Thunderf00t Blows Ben Stein's EXPELLED out of the water watch!
youtube.com — Debunking Ben Stien's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Thunderf00t Style!
chirwan- 3003 diggs
- digg it
- cybrspin, on 04/16/2008, -31/+182wow talk about making a guy look stupid :)
- unrealJEDI, on 04/16/2008, -4/+45a lightening bolt striking a puddle of mud!!!!
where did he get that from?- Coven, on 04/16/2008, -8/+34His rectum
- MRintheKeys, on 04/16/2008, -2/+20Stop being so anal!
- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9At least he is being attentive.
I don't mind anally attentive people. - jon30041, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4He's really being an ass about this.
- Dokument, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1You FOOL!
- TheUnlearn, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5Sphincter.
- forgiste, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Isn't it anal rententive or expulsive?
- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9At least he is being attentive.
- artofwar420, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2I thought all Jews were geniuses.
- artofwar420, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Touché Ben Stein, touché.
- MRintheKeys, on 04/16/2008, -2/+20Stop being so anal!
- diggrific, on 04/16/2008, -0/+21By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other scientists demonstrated that living organisms did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter; the question therefore arose of how life might have come about within a naturalistic framework. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[11] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life- harajukukei, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5it is my understanding that this method of "life creation" has been successfully recreated experimentally, thus proving at the very least that it is a viable explanation of the origin of life. but then again, maybe it was god who fired the lightning bolt at the mud puddle. and hereeee we go again.
- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8Well, saying that it was confirmed experimentally is a stretch. They did show that the basic building blocks for life could arise under these sorts of circumstances, and that it's not a huge jump from simple amino acids to proteins, but it's a much larger step from amino acids and proteins to something we would call life.
I'm not saying it's implausible, just that it's incorrect to say that it has been confirmed experimentally. - paulisnotdead, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Actually, The experiment didn't create fully living organisms, instead it made cell-like objects. All the same though it has been shown that this is a viable form of the birth of life on the planet.
- biotch, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4I think this is the experiment he was referring to...
It falls along the guidelines paulisnotdead noted (doesnt create fully living organisms but makes cell-like objects)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03.ht ...
(about 4/5ths of the way through the vid)
- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8Well, saying that it was confirmed experimentally is a stretch. They did show that the basic building blocks for life could arise under these sorts of circumstances, and that it's not a huge jump from simple amino acids to proteins, but it's a much larger step from amino acids and proteins to something we would call life.
- biotch, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2wtf?
Am I the only one who doesnt see anything about a lightning bolt in there?
"Spark of life" != lightning bolt.
and @ harajukukei
Where did you get that idea? Im all for explaining the mountain of evidence supporting evolution but no one has recreated this method of "life creation". Evolutionists do themselves a disservice when they make unsubstantiated claims like that by giving creationists something to hark at. - forgiste, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1Ever heard of Life in a Test Tube?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4That's not creating life. That's breeding life. There is a HUGE difference. We've never created life in a lab before. We know what basically needs to be done but it's an incredably complex task.
Evolution is a great and a pretty strong theory (albeit with holes that need to be filled)
However, I think science really has not advanced far enough to even phanthom on how a string of amino acids came together in the exact same spot (when I mean exact same spot I mean within the space of the period at the end of this sentence.) in the exact same time and in an exact 100 chain order.
I'm just there is an explanation for it but right now Science has none and I think this is where Creationists get most of their foothold.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4That's not creating life. That's breeding life. There is a HUGE difference. We've never created life in a lab before. We know what basically needs to be done but it's an incredably complex task.
- brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Anyone ever point out that Creationism is essentially the belief that life came from nonliving matter (with the help of magical breath from an invisible sky fairy)?
- harajukukei, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5it is my understanding that this method of "life creation" has been successfully recreated experimentally, thus proving at the very least that it is a viable explanation of the origin of life. but then again, maybe it was god who fired the lightning bolt at the mud puddle. and hereeee we go again.
- biotch, on 04/16/2008, -0/+13probably from here
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html
"Then he did a brilliant thing. He simply put an electric charge through that mixture to simulate lightning going through an early atmosphere. After sitting around for a couple of days, all of a sudden there was this brown goo all over the reaction vessel. When he analyzed what was in the vessel, rather than only having methane and ammonia, he actually had amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins." - flossdaily, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5When I took a microbiology course a few years ago, my professor showed us how scientists had made a lot of progress in determining how the first one-celled organisms were created. The only bit I remember was how lipids could be turned into primitive cell membranes simply by the churning powers of the tides. The bit with the lightening bolt was put forward as a theory to explain how various proteins might have spontaneously formed (see biotch's comment above).
To be clear, there are major gaps in figuring out how we went from lifelessness to life, but I think most people would be surprised to know just how much of the process has already been figured out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if we were able to spontaneously create life from lifeless matter in my lifetime, through processes that mimic conditions on ancient earth.
- Coven, on 04/16/2008, -8/+34His rectum
- Harabeck, on 04/16/2008, -5/+66The scary part is that the ignorant masses may actually believe him... I love that we in the know can see all of these logical refutations of his arguments, but main stream media seems to be doing a poor job of putting down this crap like the ignorant BS it is.
- jakobrowning, on 04/16/2008, -18/+23"...we in the know"? Be honest, had you not seen that clip, do you honestly think you would've come up with any of the refutations the videos creator made? I don't want to sound like some creationist nut job, but the video only shows a few clips of Stein making an ass out of himself so that the narrator can play this "I'm so enlightened" card. Let me be clear, I am a christian, but I also believe in evolution as the process by which the whole ordeal went down. I don't think that christianity belongs in science class, but at the same time it doesn't have to be ignored or shunned for those that wish to expand their horizons spiritually as well mentally.
Christianity and science will never be best friends, but that doesn't mean they are forced to be mortal enemies of one another. Why is it so impossible to believe that evolution is just the explaination of how God (or some powerful force) put the universe together? (rose by any other name anyone?)
Since no one here was there to see the big bang (no i'm not mocking the big bang, i believe it), and you're all just taking some scientists word for it (like christians take the word of a preacher or priest), can't an arguement be made that most of us here are pretty much the same in that respect. There's so much talk about proof, but in the end, the average Joe just has to take someone's word on the subject. Just like christians don't fully understand evolution, you have to agree that evolutionists don't take the fair time to learn anything about christianity, we just all get lumped together with extremists, republicans, and G. W. Bush, and it's kind of annoying.
sorry for the rant Harabeck, that wasn't all at you, I just kinda went on a bit of a tangent there and decided to go with it.
go ahead and digg me down so you can censor my comments if you want, but in the end you'll just be doing the same thing some christian nut would do if this comment were reversed. Please respond to me first at least before you bury me.
Thanks for reading.- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -3/+18Yes, I did read.
Would I have come up with the same refuting arguments? No, I honestly don't have that much patience. It takes real effort to convince someone who doesn't want to listen.
I also agree that religion and science do not have to fight to the death.
As to why it is "impossible to believe", etc, that is not true. It is possible to believe, it is impossible to prove (Hence why faith is needed).
If you don't want to take a scientists word, check out the big bang stuff for yourself.
(Good info here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang. ... )
If you don't think the data itself is worth anything, then you would have to collect more (Since any further data I provide might be worth nothing as well).
I am an evolutionist, and I am a devout Christian (As is my father, mother, etc), so I disagree with the statement that I don't try to learn about my faith.
I tried to address all your points with my honest opinion, but both of us will probably be dugg down... not because we are being censored, but because our posts are very, very long.- jakobrowning, on 04/16/2008, -17/+3Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll admit that was my fault. By evolutionist, I meant to say athiest. That was not intential, it's just that often those terms aren't mutually exclusive. I was simply saying that athiests don't seem to take the time to actually learn about christianity. (if any athiests reading this happens to study christianity then this statement doesn't apply to you)
i appreciate you taking the time to answer me, that's all I ask. - Loonacy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+26On the contrary, it's been my experience that atheists know more about Christianity than Christians do. I didn't become an atheist simply because I didn't want to believe in God. I studied a few religions before deciding that it's highly unlikely any of them have it right. In the case of Christianity, I read the Bible more than once. The Bible is what convinced me that Christianity is false.
- davdev, on 04/16/2008, -1/+18Loonacy is completely correct. Most Atheists I have met know far more about Christian teachings, and more importantly the origins of those teachings, than most Christians I have met.
Also, I went to a Catholic High School and College, and that is what made me an Atheist. - tjmb9, on 04/16/2008, -23/+2I dont understand these people saying they are atheists, like that makes them different than religious people. I honestly think most atheists are actually agnostic but they dont know what words mean.
- nosecohn, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8@ tjmb9:
Huh? Atheist, from the Greek, means "without God". An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in God. That DOES make them different from religious people. - feebie, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9@jakobrowning - Many atheists were theists before coming to the conclusion that there are no gods or mystical beings controlling the universe. In fact, most atheists continue to read up a lot about mythologies and religions to be more knowledgeable about what it is they are refuting, as well as to strengthen their lack of belief in a god or gods. Being an atheist, one also can look objectively on many religions, compare and contrast, and find similarities between them. This is important mainly within the Egyptian Mythologies, Paganism, and Christianity, as they all follow similar patterns, and seem to have borrowed from each other. Religious holidays are also examples of borrowing and recycling of ideas from different religions.
- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6timb9
Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive positions. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. I don't believe god exists, but I don't have absolute knowledge that he doesn't exist. Most atheists are also agnostics. - tjmb9, on 04/16/2008, -10/+1believing in no god is the same thing to me, sorry. You can't prove either position.
- chaosium, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7"believing in no god is the same thing to me, sorry. You can't prove either position."
It's not our fault you don't understand what words mean.
