homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Fun and Games, and Reviews   » Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 06:38      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our small group went to watch this movie last night. It was really awesome - intelligent, well-made, thought-provoking. And Ben Stein just rocks. Here's Jonathan's review of it since he's better at these kinds of things than I am:

quote:
All I have to say is, WOW!!! Ben Stein and his cohorts did an amazing job on the movie. They talked to highly educated people who had their doubts about Darwinian evolution and felt that Intelligent Design was a viable alternative theory. He interviewed scientists and science professors with multiple PhDs who had been forced out by the Darwinian establishment. One man published a peer reviewed paper in which he referenced a paper backing ID; he was fired from his job at the Smithsonian Institution. The same treatment has been applied to others, and Stein talks with many who were willing to be seen on camera and a few who were afraid to let their faces be seen.

He also spoke with the established authorities of the evolutionist establishment such as noted atheist Richard Dawkins. His investigation was to try to understand why academia won't hear the evidence for Intelligent Design. His premise is that America is built upon freedom, so why don't these scientists have the freedom to have their theories heard in the science communities? Several highly qualified scientists pointed out flaws in the Darwinian theory of evolution, but they told Stein that the establishment refuses to acknowledge any alternative outside of evolution.

The situation is being "resolved" in the courts rather than in the public square. Academia is labeling ID as religion and thereby forcing it out based quite loosely on the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. They are not opening any discussion or entertaining the possibility of ID having its merit. Instead, they are excusing it without debate by saying it is religion.

Let me say here that every proponent of ID in the movie spoke about things solely from a scientific perspective. The words "God" and "creation" didn't show up too often. These men and women simply believed that life--most often, just the beginning of life--could not have evolved. They believe that there is no evidence to support any evolution from inorganic to organic matter. They show that the cell (which Darwin knew little about when he published his initial treatise) is far too complex to have randomly evolved. The evolutionists Stein spoke with had no idea how that evolution took place, but they believed it occurred. The words "I don't know" popped up a lot when Stein asked them how that first cell evolved from inorganic matter.

It amazed me how the evolutionist scientists were no more educated than those who believed in ID. These weren't Bible-banging creationists, but people who had been educated in and even taught Darwinian evolution. They had seen where evolution had failed and they believed that there is an alternative theory that doesn't fail. These people understood the theory of evolution--that's why they knew its shortcomings.

Stein did a masterful job of showing the how Darwinian theory can be dangerous when applied in a zealous manner. He spoke to people who established the link between evolution and Hitler and even eugenics in the United States. People were trying to speed up the evolutionary process! Stein even read a chilling quotation from Darwin himself that promoted selective breeding in human beings; the idea was that you don't breed the unhealthy or weak dogs, so why should you do the same with humans.

I was quite pleased to see the evolutionists verify something I have said all along: evolution and atheism go hand in hand. The evolutionists called religion and the Bible "fairy tales" and "fiction." They stated strongly that religion has no place in science. One man said that religion should be something that you do from time to time as a comfort--not a faith and certainly not something you live by. They spoke freely about how atheism influences their perspective; many became stronger atheists by studying evolution. Those who believed in ID said that things were now working in reverse: you're supposed to let the evidence influence your world view, not the other way around. Evolutionists are holding an atheistic world view and then interpreting the evidence in light of that view. When the evidence doesn't fit, they don't entertain another world view.

He topped it all off with an interview with Dawkins, who was quite willing to express his atheistic views. Stein pinned him down with questions about the origin of life, and Dawkins actually admitted that it may have been intelligently designed! Oh, he beat around the bush, but there was no avoiding the fact that evolutionists have no idea how the first life came to be. Dawkins said that life may have been planted here by an alien--an intelligent designer--that somehow himself evolved on another planet. (Some other alien must have planted that one!)

I urge anyone with a college education to go see this film. If nothing else, it will get you to think about this issue.



--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 08:05      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The entire intelligent design argument is inherently flawed. This can be demonstrated with one simple question:

Where did the intelligent designer come from?

No matter how many iterations of intelligent design you invoke, you still have the development of the first bit of life at some point. This has to have occurred either spontaneously by natural forces (evolution) or by supernatural forces (god). This leaves us with the same argument that we always have... evolution or creation.

