challenging the establishment on their biases towards those whom may disagree with them. You saw it as a 'god piece', Im not sure either of us really know what it is without seeing it.

The reason I saw that, and why I was excited about it was because of what happened to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html"]Richard Sternberg[/url]. I thought it was uncalled for and it showed at least to me how some take darwinism with a religous fervor as well, and that no competitng ideas should be allowed. That was the issue I had, Sternberg should have not been treated as a heretic.[/quote]

There is no debate among scientific communities about whether natural selection is an absolute certainty - it isn't - and at every level of my education, discussions of this have always been introduced as "the theory of evolution," so I don't see that there should be a public misconception about this.

Also, the fact that it isn't an absolute certainty doesn't mean an alternative must be taught, or even talked about. Remember - some degree of agnosticism is essential in science, since our knowledge is simply the finite accumulation of (possibly flawed) observations. Hume (not Tom) proved this, and for this reason any statement about the universe should be read as if prefaced by "according to my observations..." However, an approach which tolerates too much agnosticism, i.e. acceptance of uncertainty, is truly useless and in turn ceases to be 'scientific' - is more philosophy than science, and although I need no reminder of their historical affiliation, modern science is essentially concerned with offering the best possible explaination.

So, in short, for those who found the above paragraph too thick and scanned down here, I think it is no surprise that there are agnostic proponents of intelligent design - because all those who expound ID either believe in the certainty of a god's existence - useless in a scientific context - or put too much weight in the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of a deity having designed them that what they say becomes conjecture, a philosophical question, and you end up with a flying spaghetti monster.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='532871' date='Aug 24 2007, 01:02 PM']There is no debate among scientific communities about whether natural selection is an absolute certainty - it isn't - and at every level of my education, discussions of this have always been introduced as "the theory of evolution," so I don't see that there should be a public misconception about this.

Also, the fact that it isn't an absolute certainty doesn't mean an alternative must be taught, or even talked about. Remember - some degree of agnosticism is essential in science, since our knowledge is simply the finite accumulation of (possibly flawed) observations. Hume (not Tom) proved this, and for this reason any statement about the universe should be read as if prefaced by "according to my observations..." However, an approach which tolerates too much agnosticism, i.e. acceptance of uncertainty, is truly useless and in turn ceases to be 'scientific' - is more philosophy than science, and although I need no reminder of their historical affiliation, modern science is essentially concerned with offering the best possible explaination.

So, in short, for those who found the above paragraph too thick and scanned down here, I think it is no surprise that there are agnostic proponents of intelligent design - because all those who expound ID either believe in the certainty of a god's existence - useless in a scientific context - or put too much weight in the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of a deity having designed them that what they say becomes conjecture, a philosophical question, and you end up with a flying spaghetti monster.[/quote]


I dont have a issue with "some degree of agnosticism" involved as you say, my take was on Sternberg and how he got treated, like I said in the 30 seconds I saw of this, it seems to me thats what it may be about (or at least how his types get treated), and thats what I wanted to see. I can see the viewpoint that this may be nothing more than a 'god piece' in disguise, but I dont think with the small clip we have seen that either position on it as to what it is can really be known.

[Lawman]

[quote]Hume (not Tom)[/quote]

[i]Other than being the Reds formwer pitcher/pitching coach; he also caught Henry Aaron's 714 hit off the Reds Jack Billingham.[/i]

[i]Off playing video game, I come back out and play later. [/i]

[Fanatical]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='532606' date='Aug 23 2007, 07:30 PM']I cannot speak for Lawman, but as far as my belief in God as the Ultimate Cosmic Traveller, He (or possibly She, or even It) has always existed my assertion has and always will be that our PARTICULAR place in this PARTICULAR solar system, with a PARTICULAR orbit around a PARTICULARLY uninteresting, normal star is just too perfect to be coincidence.[/quote]


Of course there is a type of cause and effect there. The reason our planet seems so nice to us is because we are the product of four billion years of evolution. A being on another world would feel the same about its home planet, and probably think ours a type of hell. If we were some how transported back in time to 150 million or 350 million years ago, our planet would not seem so nice for us.