- jakobrowning, on 04/16/2008, -17/+3Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll admit that was my fault. By evolutionist, I meant to say athiest. That was not intential, it's just that often those terms aren't mutually exclusive. I was simply saying that athiests don't seem to take the time to actually learn about christianity. (if any athiests reading this happens to study christianity then this statement doesn't apply to you)
- JohnFrum, on 04/16/2008, -2/+13Evolution compatible with religion? Depends on what kind of god it is. Christianity very clearly places human kind at the center of gods creation. We were created in his image and his plans revolve around us. There is no room in evolution for a world view like this. From an evolutionary perspective we are no more important than other species. Evolution doesn't have plans.
So there is clear incompatibility between the christian world view and evolution.- chaosium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Replying to timb9
"I dont understand these people saying they are atheists, like that makes them different than religious people. I honestly think most atheists are actually agnostic but they dont know what words mean."
You don't understand because you don't know much about atheism.
There can be gnostic and agnostic atheists. - tjmb9, on 04/16/2008, -5/+1why the ***** would an agnostic atheist exist. tell me now.
- phalanxcronos, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1JohnFrum,
Created in God's image doesn't mean humans resemble God in the physical sense, god is a spirit he doesn't occupy a physical body. Its our free will, our ability to decide our actions, thats the "image" of god that we were created in. So I do think that evolution and religion can co-exist and that God created everything you see (no...not in 6 Days) and its sciences job to figure out how God created everything.
That said science must operate where it DOES NOT allow religion to influence the scientific method so you are correct that science should consider humans no more important than other species since theres scientific evidence that we are different and have a spirit inside of us. - chaosium, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4"why the ***** would an agnostic atheist exist. tell me now."
Atheist - Doesn't believe in god.
Agnostic, one who doesn't know
Gnostic, one who knows.
Therefore an agnostic atheist doesn't know BEYOND A DOUBT and doesn't care.
They are actually the most common variety of atheist by far.
- chaosium, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Replying to timb9
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9The funny thing is this: If you /were/ to teach religious theory (Intelligent design included) in science class - that is, use them as case studies on evaluation of theory on its merits using the scope of scientific method - you'd very quickly have a very, very large number of atheists and agnostics on your hands. It wouldn't work.
Here's the thing: science is incompatible with Deus Ex Machina; once you get into explaining things, the DEM that started the universe both demands and denies explanation. DEMs fail in science because of a few things:
1) they don't prompt anyone to ask questions, except 'where did THAT come from?'
2) they don't provide a predictable outcome for a given set of circumstances - a requirement for any theory
3) Because of people's tendancy to just say, "Oh, ok. It was a good thing that we had that DEM with us; we'd never have hacked the Gibson otherwise", it actively discourages questioning.
- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -3/+18Yes, I did read.
- rpayne656, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8I would take a scientist's word (gathered from research and observation) over a priest's word (coming from strict adherance to an ancient text already proven to be slam-full of innaccuracies, atrocities, and down-right BS) any day. When you say religion and science don't need to fight, who needs to make the concession? If it comes to dismissing hard evidence in favor of some pandering BS meant to sooth the religious masses, I will fight. Buried for self-righteousness.
- jakobrowning, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2I am not self-righteous. I'm merely of the opinion that science and religion fulfill 2 ENTIRELY different purposes and that just because my religion doesn't jive with your views of the universe that doesn't mean it has absolutely no value. You can bury me if you want, but in the end you're just reacting like all those close-minded christians you exhault yourself above.
- brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4See the problem with some religious people is that they reduce the science vs. religion argument down to simply a matter of two equally-valid opinions. Sure, science doesn't have all the answers, but it has a damn lot of them, and it explains a lot of things that religion used to explain. Eventually, we figured out that the Biblical model of the universe and life as we know it is all wrong. Evolution and creation are not two opinions, one is backed up by facts, the other by nonsense.
- OneLess, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Putting down? Hell, they're holding it up on a pedestal. Did you see Glenn Beck sucking in all the crap Stein was spewing? You can't rely on the media to do anything but suck the ratings teat.
- brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Have you seen Glenn Beck's show? It's hardly surprising. CNN wanted their own Bill O'Reilly, except they made him younger, better-looking, and slightly less offensive.
- OneLess, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2My boss used to listen to Beck's radio show at work, so I'm all too familiar with him. Whereas he's slightly less _purposefully_ offensive, he more than makes up for it by being offensively stupid.
- brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Have you seen Glenn Beck's show? It's hardly surprising. CNN wanted their own Bill O'Reilly, except they made him younger, better-looking, and slightly less offensive.
- themoosegoesmoo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Well maybe if you don't understand intelligent design you're just not intelligent.
- jakobrowning, on 04/16/2008, -18/+23"...we in the know"? Be honest, had you not seen that clip, do you honestly think you would've come up with any of the refutations the videos creator made? I don't want to sound like some creationist nut job, but the video only shows a few clips of Stein making an ass out of himself so that the narrator can play this "I'm so enlightened" card. Let me be clear, I am a christian, but I also believe in evolution as the process by which the whole ordeal went down. I don't think that christianity belongs in science class, but at the same time it doesn't have to be ignored or shunned for those that wish to expand their horizons spiritually as well mentally.
- CrazedLeper, on 04/16/2008, -61/+15What Stein is saying is that a discussion is not being permitted. You idiots are proving him right by not even listening to the other side; you are doing a whole lot of mocking and ridiculing, however. When last I checked, nether mockery nor ridicule was admissible in court as evidence.
- Coven, on 04/16/2008, -7/+75Watch the video again. This isn't a free speech issue. It is an issue of scientific integrity. Stein wants something that isn't science to be taught in a science classroom. End of story. You want evidence? Science needs evidence. ID and Creationism provide no evidence.
- TrevorBradley, on 04/16/2008, -22/+7Except that the ID folks are using the mocking and the ridiculing of their ideas as "proof" that their ideas aren't being given equal time. It's the rallying cry of ID.
I thought this youtube vid would have gone over a lot better without the constant "You Fool!". Yes, incredulity is deserved, but it's not helping to sway the entrenched. FSM and other bits of comedy do far more to mock the ID position than any name calling.
(This coming from a huge Richard Dawkins fan)- doctechnical, on 04/16/2008, -2/+32Watch the beginning of the video - Stein brought the mockery on himself when he said (paraphrasing) "If these ideas aren't correct why doesn't some one yell 'You fool!' and blow them out of the water?"
The video presenter did exactly that, and did so rather well, I thought. - brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4ID doesn't deserve equal time in the biology class any more than Alchemy deserves equal time in the chemistry lab.
- doctechnical, on 04/16/2008, -2/+32Watch the beginning of the video - Stein brought the mockery on himself when he said (paraphrasing) "If these ideas aren't correct why doesn't some one yell 'You fool!' and blow them out of the water?"
- ratpH1nk, on 04/16/2008, -4/+23Firstly, I can assure you that I am no idiot. IF you want to talk about creationism/ID in theology, in philosophy or at church with friends/pastor/family, please feel free to do so. If you want to talk about it in science class, in school, be it at the elementary school level or at the university level, that is where it becomes less about discussion and more about the scientific method, as the video accurately points out.
- deepthot42, on 04/16/2008, -4/+18"YOU FOOL"
Ben Stein was really asking for it. Thunderf00t was kind enough to oblige (cause he's a funny man)- jaznova, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10For those digging down deepthrot42, let me remind you, dt42 is being literal.
Ben Stein said "If they're so sure they're right, what are they afraid of? If they're so sure that their position is unassailable, let the other guy talk and then blow him out of the water and say 'You fool. You didn't know this this and this.' "
- jaznova, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10For those digging down deepthrot42, let me remind you, dt42 is being literal.
- TrevorBradley, on 04/16/2008, -22/+7Except that the ID folks are using the mocking and the ridiculing of their ideas as "proof" that their ideas aren't being given equal time. It's the rallying cry of ID.
- juniorb, on 04/16/2008, -4/+42I'd be happy to discuss religion vs. science with you, so long as you admit that creationism is religion and evolution is science.
- glasnostic, on 04/16/2008, -2/+46listen to the other side? see thats the problem.
the ID crowd is running around saying "nobody will listen to my side of the debate over the validity of evolution", but their "side" ONLY amounts to "there is no evolution because magic is the answer" it goes no further then that.
now how would you feel if some pesky hippies came up to you ever time you started your car and tried to convince you that your car was a living being and you should let it go free, you would eventually start ignoring them and probably kick their asses.
i have no patience with idiots telling me my science is wrong because everything is magic.- zeitgueist, on 04/16/2008, -1/+19"Okay ID people we're ready to listen to your facts. What have you got?"
"Uh....we're working on it." - davdev, on 04/16/2008, -0/+13The biggest problem I have with ID proponents, is all the ever do is try to discredit Evolution, without ever providing evidence of ID. Even if someday Evolution is deemed to be incorrect, that doesn't automatically mean God Did It.
- MammasMilk, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4But cars are living beings... :'(
- brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3See, Creationists always holler and yell that they're not being taken seriously, and that no one is willing to debate them, when in reality they have plenty of chances to do so. Three men from the Discovery Institute had the chance to defend Intelligent Design in the Dover Trial, but declined to do so at the last minute for unknown reasons. The situation Stein is talking about where the Evolutionist listens to the argument and says "you fool!" has happened, several times. Every time the scientists answer the claims the creationists bring up, but then instead of taking those answers and mentally digesting them, coming up with possible new arguments, they "reboot," forget they ever heard them, and try the same 100, 200, and 300 year-old arguments again. The situation is not that science isn't willing to debate the issue, it's that creationists are unwilling to put their arguments through any scientific scrutiny. In the rare occasion they do, they claim a vast evil conspiracy when the results aren't favorable.