Intelligent design is inextricably linked with religion. To give intelligent design a place in the classroom is to give religion a place in the classroom. If you want to do that, you have one simple thing you have to do before it will work.

Figure out how to resolve the differences between Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and every other faiths in the world so that the science classroom doesn't become one long argument about which god actually created life.

Alternately, we could let schools teach evolution theory and let individual churches teach their own version of creation theory. This would have the remarkable benefit of allowing many differing opinions to co-exist.

I wonder why nobody thought of that before?

Oh, wait... we did and it's been working well for a long time despite increasingly aggressive attempts to replace scientific theory with religious dogma.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 09:01      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
He interviewed scientists and science professors with multiple PhDs who had been forced out by the Darwinian establishment. One man published a peer reviewed paper in which he referenced a paper backing ID; he was fired from his job at the Smithsonian Institution.



Ah yes, the old "Scientific Establishment suppressing the truth" chestnut.

The trouble is, no scientist ever won the Nobel Prize for meekly agreeing with his/her superiors. Science rewards (and reveres) the boat-rockers, those who overturn the established orthodoxy, or at least give it a good shaking. Every science grad student worth their salt dreams of one day proving Newton/Einstein/insert-luminary-of-your-choice-here wrong. That's how you get the plane-ticket to Stockholm.

The trouble is, the established orthodoxy got to be the established orthodoxy for a reason, it's backed by a wealth of observation and carefully-checked logic. If you want to overturn it, you'd better be damned sure you've dotted all your 'I's and crossed all your 'T's. Just pointing at a few unresolved dusty corners of the established theory and saying "we don't quite understand that yet, so God (sorry, an Unnamed Intelligent Designer) must have done it" just isn't good enough.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Snaggy

Sir Snaggalot!
Member # 123

Member Rated:
5
Icon 3 posted April 19, 2008 09:53      Profile for Snaggy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice rebuttal for Mr Stein to reply to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg

Posts: 8111 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 10:29      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, you mean the movie where they interviewed a bunch of scientists under false pretenses and then threw them out of the screening?

Yeah, I think I'll wait for the next Harry Potter if I want to see a fantasy film, rather than give kronors to scum-suckers like Mark Mathis. Maybe his next movie should be called Thou Shalt Not Lie.

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 11:46      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What happened in Myer's and Dawkin's words.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/myers_and_dawkins_speak_out_on.php

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 12:40      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haha. Yeah, you guys are acting exactly as I expected you to. I told Jonathan as we walked out that I was trying to figure out what the holes were in the movie b/c I knew people on here would find them. I admit, though, that watching movies on the big screen is hard. I don't know (and I realize this is a slight thread jack) why, but it's hard for me to take in everything and comprehend it when the images are so huge and flashing. Then, too, there's the whole falling-asleep-for-a-few-minutes-because-it-was-late-and-I-couldn't-focus-on-the-protein-synthesis-discussion.

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 17:24      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
[Every science grad student worth their salt dreams of one day proving Newton/Einstein/insert-luminary-of-your-choice-here wrong. That's how you get the plane-ticket to Stockholm.

No, actually, we dream of graduating. Until them, everything we do our boss gets the credit for.

There is always significant resistance to any attempt to shift a scientific paradigm. The only way to achieve it is to present a whole lot of very good scientific evidence for your theory. ID does not do this. ID presupposes the presence of a designer and moves on from there. This approach is so blatantly non-scientific that any scientist worth their salt will run away screaming. Scientific theories come from the ground up, not the top down. You don't throw God or anything similar into the equation unless you have material evidence for it.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 17:31      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...

*That* is what this movie is about?

/me is very disappointed in Ben Stein. :/

I call upon the Flying Spaghetti Monster to attack!

/touched_by_his_noodly_appendage

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 19, 2008 20:12      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meh. My brother tried to talk me into seeing it with him. I talked him into The Forbidden Kingdom instead.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 05:55      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Haha. Yeah, you guys are acting exactly as I expected you to. I told Jonathan as we walked out that I was trying to figure out what the holes were in the movie b/c I knew people on here would find them.

You could have just googled it. The scientists Mathis lied to have said plenty about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
I urge anyone with a college education to go see this film. If nothing else, it will get you to think about this issue.

What issue is that, exactly, that needs thinking about? The apparent failing of the U.S. educational system to teach a substantial portion of the population what science is, so that they buy into crap like that movie? I suggest we start addressing it by teaching science in science classes and religion in religion classes, and move on with our lives.

