bigpictureradio.com — Even if you dismiss Intelligent Design as a slick new spin on science-free Creationism, there's no disputing the theory has become very popular over the past few years. As the debate between Evolution and ID heats up, there's a new movie, 'Expelled,' which explores why Intelligent Design isn't being taught side-by-side with Evolution.
Feb 22, 2008 View in Crawl 4
paulpi3rceFeb 22, 2008
This looks interesting, but I hope the actual movie has some facts and isn't just a tear-fest like the Inconvenient Truth.
daz3Feb 23, 2008
*sigh* Not you again. The thing is, you just stop replying once your arguments are proven to be incorrect; move on to the next ID or evolution based topic and post the same BS.
drshortyFeb 23, 2008
I need to add that all you have successfully done is make a fool of yourself, by claiming things that have contradictory evidence(the only thing you manage to get right is scientists will change things if they're wrong, which is the entire point, if they change it when they realize they're wrong, then they become right) So, you're arguing they're wrong, when they've had to correct themselves repeatedly. The more you argue against them, the more they work to find the solution. The more solutions they find, the less likely they'll encounter an argument to prove them wrong again, because they've already corrected it. The only arguments today against evolution, are the ones that construe science to be something it isn't, because evolution has had over 200 years of changes to make sure that it fits what is actually going on. Evolution describes a process, without that process we wouldn't have the idea. Evolution didn't come about because somebody thought of it and said that's how life is, life is like that and evolution is the word that describes it. It's like calling a car black, and your saying you don't see a black car. The statistical probability a car would be black, is irrelevant. It's black. I use circular logic to prove the car is black because it has black paint, and I'm looking for black paint to prove it's black. That argument's form is exactly the same as yours, and from my point of view, they're both equally ridiculous.Scientists just change whatever they want whenever they're wrong. EXACTLY, which is why every day they are more and more right. And they've been doing it for years. SO how is that a problem? They're not trying to prove themselves right! Because if they were trying to prove themselves right, they'd never change when they're wrong. So why don't they change to ID? Because ID hasn't actually proven them wrong. Evolution still works no matter how many false claims you throw at it, and Evolution has stood up to the same claims and has seen them before, and beaten them before. When you're down to recycling material that hasn't worked in the past, you keep losing. Should you find material that works, science is like the borg, it assimilates that, and uses it for it's own purpose. You see, science is set up so it can't lose, because when it does, it assimilates. It is ever growing more truthful. And, if you can prove that evolution is wrong in a way that could not be denied, not only would you be respected by ID proponents, but also scientists. You have proven us wrong, a breakthrough, good job. But you haven't done it. So get to work on providing real evidence for ID, quit knocking evolution because it's been tried an tested for longer than you've been alive, and your arguments totally depend on indirect and construed attacks.
drshortyFeb 23, 2008
And, I suppose I should say that this talk about fossils has been somewhat worthless, because you'll continue to construe it whichever way you like, but in the end, fossils are only supporting evidence, there is far more evidence for evolution than just fossils. Also, are you saying that all these transitional species(which no longer exist) weren't actually transitional species, but species entirely separate that just happen to share traits? That happen to show up after the disappearance of one and die before the appearance of the next? All the time? You can say that it's just sheer chance, but you bring in statistics saying evolution is not possible, is it possible that the questioned scenario would just happen, and happens to fit the what evolution claims but not actually be a part of evolution? It is unlikely that evolution would explain how it happens, then we look at all these fossils that support that idea(none which have negated it btw, we may change our ideas of how evolution continued but the process itself has never been negated) but then it turns out evolution was wrong about it.... ???? Especially when we've been finding fossils hundreds of years before Darwin proposed his idea, and yet those finding the fossils were still seeing the transitions(oh wait, I should have brought this up earlier, because it would have totally negated your claim that scientists were even LOOKING for supposed transitional fossils, because they were finding them and making those claims of similarity before they even started pondering evolution, they saw the transitions first, and then started seeking out what was going on. Not the other way. Which, wow, indicates the idea of evolution is a product of observation, not the circular logic that the forced observations are a product of the desire to make evolution work, huh, so I guess you were completely wrong and I took that long to realize I could have just mentioned that). Evolution merely explains how it happened, not that it actually did, because people were seeing it before Darwin, he was just the first to successfully postulate the process which is observed today, and is supported by fossil evidence of the past.
mediaphileFeb 24, 2008
After your first two sarcastic and pretentious comments, I would definitely consider you in the "holier than thou" crowd. First you suggested to jkbowman that the reason the video was difficult for him to watch was that his mind is too closed, making what you regard as enlightenment a painful experience for him. Then you sarcastically suggest that he avoid ever trying to open his mind again in the future, implying that he's took weak to be able to handle it. Then when david76 voiced his criticism of the film and the people in it, you suggested (again, with clear sarcasm) that in the future he shouldn't bother trying to think, and that he should just hate anyone that attempts to challenge his beliefs. The obvious implication there is that you believe he is in fact already not thinking, and that his hatred is merely a thoughtless gut reaction to someone only because they hold different beliefs than his. For some reason, you felt like you should mock those two people, undercutting the validity of their statements by insulting them and their intelligence. Then you get defensive when I take your third comment to its logical conclusion based on your previous two statements. You didn't mean it literally, despite what you say now. That much is clear to me. But even if you did, I would have no way of knowing that, given the disrespect of your other two comments. If in fact you were attempting to make a serious point, perhaps next time you will think before you ruin your credibility with childish comments like your other two.As for your response, I fail to see your point. If you really do mean that it is the entire general public that is intolerant, what is the purpose of your initial statement? The film is about a rift between the Christian community and non-Christian scientists. Why then would you make a comment about the intolerance of the general public, when what is really being discussed is the intolerance of the atheist scientists? Especially when the general public here in America is primarily Christian, with atheists making up only a small fraction of the population.Then you say it is not just a rift between atheists and Christians, but between atheists and all religions. This is false. Atheists have no stake in whether other people practice religion or not. There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince others not to believe. There are other religions that feel the same way, in which the benefit of belief is the personal enlightenment and peace. But for Christians, there is more at stake. Christians believe that anyone who has not had their everlasting souls saved by Jesus Christ is doomed to an eternity of pain. It is then an act of negligence on their part if they don't actively attempt to make people around them see the light and have their souls saved. Often, enemies of Christianity also become aligned, in their minds, with Satan, which just adds a whole new layer of intolerance. Muslims take a fully aggressive stance against those that are not like them, which is even more extreme. But when was the last time you heard about some taoist doing anything like this? So again, the rift is not between atheists and all theists. The problem is between atheists, who don't want to be forced to follow religious rules, and those religions that create those rules. You can say that you personally might not do this, but the fact is that in America, Christians as a majority push their religion upon those who don't, and I don't know what makes you think Jesus didn't do this very same thing.