I believe Einstein said that it is insanity to try the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
- zeitgueist, on 04/16/2008, -1/+19"Okay ID people we're ready to listen to your facts. What have you got?"
- WasabiBomb, on 04/16/2008, -1/+21Actually, CrazedLeper, there's a perfectly valid forum for Creationists to talk about and teach what they believe in.
It's called "Church". - ryan850, on 04/16/2008, -11/+3Half of doing Science is ridiculing and bashing wrong ideas.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -0/+16Half of doing Science is being able to reproduce your results in an independent lab halfway around the globe.
- Syphon8, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Half of doing science is being still alive.
- zeitgueist, on 04/16/2008, -1/+23LOL. Okay, we're ready to listen to your evidence. Please give 1 piece of evidence for ID. Not a criticism of evolution, that's not evidence. You need a positive, testable fact. Don't worry we'll wait.
- BrewBeau, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5The whole argument is whether creationism belongs in the science class or not. And it most definitely does not. There can't be any compromise on that. If, in public schools, you are going to teach about creationism, then make a mandatory religion and culture class that teaches about them all objectively. I'd be all for that and I think it would be a positive thing. But to think that in a biology class we need to have a god-did-it section would be insane, unless we hold religion to the high standards of scientific method and peer-review that scientific research goes through. And no creationist would be happy with those results.
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8Oh, whine whine whine. "I'm being suppressed because the heathens I want to evangelize aren't buying it!"
ID is a non-scientific theory with no merit. The criticisms of evolution that ID has raised are long since debunked (that is, considered, and properly refuted using evidence). Come up with something new, and we'll talk, but this is all old hat.
You guys say you're ***** cause people aren't discussing your little "Magic Man done it!" theory. The truth is that people aren't discussing your little "Magic Man done it!" theory *anymore* - because the consensus is that it's crap. - feebie, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4@CrazedLeper - if Ben Stein wanted a good discussion out of this, he wouldn't have made his movie Expelled. The producers of the movie interviewed well known scientists and studiers of evolutional theory, on the basis that it was supposed to be an open discussion, and that the movie was called "Crossroads". Instead, they took soundbites of the interviews, manipulated what the scientists said in favour of the Creationist agenda in the movie, and changed the name to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It seems to me that Ben Stein and the producers of this film are the ones who are not allowing discussion. Here's some reading for you: http://www.expelledexposed.com/
- MammasMilk, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9If I parade around saying 2+2=22, and I get shouted down and ridiculed, does that me I'm being discriminated against? That people are trying to shut me up and don't want to have a conversation. Why is the "2+2=4" crowd so afraid of 22? Guess I must be on to something,
- Coven, on 04/16/2008, -7/+75Watch the video again. This isn't a free speech issue. It is an issue of scientific integrity. Stein wants something that isn't science to be taught in a science classroom. End of story. You want evidence? Science needs evidence. ID and Creationism provide no evidence.
- 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -46/+5this british dill hole is annoying because he really picks, chooses, and takes out of context Ben Stein's video clips
- jezsik, on 04/16/2008, -1/+26Which is exactly what Ben Stein does in the movie.
- 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -9/+2wow ignorant ... you cheer a guy for one thing, and then and jump all over the other guy for doing the same. you don't sound honest in your assessment of the situation at hand?
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8That thunderf00t picked out a turn of phrase of Stien's that happened to be wholly inaccurate is not mutually exclusive with TF being absolutely correct (which he is).
- 5urr3al5am, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1thunderf00t is an arr0gant prick
- 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -9/+2wow ignorant ... you cheer a guy for one thing, and then and jump all over the other guy for doing the same. you don't sound honest in your assessment of the situation at hand?
- zeitgueist, on 04/16/2008, -1/+16Irony!
- BrewBeau, on 04/16/2008, -1/+12So, I take it you don't like going to church then? Because that's exactly what a priest or minister is doing with the Bible.
- jezsik, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Oh, good one!
- flossdaily, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3He took whole and complete assertions and addressed them. If there was a way that those statements could have been misunderstood because they were taken out of context, I would like to know about it. It seemed to me that Stein's statements were self-explanatory, and fairly rebutted.
- jezsik, on 04/16/2008, -1/+26Which is exactly what Ben Stein does in the movie.
- cawpin, on 04/16/2008, -28/+9"wow talk about making a guy look stupid :)"
Yeah, he did a pretty good job of looking stupid, himself. He didn't argue Stein's points at all, only started talking above the subject level. I don't think creationism is accurate; I believe in evolution. But, he did nothing but play into Stein's argument.- robbielaney, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5Evolution does not explain how the elements from life got there, does it? Am I missing something here? If you believe in the Big Bang and you also believe that Matter is neither created nor destroyed, how did it all get here? How did something come from nothing? How did the first cell begin? How did the first speck of "space dust" get here? That is what I don't understand. Do any of you have a reasonable explanation for that? I am not being condescending. On the contrary, I REALLY don't understand.
- Trykt, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution. The origin of the universe is also a separate topic. Yes, these things are related, but the ideas about them are not dependent on each other. This is essentially why you fill find a good number of Christians that don't outright reject evolution, since it doesn't dictate the origins of the universe (i.e. a direct refutation of God being the creator of all). Some people see evolution as the process through which God works.
Of course, the things evolution implies causes a lot of direct controversies with the Bible, so Biblical literalists (i.e. Young Earth Creationists) fight it quite a bit.- robbielaney, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2How can you be a Christian and not a Bible Literalist. One of the tentants is that the Bible is the true word of God and thus the word of God contradicts this statement (for those who believe).
- bendersalt, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Your question answers itself. If you are a Christian and not a Biblical literalist, that whole thing about the Bible saying that the Bible is perfectly accurate is part of the INNACURATE parts of the bible. See how that works?
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4"If you believe in the Big Bang and you also believe that Matter is neither created nor destroyed, how did it all get here? How did something come from nothing?"
To which I respond: "Yes, that's right; I'd have to accept, for the moment, that something came from nothing. Except that, unlike you, I don't need to believe a God came from nothing, then made the Universe from nothing. It's easier to, for the moment, assume one rather than both."
"Do any of you have a reasonable explanation for that?"
No. Not yet, anyway. Thing is, neither do theists, as Deus Ex Machina doesn't constitute a reasonable explanation, even in fiction. Meanwhile, in the distant future, we may have an explanation for universal origins that makes sense and is nice and elegant, while theists will continue to stick to the "Magic Man done it!" line.
"I am not being condescending. On the contrary, I REALLY don't understand."
The above paragraphs explains what I'm about to say, but I'll but it in basic and non-charged terms.
When faced with a lack of explanation, you basically have two options: create a story to fit the phenomena and thereafter ignore it, or collect information, evidence, and determine the cause and nature of the phenomena. Whether you believe in it or not, religion is of the former group, and scientific investigation is of the latter.
You'll note that the former group has a psychological advantage here: it can claim to know the answers to all, based entirely on the creativity of the human mind. The latter group is more apt to say, "Well, I don't know. I'll look into it."
But the primary difference is that, when you just tell stories, your accuracy rate goes through the floor. If you're researching, you achieve more verifiable results.
That's why we'd rather stick to science than base our ideas of the origin of life on religion: science has a better record for truth.
- Trykt, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution. The origin of the universe is also a separate topic. Yes, these things are related, but the ideas about them are not dependent on each other. This is essentially why you fill find a good number of Christians that don't outright reject evolution, since it doesn't dictate the origins of the universe (i.e. a direct refutation of God being the creator of all). Some people see evolution as the process through which God works.
- robbielaney, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5Evolution does not explain how the elements from life got there, does it? Am I missing something here? If you believe in the Big Bang and you also believe that Matter is neither created nor destroyed, how did it all get here? How did something come from nothing? How did the first cell begin? How did the first speck of "space dust" get here? That is what I don't understand. Do any of you have a reasonable explanation for that? I am not being condescending. On the contrary, I REALLY don't understand.
- Merendino, on 04/16/2008, -5/+22Lets all take a step back and look at the entire fallacy of both sides of the argument.
1.) Evolution CANNOT be debated because it is a fact. Organisms CHANGE over time. "Evolution" is irrefutable. If you have a problem with that statement look solely at the difference between white people and black people. The human species changed over time. Evolution CANNOT be debated as it is fact.
2.) The ONLY thing that can even be CONSIDERED for debate is the mechanism that induces evolution... Natural Selection. If you're going to try and debate something know first what you are debating. Natural Selection is the process (currently accepted by science) that drives evolution.
3.) Just for good measure I'm going to say it again, EVOLUTION by itself is NOT DEBATABLE, as it is a fact. Organisms change over time. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE DEBATED is the mechanism for which evolution is spurred on by.... Natural Selection.- rpetty, on 04/16/2008, -10/+5Why it certainly can be debated and should be. Aren't we in a search for truth--whatever that truth may be?
I cannot say definitively that evolution is or is not occurring. it really depends on how broadly you define evolution. Your definition, "organisms change", is supported by significant evidence. To extend that to "there is no God" or to deny that God "set the wheels in motion" is preposterous. It cannot be proven scientifically (scientific method) nor can you, or anyone else, disprove it.
The point of the movie is that many scientists searching for truth are being shut out because their research doesn't fall into line with the "popular" theories of the day. It scares me that any viewpoint would be shut out--regardless of whether or not I agree with it.
It scares me further that the knee jerk reaction on Digg is also of blind faith to the science "of the day". How many times must we see new scientific discoveries which completely overturn or greatly enhance our current understanding.
Seems to me all my fellow "open minded" Diggers ought to see the movie and think for yourselves rather than jump on the bandwagon.- Merendino, on 04/16/2008, -3/+9Yes you can say that evolution is occuring. How is it that black people's skin is black and white's are white. Why is it that black homosapiens have *generally* broader noses than those of white homosapiens? Did god create Black people then white people or vice versa? or at the same time? According to Christians he created Adam then Eve. Not Adam, then Eve, then Jamal.