The fact of the matter is that no one has offered a better theory of evolutoin than Darwin, and Wallace. That living beings evolve is not in question. We can look at our children and see that happening.

Science will always be under attack by the dogma of religion. Science must always be skeptical and question everything; practices not well tolerated by religions.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Fanatical' post='533031' date='Aug 24 2007, 04:07 PM']Of course there is a type of cause and effect there. The reason our planet seems so nice to us is because we are the product of four billion years of evolution. A being on another world would feel the same about its home planet, and probably think ours a type of hell. If we were some how transported back in time to 150 million or 350 million years ago, our planet would not seem so nice for us.

The fact of the matter is that no one has offered a better theory of evolutoin than Darwin, and Wallace. That living beings evolve is not in question. We can look at our children and see that happening.

Science will always be under attack by the dogma of religion. Science must always be skeptical and question everything; practices not well tolerated by religions.[/quote]
Well, i understand all that; and the example you use about us not thinking the Earth would be a pleasant place for us 150 million years ago...well, the EARTH evolved during that time, too. It is LESS volcanic, for one, which makes us able to not have ash winters in the summer, constant threat of earthquakes and eruptions, etc.
And another being from another planet might find ours hell for a variety of reasons, not the least of which could be that they aren't carbon-based, don't like or need water, absorb or breathe an "air" that is radically different than ours...
But ultimately, what REALLY gets me, even more than the "Perfect Storm" scenario of Mother Earth, is star formation. Don't ask me why, but coming to a pretty full understanding of how star formation occurs and that there is some type of a "triggering spark" that astronomers cannot define that starts gravitational collapse to birth stars from proto-stars really got me thinking about a Divine Being that is the playwright behind the scenes of our scripted Universe.
And I agree with you about science needing to raise skepticism in order to succeed through trial and error. We NEED science. But my point has been that science and religion aren't and don't need to be mutually exclusive, but that one reinforces the other. At least it does for me.
I'll never forget the phrase "There are things not possible for man that are possible for God", which gives the Man Behind The Curtain almost limitless protection from being disproven to exist.

[Lawman]

[i]I think I am going to have to start towards the begginng and work my way through until I catch up.[/i]

[quote]Nati Ice
while i dont doubt your point, [b]its not like the opposition is full of intelligently thought out rational thou[/b]ghts. for example; scientific law should not be opposed with the book of genesis.[/quote]

[b][url="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ashby/"]The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation[/url][/b]
[i]Ashby Camp[/i]

pp. 53-57.

[color="#000080"]Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.

Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.

The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), [b]the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed[/b]![/color]

[i]References[/i]:

[b]Bird, W.R.[/b], [i]The Origin of Species Revisited [/i]

[b]Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon[/b], [i]Of Pandas and People [/i]

[b]Fix, William R[/b]., [i]The Bone Peddlers [/i]

[b]Grassé, Pierre-P[/b]., [i]Evolution of Living Organisms [/i]

[b]Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker[/b], [i]What is Creation Science[/i]

[b]Pitman, Michael,[/b] [i]Adam and Evolution [/i]

[b]Sunderland, Luther D., [/b][i][b]Darwin's Enigma[/b]: [b]Fossils and Other Problems[/b][/i]

[b]Varghese, Roy Abraham, ed., [/b][i]The Intellectuals Speak Out About God [/i]

[b]Wysong, Randy L[/b]., [i]The Creation-Evolution Controversy[/i]

[Lawman]

[quote][b]Evolution[/b] is simply the logical theory explaining how animals can change drastically over long periods of time. [b]It has NOTHING to do with God[/b].[/quote]

[i]Would you please prove this statement. By your statement, you [b]KNOW[/b] there is no God.[/i]

[i]I [b]BELIEVE[/b] there is a God[/i]