Furthermore, I wasn't even REMOTELY talking about god or religion. Again, you're arguing wether evolution happens, which can't be done. (refer to my sentence above) and not arguing Natural Selection. And creationist research gets shut down EXACTLY LIKE research about the hollow earth theory. ANY RESEARCH submitted to science journals and periodicals can be shut down.
And you're scared that ANY viewpoint has the ability to get shot down? That has GOT to be one of the dumbest statements on the face of the planet. And its the Christians who say Athiests have no morals. I distinctly remember a time in history when this one guy from Germany had this viewpoint that all Blonde Haired Blue Eye'd people were supperior to this other religion called "Judaism". Remember that? Boy I'll tell ya, i'd be the first one to line up and fight to have THAT viewpoint stifled. For ***** sake, pay attention to what you say. - covertbadger, on 04/16/2008, -2/+11The problem is that nothing in this movie - or Creationism/ID as a whole - is scientific in any way. The scientists being shut out are not coming up with evidence, testable theories, accurate predictions, or doing anything else that would qualify them as scientists - so why the hell do they expect to be treated like scientists? The Creationist/ID movement will never come up with scientific discoveries that overturn our current understanding for the simple reason that they aren't doing any science.
- bpoteat, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7He's right. Evolution through genetic mutation and inheritance is a proven scientific fact, not a theory. It is as much a fact as the earth revolving around the sun. You could certainly argue that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun, but with the current knowledge on the subject you would have a difficult time finding any data to back it up.
This isn't about different social and political viewpoints, it's about science: Given the current state of knowledge on a subject what is the most likely result. And you are right - God and religion don't come into play at all.
I would go into a long explanation about evolution, but I'm sure you're smart enough to research it for yourself. Humans have been using these known scientific principles for many, many years to breed different strains and species of plants and animals. Black and white people became different the same way a tiny black poodle and a giant white one can be bred - evolution. Maybe that's an incorrect statement, but given the current knowledge on the subject it is the most logical and likely explanation.
And this is not a "blind" faith to science. For many of us here, it is a heavily researched knowledge that simply cannot be replaced with the lack of knowledge (or the explanation that "God did it"). - xexx, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5What you don't seem to understand is that evolution is well defined, as is Darwins theory of evolution, being a completely different theory than that of biological evolution.
- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a rational argument against natural selection. Variations that allow organisms to survive and reproduce better will eventually outnumber the competing variations that do not help an organism survive or reproduce more effectively.
The only thing I think should still be open to debate is the idea of common ancestry. Even if every species was created separately by an intelligent designer who decided to arrange the fossils in the ground and write our DNA in such a way as to look exactly as it should if we were all descended from a common ancestor through evolution we would still evolve and evolution and natural selection would still apply. - harajukukei, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6you are arguing that evolution was planned by a higher power who created life. While there is no way to disprove this, there is no way to prove it either. the idea is in no way scientifically testable. There is no basis for the argument other than wonder. Secondly, your argument does not counterpoint Merendino's point since he did not say the how of evolution was undebatable. Evolution itself is scientifically undebatable. It is visible, testable, and provable. The process or the how of evolution, which we assume is natural selection, is debatable because evolution occurs over such a long period of time that maintaining data based on social status and mating would have to occur in real time along side it. it would take as long as the evolutionary process itself to attain enough data to prove natural selection to be the cause.
again, evolution is not debatable, the process of evolution is. Creationist are ignorant. They should accept evolution and argue that it was god's idea.- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I think you're wrong about natural selection. It's practically a tautology. Organisms that have traits that improve their chances of surviving and mating will survive and mate more often than those that don't. This has been directly observed in bacteria who reproduce much more rapidly than larger animals.
As I said in my post above, if anything should be debatable it's common descent, and that has quite the mountain of evidence in its favor. - emotecontrol, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, it's practically a tautology. Which is why it is a wonder that it took so long for anyone to come up with it. Say, I wonder if there were some kind of extremely rich and powerful organization that was suppressing scientific enquiry into the nature and origin of life on earth because a scientific theory of evolution would represent a challenge to its authority on matters for which it was traditionally considered to be the purveyor of truths. Hmm...
The key to evolution by natural selection isn't just the observation that things that don't die survive to reproduce. It's also the insight that some components of the traits of organisms are heritable, and so the organisms that survive will produce a new generation of offspring that are more like the survivors than the non-survivors, and are therefore better equipped to survive in the conditions that killed the non-survivors.
- Logicexe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I think you're wrong about natural selection. It's practically a tautology. Organisms that have traits that improve their chances of surviving and mating will survive and mate more often than those that don't. This has been directly observed in bacteria who reproduce much more rapidly than larger animals.
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8"To extend that to "there is no God" or to deny that God "set the wheels in motion" is preposterous."
That is true. Evolutionary theory says nothing whatsoever about god, and neither did PP. Scientists wouldn't even have bothered fighting this battle if religious folk didn't feel it necessary to inject unscientific claims (like ID) into science class.
By the way: ID is not a "DesignerMan set the wheels in motion" theory. It basically attempts to refute the possibility of evolution via replicative variance and natural selection by claiming a random fill of DNA could never produce a strand of human DNA. The claim is true: You cannot produce a human by chance. The refutation is not: humans were not produced by a roll of the dice. Replication, mutation and selection - your basic black box process - is not random. It takes randomized inputs, yes, but it's a deterministic process.
"The point of the movie is that many scientists searching for truth are being shut out because their research doesn't fall into line with the "popular" theories of the day."
Intelligent Design is not an "unpopular theory". It's a dead theory. It's based on bad assumptions that have universally been refuted. The reason the scientific community isn't paying them any attention now is that they DID pay attention at one point, tore it to pieces, and moved on to real research. The proponents of it, then, decided to take it to the court of Dover, PA - and lost again, the (republican, Bush apointee) Judge calling it out as "not science" and "the progeny of Creationism". They are now trying to take it into the court of public opinion - to what end, I don't know, but they're fools if they think they're going to get anywhere with this tack.
Of course, they're fools if they think they're going to get anywhere in general; dead theory is dead.- avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Second Tremendous argument I have seen from this guy. Good job.
I will say it once again. Natural Selection is a NONRANDOM process. - Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Heh. You'd be surprised how many people think I'm alternately:
Rich
Learning disabled
College educated*
***** insane
Communist
Fascist
Genius
Morally unfit to be in society
Ethically fit to rule the world
Twelve
Basement-dwelling
etc.. you get the idea; people make funny assumptions based on bad positional inference models.
Fact is, I'm just a freelance coder with blue hair and the good fortune to be able to work out on the patio, rather than in my flat.
*Not college educated; I dropped out of Drexel in my freshman year, due to lack of funds. - avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2That is good fortune indeed.
Working outside is wonderful.
- avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Second Tremendous argument I have seen from this guy. Good job.
- Merendino, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5By the gods, thank you harajukukei. The only thing that annoys me more than creationists not accepting the ridiculous amount evidence provided by evolution and natural selection, is their incredibly horrible way of arguing. Never do they address the points we make. I suspect that if they do address the points we make they realize we can rebut with even more concrete proof.
And I can't tell you how many times I have said those exact words to creationists... "You should accept evolution and argue that it was god's idea." Why can't they AT LEAST do that? Not only does that immediately take the argument out of the classroom and back into the philosophical circle, but it allows everyone else to move on and try to find out more things. - emotecontrol, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3As Karl Popper pointed out, a statement has no value if it is fundamentally unverifiable. Trying to claim that some deity created life is not a valid hypothesis, because it cannot be disproved. It can be proved, by finding the deity and having the deity admit to its actions. It cannot be disproved, because no matter the evidence that is mounted supporting the spontaneous origins of life, it could always be that a deity set it up. It could also be that magic dancing princess fairies did it too. Both God and the magic dancing princess fairies are hypotheses of equal worth, and of equal grounding. If you accept the God theory, you are implicitly accepting the magic dancing princess fairy theory, because you have no rational basis for choosing one over the other, and they're fundamentally equivalent anyway. The only sane thing to do is to construct a theory based on the preponderance of evidence, and stick with that theory so long as it explains the evidence. The best theory at the moment is that simple organic matter can become somewhat more complex organic matter under the right set of conditions, and that over time it became self-replicating. If you have another theory, then present your evidence. Otherwise, stuff a sock in it.
- rpetty, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1and this is the point emotecontrol. the theories of science evolve more rapidly than species. We have a lot left to learn and understand. Factor that into your sock!
- Merendino, on 04/16/2008, -3/+9Yes you can say that evolution is occuring. How is it that black people's skin is black and white's are white. Why is it that black homosapiens have *generally* broader noses than those of white homosapiens? Did god create Black people then white people or vice versa? or at the same time? According to Christians he created Adam then Eve. Not Adam, then Eve, then Jamal.
- OverZealousHobo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+0I believe the only element of evolution that is disputed or debated by intelligent creationists, is not whether evolution occurs...it does, on a micro-evolutionary level (insects becoming immune to insecticides, changes within a species.) the "debate" comes in where macro-evolution is concerned (changes of one species to another species, example: black and white, and Asian people are all homosapiens...even though they have evolved differently within their species type...I am always open minded about anything...If everything is meaningless, and there really isn't an afterlife...which I am not opposed to, then why the ***** does everyone feel the need to dispute stupid ***** like this...in fact, why waste time figuring out where we came from...just enjoy life...if this makes Ben stein happy, fine...if it makes the people who watch it happy, then fine...it all ends the same way anyway....
- daggah, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1"Macroevolution" is simply lots of microevolution. And just because you are satisfied with being ignorant or being lied to by the creationists doesn't mean that that's how everyone else feels.
- Abaddon1125, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2"Macroevolution" and "microevolution" are terms that fell out of use many decades ago when scientists found that they are not, as was speculated, distinct entities. Nobody uses these terms anymore except creationist retards.
- rpetty, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2Science and religion should search for truth. Interestingly, that one guy from Germany did precisely what you suggest doing--shut down opposing viewpoints. He did it in much the same way that supposed "intellectuals" do today, which is to proclaim science above all--a new religion if you will, and to mock, denigrate and ridicule the beliefs, ideas and heritage of those he did not like. This of course led to far worse, but it started by shutting out ideas. Amazing your fascist tendencies. So silly, that those on the right are labeled fascists when in fact that label fits your kind far better.
I can and continue to make an argument about whether or not evolution is occurring based on how broadly evolution is defined. If it is extended to argue the existence (or not) of a God), then I can and will argue that point as it cannot be proven either way--whether you argue that or not is immaterial.
Unfortunately, it appears you cannot follow nor make a coherent argument. Shame. Perhaps less time reading Digg and more time educating yourself might help.- Merendino, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1/facepalm
Evolution is NOT broadly defined... it is strictly defined.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
*dictionary.com*
Biology
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
*American Heritage Dictionary*
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
*http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definiti ...
How many more do you need to narrow it down for you? My fascist tendencies..... again /facepalm. Are you kidding me? You're telling me that you think we should teach scientology in schools? We should teach the Church of the Flying spaggetti monster in schools? We should be forced to hear why Satanic rituals will actually be the universal cure for aids? You are stark raving mad if you ACTUALLY believe that ALL ideas and viewpoints should be examined. And I'm going out on a limb to wager that you actually don't believe what you're preaching there based solely on the fact that you would discredit what an Islamic man says to you about his religion because you already have your answer. I will fold when the evidence points the opposite direction, but you still have not offered me any kind of evidence for ID. Further, NO Intelligent Design believer can offer evidence... so once again, CANNOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS! And for gods sake I'm not mocking your belief in God. I'm mocking your ridiculous denial of evolution.- rpetty, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2/facepalm, how cute...
I am not arguing for ID. Far from it. I am simply stating that it is disconcerting to see Diggers such as yourself dismiss the presented in Expelled with such vitriol. I for one would like to see Mr. Stein's evidence that there is a conspiracy against a group of scientists. If true, certainly we would all want to see this further explored and appropriately addressed.
And please show me where I deny evolution? I simply stated, it can and should be debated.
I am glad you looked up a definition of evolution, as your original notion "organism change over time" and was so inaccurate so as to damage the thesis of your post.
What I am "preaching" is a classically liberal notion, proceed with an open mind to a presentation of the facts and make your mind up after. The knee-jerk reaction to "Expelled" is surprising. I prefer a more reasoned and thoughtful response to Expelled like that found in Scientific American at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben ... It is clear they have actually seen the movie. Thunderf00t clearly HAD not seen the movie. I plan to see the movie and make my determination of its merits AFTERWARDS. Of course, this doesn't mean I endorse Nazi's, Scientology, Islam--did I miss any?
As for what can be taught in schools, maybe we should save that discussion for another time? - rpetty, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1correct link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben ...
- rpetty, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2/facepalm, how cute...
- Merendino, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1/facepalm
- Trichomonas, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2It seems you don't know what you're talking about.
Organisms do NOT change over time...SPECIES change over time.
Evolution is the MECHANISM not the end product. And natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution (e.g. sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.)
- rpetty, on 04/16/2008, -10/+5Why it certainly can be debated and should be. Aren't we in a search for truth--whatever that truth may be?
- noahgelman, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
- daggah, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5It's also not evidence of existence.
- forgiste, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5In science, yes it is. Which is exactly why you can't teach Creationism or Intelligent Design as Science. You just need evidence. I'm not saying World Religions shouldn't be taught in school, I'm just saying that if they are it should be considered a Social Science and not taught alongside Natural Science in the same classroom. It should also be vocational.
- bobthebuilder25, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2wow, talk about deserving it
- jfrumar, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4here's all the parts put together back to back:
http://omnisio.com/v/vjb9bSndjhG/why-do-people-lau ... - xptoast, on 04/16/2008, -9/+1Funny how so many band together using science as their way to prove God doesn't exist when they intend to use a process(science) that depends on having a finite answer when indeed they cannot answer with a finite answer to the question of where it all came from. That is a question that cannot be answered with the scientific process in that reality is a closed system and has to be because without doing so you end up with an infite question kind of loop with no ending which in science is a big no no. This is why we Christians have a faith.
- daggah, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Just because the answer to a question is "I don't know" doesn't mean godditit.
- xptoast, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1If you cannot understand the concepts of math or congruency within logic you have no business trying to use science to figure out how we got here. If you understood the concepts of math and the congruent path of logic you wouldn't be searching with science.
It is similar to a dog thinking "I want to bite my tail" and then proceeds to use the logic that you can get somewhere by going towards it not understanding that by going towards it the tail will then move and make the mouth the same distance away from the tail it was in the first place. This is about as stupid as scientists using logic to figure out a finite answer to the beginning in which the beginning cannot begin to be described as math cannot describe that in which it is not designed to do. You cannot use math to produce a finite value for a infinite question. So now I would like you to go and find a corner within a room that is spherical. Have fun with that.- daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wha? None of that made any sense. Just because your small mind can't comprehend that there may be a possibility of us acquiring the answer doesn't make you right.
And even if science can't and will never be able to figure out the answer, you still will have nothing solid to base your faith on.
And either way, addressing the question of where the universe came from has nothing to do with evolution either way, which I thought was the whole topic of this article.
- daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wha? None of that made any sense. Just because your small mind can't comprehend that there may be a possibility of us acquiring the answer doesn't make you right.
- xptoast, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1If you cannot understand the concepts of math or congruency within logic you have no business trying to use science to figure out how we got here. If you understood the concepts of math and the congruent path of logic you wouldn't be searching with science.
- cranium, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Evolution makes no claim whatsoever regarding the existence of God. Funny how you guys always get that wrong.
- xptoast, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1It does try to prove such. Similar to if you where trying to find a corner within a circle. It would be like saying I don't want to disprove that the circle has no corners I just want to find one in the circle. Not going to work buddy boy. In the case of evolution you cannot "have your cake and eat it too" (prove our evolution as well as saying there is a God)
- daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1No, it doesn't. You're just another creationist liar.
- Abaddon1125, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1The problem with these creationists is that they are often bible literalists, who realize that acceptance of evolution means the accounts of Genesis are a lie. If Genesis is a lie, so is original sin. No original sin, no sacrifice for Jesus, and there goes the whole religion... So they fight evolution so they can stay in their little comfort zones.
- xptoast, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1It does try to prove such. Similar to if you where trying to find a corner within a circle. It would be like saying I don't want to disprove that the circle has no corners I just want to find one in the circle. Not going to work buddy boy. In the case of evolution you cannot "have your cake and eat it too" (prove our evolution as well as saying there is a God)
- daggah, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Just because the answer to a question is "I don't know" doesn't mean godditit.
- sdrumsalot, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0People really do not understand the underlying conflict between Creationism and Evolution. Please, do not think Creationism is simply the theory that MAN was created by a higher being, it is the theory that EVERYTHING was created by a higher being. Basically, the model of Evolution holds up with Creationism and that is really the conflict. Yes we evolved from apes, which evolved from fish, which evolved from microorganisms, which evolved from... which evolved from... which evolved from... eventually you get to a point where science does not have the answer currently, thus you really can't say that we are NOT the product of intelligent design, Perhaps some being created a single particle (smaller than the theoretic higgs particle) in a petri dish, the nature of which creates all (yes our universe is in a petri dish), could you disprove that scientifically, as ridiculous as it may be. This is also why physicists are always pushing to find smaller and smaller particles, they are pushing to "find God" in some sense (the origin of all matter/anti-matter). My brother is a solid-state physicist and I'm a computer scientist, we both agree that science could eventually answer questions like this, but that without any scientific evidence to disprove Creationism, one cannot simply cast it aside, the two theories are intertwined and most people do not understand this. Evolution is a part of Creationism. Again, it is the theory that EVERYTHING was created by an intelligent being not MAN. Sorry but I just want to make sure people understand the difference.
- DGHtruenorth, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0"Creationism" is mocked because it is NOT about the "smallest particle/spark of life". Creationism is about the planet being 10,000 years old, mankind dropped into the Garden of Eden, etc... Evolution does not, and never has or will, attempt to explain the exact moment "it" all started. Evolution attempts to explain everything that happened from that point on. Your position that some omnipotent being started it all is not necessarily incompatible with the theories of evolution. Furthermore most rational individuals that support the theories of evolution are not atheists. They are agnostic because they cannot disprove the possibility that a "God" exists, anymore than they can disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Creationism and Evolution are not "intertwined" in any way. Your perspective on "creationism" is not "intertwined" with evolution, at best it precedes it.
- sdrumsalot, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I do not think Ben Stein talks of Creationism in the literal bible sense, that's why I wanted to point out the difference, Ben Stein is arguing Creationism from the point of theistic evolution not the Garden of Eden, etc. Theistic evolution is what I am referring to. But whenever Creationism is brought up, there are varying degrees by which people use it. Wikipedia's definition (being that a supreme being created everything) still fits into evolution because it refers to the creation of the universe (including man). Most of the "creationist" I have talked to usually argue their point as I spoke of above (which some consider Creationism as me). It really depends on how you define Creationism, and it's definition varies which makes the issue a little hairy for most. For all purposes, what I was speaking of above and Ben Stein's arguments can be rationalized as Creationism (Although it is technically theistic evolution).