[color="#000080"]Main Entry: be·lieve
Pronunciation: b&-'lEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): be·lieved; be·liev·ing
Etymology: Middle English beleven, from Old English belEfan, from be- + lyfan, lEfan to allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English lEof dear -- more at LOVE
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to [b]accept [/b]as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : [b]to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something [/b]<believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive verb
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>
- [b]be·liev·er [/b]noun [/color]

[Lawman]

[quote]The problem here is that you are inconsistent with your beliefs - if you are going to take a literal stand, fine, I will show you why Christianity collapses when it does. [b]You would, however, have to take the story of Jonah's whale as fact as well.[/b] If you think that some are true and some are false, two questions come to mind -
1. Which stories are to be taken literally?
2. Why chose stories that fly in the face of all known science and that have little to no scientific backing of their own?[/quote]

[i]I can speak more on Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark; but I have not researched the story of Jonah and the whale as extensively; maybe I should[/i]

[Lawman]

[quote name='SINcinnati513' post='532605' date='Aug 23 2007, 08:30 PM']And for people that believe in ID. What is your evidence? What are your reasons?

Please make no references to the bible or any religious text for that matter. Without religious texts, which are man made along with religion itself, ID could not exist.[/quote]

[i]Did post #59 address this? [/i]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='532606' date='Aug 23 2007, 08:30 PM']I cannot speak for Lawman, but as far as my belief in God as the Ultimate Cosmic Traveller, He (or possibly She, or even It) [b]has always existed outside of our human ability to comprehend.[/b]
I am not saying that to be intentionally ambiguous, I am a firm believer in science, but I also believe that science cannot explain everything no matter how advanced it becomes.
I know, that's the same logic that people in ancient times applied to lightning and volcanoes before science affirmed their existence...but...my assertion has and always will be that our PARTICULAR place in this PARTICULAR solar system, with a PARTICULAR orbit around a PARTICULARLY uninteresting, normal star is just too perfect to be coincidence.
And when you start factoring in the formation of starts, the distances involved to even the very nearest star that MIGHT support life...it's just too convenient to be a cosmic coincidence.[/quote]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]

[Lawman]

[quote]The total energy of a system never changes[/quote]

[img]http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/smt/lowres/smtn71l.jpg[/img]

[Lawman]

[quote]xamanation
A literal interpretation of the Bible will ultimately defeat itself.[/quote]


[quote name='Lawman' post='532537' date='Aug 23 2007, 06:57 PM'][i]Care to explain yourself, an small example shall suffice.[/i][/quote]

[Fanatical]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='533038' date='Aug 24 2007, 05:20 PM']But ultimately, what REALLY gets me, even more than the "Perfect Storm" scenario of Mother Earth, is star formation. Don't ask me why, but coming to a pretty full understanding of how star formation occurs and that there is some type of a "triggering spark" that astronomers cannot define that starts gravitational collapse to birth stars from proto-stars really got me thinking about a Divine Being that is the playwright behind the scenes of our scripted Universe.[/quote]


What do you mean? Gravitational collapse comes from gravity itself, and the stars "turn on" from the massive pressures incurred starting the nuclear fusion. Now if your asking about the nature of where gravity comes from.. well, scientists still need jobs. If we knew everything, we would ourselves be gods.

On a side note, I've always thought attributing Intelligent Design to our western monotheistic god always sold that god short.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Fanatical' post='533085' date='Aug 24 2007, 05:35 PM']What do you mean? Gravitational collapse comes from gravity itself, and the stars "turn on" from the massive pressures incurred starting the nuclear fusion. Now if your asking about the nature of where gravity comes from.. well, scientists still need jobs. If we knew everything, we would ourselves be gods.