- DGHtruenorth, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0Wikipedia's definition of Creationism, assuming that it does include the "creation of man" (as opposed to the evolution of man) certainly does not "fit(s) into evolution". Evolution clearly precludes the spontaneous occurrence of anything as complex as man. 'nuff said.
- sdrumsalot, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I do not think Ben Stein talks of Creationism in the literal bible sense, that's why I wanted to point out the difference, Ben Stein is arguing Creationism from the point of theistic evolution not the Garden of Eden, etc. Theistic evolution is what I am referring to. But whenever Creationism is brought up, there are varying degrees by which people use it. Wikipedia's definition (being that a supreme being created everything) still fits into evolution because it refers to the creation of the universe (including man). Most of the "creationist" I have talked to usually argue their point as I spoke of above (which some consider Creationism as me). It really depends on how you define Creationism, and it's definition varies which makes the issue a little hairy for most. For all purposes, what I was speaking of above and Ben Stein's arguments can be rationalized as Creationism (Although it is technically theistic evolution).
- cookiechips, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0wow talk about making a guy look stupid :)
- DGHtruenorth, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0"Creationism" is mocked because it is NOT about the "smallest particle/spark of life". Creationism is about the planet being 10,000 years old, mankind dropped into the Garden of Eden, etc... Evolution does not, and never has or will, attempt to explain the exact moment "it" all started. Evolution attempts to explain everything that happened from that point on. Your position that some omnipotent being started it all is not necessarily incompatible with the theories of evolution. Furthermore most rational individuals that support the theories of evolution are not atheists. They are agnostic because they cannot disprove the possibility that a "God" exists, anymore than they can disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Creationism and Evolution are not "intertwined" in any way. Your perspective on "creationism" is not "intertwined" with evolution, at best it precedes it.
- DGHtruenorth, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Hey! Judgeing by these responses I'm on the right site!
- unrealJEDI, on 04/16/2008, -4/+45a lightening bolt striking a puddle of mud!!!!
- chirwan, on 04/16/2008, -41/+75Part of a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. for more see the rest of thunderf00t's videos. they never disappoint.
- haiduz, on 04/16/2008, -12/+53That guy has by far one of the most annoying accents/voices I have heard on you tube. YOU FOOL!
- timdorr, on 04/16/2008, -0/+18He just needs to speak louder. It sounds like he's making these in his cube at work and doesn't want to arouse the attention of other coworkers.
- newanalog, on 04/16/2008, -5/+2Agreed, sounds like someone is choking him, which I would do to him if he used that tone with me. Sounds like one mousy little Brit behind that mic.
- xaeon, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5I'm English and his voice even annoyed me.
- JointVenture, on 04/16/2008, -15/+1He was asked,
What would he tell his daughters if they asked if God created the world in six days?
“I’m trying to remember if we had this conversation,’’ Obama said. “What I said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and the six days in the Bible may not be days as we understand it. They may not be 24-hour days."- haiduz, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1I asked my dad exactly the same question a while back and he told me the same thing.
-G08AMA- doctechnical, on 04/16/2008, -0/+17I asked my dad the same question a while back, and he told me to shut up and get the lawn mown.
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Conflating GO, 08, and Obama like that is very difficult to recognize. I know it seems clever, but I doubt it has the intended effect, as most people will spend more time parsing it out than thinking about the statement.
- petebot, on 04/16/2008, -0/+15You know, I just realized that you’re cutting and pasting this in a lame attempt to make Obama look bad. Let me explain it to you, since it seems like you haven’t actually read it: he’s saying he doesn’t read the bible literally, and that God didn’t create the world in six days.
- Pulch, on 04/16/2008, -0/+13If my daughters asked me about trolling, what would I say?
"What I said to them is that I believe that forums and comment threats are a great place to further the discussion of an article or video" Pulch said. "But there are people out there who troll, spam, and threadjack, bringing down the quality of the discussion for the other users. They think it's a place to put forth their opinion, and copy and paste quotes into any topic that even seems close to their cause, and that's whats ruining the internet." - Arth718, on 04/16/2008, -0/+13I have a feeling that almost every politician would give the answer that Obama gave, with the exception of those like Mike Huckabee. They have to not look like a ***** idiot to most of the world while they prove that they are a man of "faith" to the bible belt south so they can receive votes. If you disagree with the bible in any way at all, some people will simply not vote for you; that is the ignorance of this country.
- JointVenture, on 04/16/2008, -13/+1So what you wingnuts are saying is that
1. Obama said it to get votes...you may want to go ask the folks at his church about that.
2. That he was lying even though he has on many occassions said that he prays to Jeeeeesus, AKA the son of God.
3. That he did say God created the earth, but just no in 6 "human" days? So what you're saying is that you believe God created the earth and evolution was his method.
Which means the fact that GOD created EVOLUTION should be taught in schools.- StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7That would be Super-Intelligent Design. God not only created Humankind, God created an incredibly complex system that would inevitably result in the creation of Humankind after millions and billions of years from the very moment the universe began.
In case anyone's wondering: never challenge God to a game of dominoes.- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Unless God intends for you to play dominoes, at which point you were playing before you got here and lost before you were born...
- hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Wingnut doesn't mean what you think it means, copy-paste-boy.
- JointVenture, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1Copy paste boy? Sorry *****, but I dont copy paste in the main thread over and over, I do paste something if its relevent in multiple sub threads.
Wingnut means lots of different things to different people Mr. Oxford.
- JointVenture, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1Copy paste boy? Sorry *****, but I dont copy paste in the main thread over and over, I do paste something if its relevent in multiple sub threads.
- veter, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Because we are okay with a politician that says something we disagree with does not mean we want what he said taught in schools. Trolling is fun, eh?
- StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7That would be Super-Intelligent Design. God not only created Humankind, God created an incredibly complex system that would inevitably result in the creation of Humankind after millions and billions of years from the very moment the universe began.
- haiduz, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1I asked my dad exactly the same question a while back and he told me the same thing.
- SuperWinner, on 04/16/2008, -4/+9How did Ben Stein get a show about how smart he is, when he is this dumb???
- hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -2/+9He's willfully ignorant, not dumb. Basically, he's lying to advance a political agenda. Google 'wedge document'. You'll go farther in life by not assuming that people who espouse whacky positions are stupid. Frequently, they aren't (unfortunately).
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2The funny thing about the wedge strategy: I never understood how that was supposed to work. Basically, you mobilize all your opposing forces in an effort to discredit you as quickly and cleanly as possible, and in the process, basically drain your own credibility among your opponents and followers.
It seems like a political suicide mission to me.
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2The funny thing about the wedge strategy: I never understood how that was supposed to work. Basically, you mobilize all your opposing forces in an effort to discredit you as quickly and cleanly as possible, and in the process, basically drain your own credibility among your opponents and followers.
- RC155, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4He is not dumb.
He is a smart guy with an agenda or more specifically a smart guy working for a group that has and agenda for the future of the U.S. -- akin to the NEW AMERICAN CENTURY PROJECT
He is Probably part of a foreign "cell" that's been living in this country for a while and has been now put to action by it's central command. similar to Lieberman etc....)
- hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -2/+9He's willfully ignorant, not dumb. Basically, he's lying to advance a political agenda. Google 'wedge document'. You'll go farther in life by not assuming that people who espouse whacky positions are stupid. Frequently, they aren't (unfortunately).
- hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5You learn stuff from them too (well, I did). Highly recommended.
- moush, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Comments show insight into how stupid everyone here is.
- kjax82, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Thank you for using the word "creationists" and not "Christians". Some dolts think the word is interchangeable.
- argaen21, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1I'm not christian. I believe in evolution and a god. ***** you.
- haiduz, on 04/16/2008, -12/+53That guy has by far one of the most annoying accents/voices I have heard on you tube. YOU FOOL!
- whoreable, on 04/16/2008, -33/+157Expelled has my vote for comedy of the year.
- gllopc, on 04/16/2008, -3/+47The mustn't see comedy of the year.
- BriVaps, on 04/16/2008, -16/+1that guy was way to anoying to listen to for more than 2 "You Fool!!"s
fag creationist- buadach, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2' too annoying' not 'to anoying' you ***** moron.
- BriVaps, on 04/16/2008, -16/+1that guy was way to anoying to listen to for more than 2 "You Fool!!"s
- fistofvalhalla, on 04/16/2008, -26/+0You have my vote for jackass of the year.
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1pong.
- pintomp3, on 04/16/2008, -1/+10i'de say it's more of a tragedy.
- mystdragon333, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2If we can rickroll the mets, we can give this a comedy oscar. Let's get together and make this happen.
- epmc, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Anyone who believes creationism should not be taught in schools has a duty not to spend any money on seeing this movie. Even though it will probably be laugh out loud funny, we cannot support this propaganda. However, by all means, watch it for free online!
- enri, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You know they count seed/leech numbers as market penetration.
- gllopc, on 04/16/2008, -3/+47The mustn't see comedy of the year.
- unrealJEDI, on 04/16/2008, -23/+8ya his videos are pretty good
- rrouse, on 04/16/2008, -190/+26Anyone that has ever tried to build anything of some complexity knows that you have to have a design.
You can't even build a screen door without a design.- chirwan, on 04/16/2008, -10/+70However in nature we find many things that have no "designer" and are a product of natural selection through their environment.
we exist simply through natural selection and evolution. us homo sepains have no designer. the same goes for any living being.
we see this in biology, and chemistry, through viruses and molecules, RNA, and DNA. we also see this through the evolution of our universe. we've have very solid theories that say our universe is expanding and was very dense at some point. what happend before that we don't know, yet but thats what we are trying to figure out.
if we stopped at saying "we were designed" we would have never figured all this wonderfull stuff out.- chirwan, on 04/16/2008, -9/+6homo *sapiens sorry.
- 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3freudian slip
- gutistg, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1He had cuttlefish on the mind?
- 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3freudian slip
- mescad, on 04/16/2008, -6/+9Your last sentence there doesn't make a lot of sense. For those who believe in a designer, there is the potential to gain knowledge of the designer, or even just knowledge of how the design works. That's plenty of motivation to "figure all this wonderful stuff out". I'm not making a case for either side here, but the assumption that 'if the other guys were right, we wouldn't being curious about how things work', is a bad argument on both sides.
- kleptomaniac, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9The point here is that in order to pursue a scientific endeavour, especially one which challenges a wells founded scientific theory, you need something to base your arguments on. Preferably evidence. Insofar the creationists have managed to come up with, "you don't understand it yet, so maybe I'm right" which does not constitute physical evidence.
- mescad, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3My point is that the pursuit of scientific knowledge doesn't require an absolute knowledge of the origins of life. Different people are motivated by different things, and good scientists who believe in a designer do exist. I absolutely agree that bad science is bad science, no matter who is doing it. We should hold them to the same rigorous standards that we hold atheist scientists.
- rilus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4What universal benefit does human kind gain from creationism or ID? None. All benefits gained are linked to whether a person believes in a God or not. Saying that God created humans as we are doesn't give me or any atheist any benefit, insight, or new knowledge.
Saying that it was a natural process, gives everyone the benefits of medicine, biochemistry, genetics, industry, farming, etc. It also leads to predictions for new models, new theories, and more knowledge, thus more benefit. - ParticleMan420, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2"For those who believe in a designer, there is the potential to gain knowledge of the designer, or even just knowledge of how the design works."
Blasphemer!
- kleptomaniac, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9The point here is that in order to pursue a scientific endeavour, especially one which challenges a wells founded scientific theory, you need something to base your arguments on. Preferably evidence. Insofar the creationists have managed to come up with, "you don't understand it yet, so maybe I'm right" which does not constitute physical evidence.
- dougdiggerton, on 04/16/2008, -10/+3we will never know for sure where matter came from, or how life, and self aware life formed, the only key clue we are given is our beliefs. The thousands of accounts of Jesus' life affect many peoples beliefs. I believe that it is closed minded to rule out the possibility of saying that things may have happened that are beyond our conception of the laws of the universe.
- damndirtyaliens, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3"Thousands of accounts of Jesus's life"? Great! Finally, something to substantiate an absurd claim! Let's see what ya got!
- rhapsodisiac, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2It's obvious that parts of the universe are beyond our conceptions. No one knows everything. The question is: should we be allowed to work with what we know with the goal of conceiving more, or should we quit bothering by the suggestion of a few-thousand-year-old book and a handful of whackos?
- Fordi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Offtopic, but: There are 38 accounts of Jesus' life, one of which (Josephus) occurred during his supposed lifetime. This includes the Synoptic and Apocryphal (Gnostic) Gospels. Of the Gospels, the earliest written one was written 30 years after Jesus' death.
Josephus' account, meanwhile, has been criticized as a potential forgery, based on wording and handwriting analysis.
- rpapi100, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2I fully agree with you that rrouse's statement is wrong. However, I would like to remind you and other people on Digg that the best way to bring down a position is to poorly defend it. If you have only opinions to offer, please to dot not try to answer claims that you are unable to intellectually challenge. I find it very frustrating to see people say stupid things and get more stupidity as an answer, you're not helping what you believe. please shut up.
I hope you understand that I'm not saying your comment has no merit, I'm just using this opportunity to pass on a message to a larger audience. If it can help, try to remember how you feel when you see TV shows interviewing athletes or movie stars about their opinion on a political matter, when you know they have not a single idea of what their talking about. It's kind of the same thing. Thats why Thunderf00t's video is so good, because he answers each of Stein's claim with verified or verifiable facts and common sens.
Look, I'm sorry if I sound like a douche bag but some people on digg should really try to shut up and look stupid instead of speaking and proving it. I mean, i'm all for free speech, but leave grown-up arguments for grown-ups if you don't want to develop a coherent and well structured argumentation. In the mean while, here's some homework : http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Again, sorry for the douchyness of my comment, but sometimes the only thing that will get that nail is a hammer. I really agree with what you where trying to say but the way you said it, well, you get my point. - airiox, on 04/16/2008, -5/+2How do you explain evolution? If a normal person has sex with a down syndrome person, they have a higher chance of down syndrome but they won't always get it. Same goes for two down syndrome people. DNA does not work in the way you say it is. Defects in the DNA code aren't always passed along. Say a fish has a defect that gives him pseudo limbs, he would have to mate with a normal fish, Who is to say that trait will be passed along? Contrary, it will probably not be passed along and their offspring will be no different then other fish.
Tell me if evolution is so solid, why haven't we been able to artficially create it yet? Create a fish that has limbs through manipulation then mate his sperm with that of a regular female fish of his speices and watch that feature fall out of existence. For example, a Liger after "evolving" it cannot mate with other ligers. Likewise, the females won't produce offspring any different from their suitor.
Seriously I could sit here and tell you why evolution is false all day, perhaps I should right a paper someday, but it would be buried due to the intellectual superiority complex of evolutionists.
Also Ben Stien saying some sceintists have said life originated from lightning is true. You see, the difference between a dead animal and a living one is some sort of electric field which runs their body. Same goes for bacteria ect. Possibly true in plants also, couldn't tell you though. But irregardless, some scientist believe that is the explanation of how life was born. I understand evolution isn't a theory of how life originated, but somehow life had to be first started for evolution to be true. Some evolutionists believe that the person was god and he just watches as things evolved. Some others don't have a clue. a few lighting, etc.- avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Artificial speciation has occured.
Ovis Aires (domestic sheep) have evolved (directly, through human manipulation) from Ovis Orientalis and another breed (cannot remember which right now), and can no longer successfuly interbreed with them (the common definition for distinct speciation) See: Hiendleder S., et al. (2002) "Molecular analysis of wild and domestic sheep questions current nomenclature and provides evidence for domestication from two different subspecies" Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:893-904
Drosophila pseudoobscura can, in isolation, derive into distinct species in as little as 8 generations. See: Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.
Try this page out, it is really interesting. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...
Also, stop making stuff up.
Yeah I cited a digg comment. What? :D - awills, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Also, think about the many types of dogs that we have bred.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evoluti ...
It's not the huge scale evolution that you're talking about, but it is smaller proof of natural selection in action.- avaugha4, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1All dogs can interbreed and are members of Canis Familiaris, thus they are not individual species. Thinking in the right direction though!
- avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Artificial speciation has occured.
- chirwan, on 04/16/2008, -9/+6homo *sapiens sorry.
- alphgeek, on 04/16/2008, -3/+48Rrouse's analogy falls apart very quickly. With evolution by natural selection, no-one is "[trying] to build anything of some complexity." There is no plan, no goal, no endpoint and no reason. None is needed.
Evolution by natural selection is not a guided process. Nobody is trying to build anything.
To suggest that it is driven, with an end goal in mind, is akin to saying that the sun chooses to emit light for the benefit of mankind, and causes the fusion of hydrogen to helium to enable the process. Ridiculous? Of course.- jstone, on 04/16/2008, -1/+14Ridiculous? Not to a creationist. They believe that the entirety of existence is all part of some large plan that their chosen deity cooked up.
- Andrwmorph, on 04/16/2008, -0/+10But only their diety is right! All the other religions are wrong and stupid!
- alpharaptor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4except for His Noodly Goodness and the great boil
- vangard, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2"Nobody is trying to build anything."
Correct you are, good sir. In particular: complexity. Evolution didn't set out to build anything complex - the complexity was just a by-product of evolution. And not that common of one, mind you. Microorganisms have been evolving since life began on Earth, and they're often (relatively) simple. Organisms evolve to fit a nitch in an environment - sometimes that means complexity, sometimes simplicity.
Look at math: graphing relatively simple functions can produce simple curves, or enormously complex shapes and patterns.
- jstone, on 04/16/2008, -1/+14Ridiculous? Not to a creationist. They believe that the entirety of existence is all part of some large plan that their chosen deity cooked up.
- gllopc, on 04/16/2008, -9/+129Your God appears fairly complex. Who designed him?
- lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -4/+26Timothy, a fourteen year old child who exists eternally and created St Elmos place. and thusly the rest of the world around of it. WHAT DON'T YOU GET ABOUT THAT?
- CrazedLeper, on 04/16/2008, -25/+5He did.
- gllopc, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6If you meant rrouse (the poster above) then you're right, and you should be dugg up.
- ziptnf, on 04/16/2008, -4/+85Man designed God.
- fety, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3in their primative minds!!!!
- grungegbunny, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11... In his own image.
- MammasMilk, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8Dyson designed god, god is bagless and has superior suction
- glasnostic, on 04/16/2008, -12/+8oh god.. not another retard.
- brightshadow525, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Yea I was hoping a retard like you wouldn't post....
- captric, on 04/16/2008, -8/+18Yes, partially true, you GOD was designed in your own mind by the influence and brainwashing from your parents and peers at a very early age. It is sustained by a lazy intellect and lack of science education. So have fun with your imaginary friend while you become more and more marginalized in this sophisticated society where you have the right to free speech and freedom of/from Religion, but people also have the RIGHT to criticize you!.