On a side note, I've always thought attributing Intelligent Design to our western monotheistic god always sold that god short.[/quote]
I meant exactly what i said. Gravitational collapse simply doesn't happen on it's own, even when conditions are ripe for it to do so with accumulating mass from a proto-star dictating that it should. Astronomers are puzzled by what actually triggers this, as well as how the star actually begins nuclear fusion of hydrogen. The rest, as far as mass, luminosity, spectral analayses, blue shift versus red shift, etc are pretty well understood.
And LOL at your "scientists need a job". That was pretty funny. And as far as where gravity comes from...I am of the understanding that it naturally occurs due to mass....and location, in terms of a mass's ability to exert gravitational force on another body of mass.

[Lawman]

[quote name='IKOTA' post='532820' date='Aug 24 2007, 11:24 AM']Well, you're looking at a verse from a book that has been changed so often, that there are many inconsistencies in it. Dont let that be the determining factor.[/quote]


[i]Care to substantiate your claim? I didn't think so.[/i]

[Lawman]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='532760' date='Aug 24 2007, 01:59 AM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]In the Book of Joshua (10:13) it is stated that God commanded the sun to stand still in the sky ... Really now? Pardon me ... but how is it possible that this omniscient god of ours, who created the earth and heavens, all by his divine lonesome, didn't realize the simple fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?[/b][/size][/font][/quote]

[i]I guess this be the same one that spun the earth backwards [/i]

Isiah 38:8 [i]Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. [/i]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533109' date='Aug 24 2007, 06:53 PM'][i]Care to substantiate your claim? I didn't think so.[/i][/quote]
I actually don't believe that either. Muslims like to claim that the Quran is "purer" than the Bible, and I am not so sure that is true.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533109' date='Aug 24 2007, 10:23 PM'][i]Care to substantiate your claim? I didn't think so.[/i][/quote]

You can't be serious........wait....you know what, based on your posting history........I think you just may be serious.

Do you know we live on planet Earth? Or do I need to substantiate that claim?

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='IKOTA' post='533154' date='Aug 24 2007, 10:39 PM']You can't be serious........wait....you know what, based on your posting history........I think you just may be serious.

Do you know we live on planet Earth? Or do I need to substantiate that claim?[/quote]



[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]


[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b](looks to see if CARM does in fact say we live on Earth) [/b][/size][/font]

[xamination]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='533038' date='Aug 24 2007, 06:20 PM']Well, i understand all that; and the example you use about us not thinking the Earth would be a pleasant place for us 150 million years ago...well, the EARTH evolved during that time, too. It is LESS volcanic, for one, which makes us able to not have ash winters in the summer, constant threat of earthquakes and eruptions, etc.
And another being from another planet might find ours hell for a variety of reasons, not the least of which could be that they aren't carbon-based, don't like or need water, absorb or breathe an "air" that is radically different than ours...
But ultimately, what REALLY gets me, even more than the "Perfect Storm" scenario of Mother Earth, is star formation. Don't ask me why, but coming to a pretty full understanding of how star formation occurs and that there is some type of a "triggering spark" that astronomers cannot define that starts gravitational collapse to birth stars from proto-stars really got me thinking about a Divine Being that is the playwright behind the scenes of our scripted Universe.
And I agree with you about science needing to raise skepticism in order to succeed through trial and error. We NEED science. But my point has been that science and religion aren't and don't need to be mutually exclusive, but that one reinforces the other. At least it does for me.
I'll never forget the phrase "There are things not possible for man that are possible for God", which gives the Man Behind The Curtain almost limitless protection from being disproven to exist.[/quote]
Ok, I'm back, I'm pissed as hell(we lost), and I'm tired. If I sound that I'm a little short, its because I am.

As for this thinking, I can't argue against it any more. Somebody else, please explain to him that just because we exist on a hospitable planet is not proof of some divine God.

[xamination]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533051' date='Aug 24 2007, 06:47 PM'][i]Would you please prove this statement. By your statement, you [b]KNOW[/b] there is no God.[/i][/quote]
Um... no, I said that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with theology, just as gravity doesn't either.

[xamination]

[quote name='Lawman' post='533069' date='Aug 24 2007, 07:14 PM'][img]http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/smt/lowres/smtn71l.jpg[/img][/quote]
Nice cartoon, but my statement is a fact.