- chris1012, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4lol that was great. I never thought of a come back like that. "Yes, partially true, you GOD was designed in your own mind by the influence and brainwashing from your parents and peers at a very early age." ... golden :)
- Murdats, on 04/16/2008, -3/+12right, but what if you dont have a design? you end up with a very messy but possibly functional door, and mayhaps that door does not suit its task, and then is destroyed. maybe you werent planning on building a door and just got a heap of wood and started attaching it all randomly and found something that you could use as a door.
biology is not neat and efficient like something that would be designed is, its incredibly messy and complex, like someone hacking without a design would create, I do software development for a living, the more complex something is, the less design there was involved, the very complexity you argue proves there was a creator is the very argument that should be against a creator, we are not elegant efficient machines, we are a massive pile of workarounds which have over time managed to form in a way that work together. it is remarkable true, but it is not supernatural.- 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3the evolutionary changes that we detect by analysis over time could never be thought of as a plan or design
- cvindustries, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2Your argument is weak. You're a software developer - you are a designer. Whether its hodgepodge like Microsoft code or the cleanest code any comp sci prof could ask for, it didn't write itself. You also didn't get there by randomly adding digits into the code. You coded it. You need a better analogy.
- KingWilson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1thats one of the coolest comments ive read on digg. I watched this TEDtalk about how the the systems our bodies use to do things (pump blood, breathe...) are really inefficient and could b improved upon 100 fold. so yo thank you.
- UnWeave, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6You've just basically stated that "anyone who designs anything knows it must be designed". This is why we laugh at you. Evolution is separate from design, its mechanisms are such that intelligent input is not required and changes come about naturally. You said build something of complexity, well to build something of complexity in a relatively short space of time intelligent input is needed, but evolution has taken place over millions of years, and essentially gets to the same place through trial and error.
- jezsik, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Can build something without a design? Ever take a walk in the woods? You'll see animal paths and deer runs if you know what to look for. No one designed those. Ever walk through a large undeveloped open space where people frequent? You'll notice foot paths. Those weren't designed either, people just walked and paths formed. How 'bout a riverbed? Who designed those? Water does not take the shortest route to the sea, nor does it keep the same path. It changes, but not by design.
- MammasMilk, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Actually, I'm pretty sure there's a Dept. of Woodland Creatures Planning of Paths and Trails Committee.
aka the D.W.C.P.P.T.C - biotch, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2indeed ... and just so there is no argument that nothing "complex" could be created that way, I submit this:
http://www.familyvacationco.com/LA2Grand/grand_can ...
The grand canyon had no designer...
And if you go about 4/5ths of the way through this video:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03.ht ...
You can see how cell structure can emerge without a designer.
- MammasMilk, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Actually, I'm pretty sure there's a Dept. of Woodland Creatures Planning of Paths and Trails Committee.
- Rikkochet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Nono, he's right, you can't build anything without a design. Creationism and evolution line up perfectly here.
You know how I was designed? A subtle transcription variance between the gametes of my parents. If you understand recursion, you'll understand how you can extend that case back for billions of years without requiring additional evidence.
At a genetic level you can see differences between single generations. At the physical level you have to look at dozens or hundreds of generations to see the change. But it's there. Look at a dog. Then look at another breed. Yeesh. - doctechnical, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4I suggest you do some research into cellular automata. Take a look at Conway's "Game of Life", and some of the things that come out of that. Give an incredibly simple "universe" and a couple of basic rules, you get gliders colliding to make a glider gun. Where was the "design" for that?
- flossdaily, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I came in here to say exactly that.
- andrewthrice, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Was that by design or chance?
- doctechnical, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Obviously Conway "designed" the game, but the simplicity of the rules would never imply the phenomenally sophisticated (and beautiful) forms that they give rise to. Wikipedia puts it this way:
"Ever since its publication, Conway's Game of Life has attracted much interest because of the surprising ways in which the patterns can evolve. Life is an example of emergence and self-organization. It is interesting for physicists, biologists, economists, mathematicians, philosophers, generative scientists and others to observe the way that complex patterns can emerge from the implementation of very simple rules. The game can also serve as a didactic analogy, used to convey the somewhat counterintuitive notion that "design" and "organization" can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
There are only a bajillion :) implementations of Life for any platform you can name, Google "Cellular Automata" and check it out yourself, it's absolutely fascinating.
- doctechnical, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Obviously Conway "designed" the game, but the simplicity of the rules would never imply the phenomenally sophisticated (and beautiful) forms that they give rise to. Wikipedia puts it this way:
- andrewthrice, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Was that by design or chance?
- flossdaily, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I came in here to say exactly that.
- hiselect, on 04/16/2008, -18/+3"we see this in biology, and chemistry, through viruses and molecules, RNA, and DNA."
Do you do realize that scientists never "invent" something, but rather, they simply observe what was already put in place, right?
When we "discovered" DNA, it didn't prove evolution. We simply see more and more how complicated everything is the more we learn about it.
All we are doing is observing the Creator's handiwork.- chrishiggins, on 04/16/2008, -4/+3But you have to admit that evolution and Christianity are compatible. Saying that they are not is just really doubting God's omnipotence.
- rilus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Christianity and evolution are indeed incompatible. Evolution contradicts everything that's said in the Bible about the origins of man and every other living being. Evolution is however compatible with deism or pantheism.
- chrishiggins, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1The Bible says that man was created from dust. Dust can be symbolic: the Bible is full of symbolism.
- rilus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3How do you distinguish between the symbolism and what's meant to be taken literally?
- Daz3, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Obviously you do this in an entirely ad hoc way :D. Also, if you were writing a book that detailed the origins of the earth and the origins of life on earth; which also acted as a guide to live your life by so that you can avoid eternal damnation - would you right it in ***** metaphor?
- chrishiggins, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Of course you'd write it in metaphor, it's far more entertaining than a 500 page self-help book.
- rilus, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1So, again, since the Bible is all metaphor, according to you, evolution is incompatible with it. We're back to where we started.
- rilus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Christianity and evolution are indeed incompatible. Evolution contradicts everything that's said in the Bible about the origins of man and every other living being. Evolution is however compatible with deism or pantheism.
- bigdogbts, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3No, FUNDAMENTAL Christianity and evolution are incompatible. I was exposed to evolution by lay biology teachers in Catholic grade school, and further explored evolution in a biology class lead by a Benedictine monk in high school. This was a man who dedicated his life to a religious order, but as a scientist, whole heartedly believed in both evolution and the influence of God in the natural order of things. It's only when you constrain your understanding of something to a very limited set of guidelines (as in "The story of Adam and Eve is entirely literal" instead of "The creation story may have been inspired by God, but is open to interpretation, and is probably just a story.") that you encounter conflict. Can mankind disprove that at the absolute beginning of everything, there wasn't some kind of divine spark? No. Should mankind proffer up some kind of creationist story that completely disregards the mountain of physical evidence that supports Evolution? Absolutely not. Is it possible that the truth lies somewhere in between? I'd like to think so.
- tdawson2012, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2DNA was the smoking gun. Evolution proposes that all life is related, genetics proved it without a doubt. There are many aspects about Genetics that can only be explained by random mutation and relation, like the fact that 98% of your DNA give or take is evolutionary byproduct. Thats really just a trivial fact, there are several schools of biology which filled with empirical evidence pertaining to the validity of Evolution.
- chrishiggins, on 04/16/2008, -4/+3But you have to admit that evolution and Christianity are compatible. Saying that they are not is just really doubting God's omnipotence.
- btsr7414, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9Yes, humans are designed so perfectly. Well except for the common back problems, wisdom teeth that need to be extracted, appendix which need to be removed, vision loss, arthritis, etc. Only a perfect designer could have designed such a perfect design.
- hiselect, on 04/16/2008, -9/+1If you'd read the Bible you'd know that the wages of sin is death, not that God created your arthritis. You did.
- btsr7414, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Great, next time I have a back ache, I will pray and ask that my sins be forgiven. I am sure that will take care of it. Thanks!
- Murdats, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7and here we bust out real science, quoting religious scripture to support your fully scientific theory while refuting science.
such a strong and respectable opinion to take, you have convinced me, time to move this to the science classes. - StaticThunder, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7Yeah, it was sin and not the small jaw and consequent waiting game for loss of wisdom teeth to be selected for that did it. You're right. Into science class with your idea.
Do you have a complete theory of sin that predicts what design flaws we'll be saddled with if we are REALLY bad? - MammasMilk, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3See when you believe in magic, you have an explanation for everything!
- epmc, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wrong. We have arthritis because Jesus touched little boys.
- avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Our backs, ankles, and knees are horribly designed for walking upright... It looks as though we were meant to live in trees or something.
- btsr7414, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2No, that is not right. It is out sin I am sure. Please pray and we will be fine :)
- hiselect, on 04/16/2008, -9/+1If you'd read the Bible you'd know that the wages of sin is death, not that God created your arthritis. You did.
- kaelyiesta, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Anything WE try to DESIGN is of course going to have a DESIGN. We ***** designed it. What you said is a tautology. It's meaningless. The issue isn't whether things humans make are designed, thats ***** irrelevant.
- caramba420, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Your statement is reflective of a very common misconception among all people, religious or secular. The idea that complex systems can only be created by other complex systems. I would encourage you to read a book called "A New Kind Of Science" by the esteemed mathematician Dr. Stephan Wolfram. He demonstrates using cellular automata and other mathematic abstractions that systems with very simple underlying rules can indeed create outcomes with very complex results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science - ghostoftomjoad, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6we know how a screen door is made because we have witnessed the creation of man made objects many times and understand the process, which does include planning. But we have never witnessed creation of the kind your speaking. We make stuff out of the materials we find--in your theory God didn't just find stuff and rearrange it! Your analogy is a total failure
- diggrnumber1, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5that's not an argument against evolution. how the universe was created has nothing to do with evolution.
- chris1012, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3ur stupid because a screen door is not a living and self replicating creature. Yea true, designing a deck of cards, cell
- chirwan, on 04/16/2008, -10/+70However in nature we find many things that have no "designer" and are a product of natural selection through their environment.