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
maximile

SuperFan!
Member # 3446

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 07:25      Profile for maximile   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
The scientists Mathis lied to have said plenty about it.

I spent ages looking for the pun there.

Anyway, from what I could tell from the trailer and from reading a bit about it online, the movie mainly focuses on the origin of life, rather than how life developed from that point onwards. Is that the case?

Posts: 1085 | From: London, UK (Powys, UK in hols) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 08:33      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maximile:
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
The scientists Mathis lied to have said plenty about it.

I spent ages looking for the pun there.
I fixed it so nobody else will suffer from that particular confusion.

quote:
Originally posted by maximile:
Anyway, from what I could tell from the trailer and from reading a bit about it online, the movie mainly focuses on the origin of life, rather than how life developed from that point onwards. Is that the case?

It's creationist propaganda intended to capitalize on the same people that creationist museums are cashing in on.

Which is fine, in and of itself. I don't particularly care what people make movies about, and I don't care if the people that they appeal to pay to see them. I do think that the producers misrepresenting the project to people that they interview is reprehensible, and honestly, I'm disappointed, though not surprised, by the people that seem to think that's okay, as long as that deception is used to promote their own beliefs.

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 15:31      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A bit more information on one of the 'persecuted' scientists (an astronomer)
quote:
From TFA:
Gonzalezís publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU. The work he did publish was based on re-evaluations of data he had previously collected or analyses of other peopleís data...

...It is worth noting that the decline in his publication rate corresponds to the time when he started putting time into an intelligent design project that has produced no peer-reviewed results...

...his declining publication record and his failure to mentor graduate students to completing their programs...

So, this astronomer stopped doing observations, stopped supervising his students, and issued a few re-hashes of earlier papers while devoting most of his time to an outside religious project, and his career suffered for it.

Colour me surprised.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 19:32      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
...

*That* is what this movie is about?

/me is very disappointed in Ben Stein. :/

I call upon the Flying Spaghetti Monster to attack!

/touched_by_his_noodly_appendage

What do you expect from a former Nixon speechwriter and leading apologist for Tricky Dicky?
Posts: 5848 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 19:51      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really don't like to criticise anyone's honestly held religious beliefs, and especially those of a person I respect, but it is almost impossible to deal with the arguments you are making here Rhonnie without straying into this dubious territory. So please forgive me, but you started it!

quote:
Let me say here that every proponent of ID in the movie spoke about things solely from a scientific perspective.
The notion that ID is a respectable scientific theory is at the core of the campaign to have it taught in schools. GC has many trained scientists as members. Why Rhonnie do you think that all of them, without exception, think it is pure twaddle? Can you name a single person who takes ID seriously, who does not also believe in the literal truth of the book of Genesis?

quote:
The words "I don't know" popped up a lot when Stein asked them how that first cell evolved from inorganic matter.
I should hope so! A theory of everything does not exist. Science is about a search for the explanations that best fit the facts, and at the moment Darwin's ideas fit them best. This is the secondary part of the argument, which attempts to imply that Darwin's theory is itself a belief system, and thus not so different to creationism. This is such a complete misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of the rational enquiry that is science, that it is hard to believe that it is an honest misunderstanding rather than deliberately misleading. However even if one could make completely satisfactory deductions from Darwin's theory that could explain every single detail back to the big bang, there was there would still always be a mystery at the centre of creation, which brings me to this:-

quote:
I was quite pleased to see the evolutionists verify something I have said all along: evolution and atheism go hand in hand.
This is nonsense, and nonsense that I feel is insulting to a great many sincere Christians. It bears no relation to the teaching of the tradition I know best, that of the mainstream Anglican church I was educated by, and the Roman Catholic church is not I believe so different. What this statement does try to obscure is its reverse, which is completely true, that ID is only taken seriously by fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible. Though the description can be read as demeaning, even describing the book of Genesis as a "fairy tale" or "fiction", does not necessarily mean that one is not a Christian. Like a fairy tale there is a power in the story that speaks to something deep inside us, and communicates a symbolic truth, rather than a literal one. It talks about the mystery of creation within the limits of understanding of the culture that existed when it was written. That it still speaks to us and has such power in the twenty first century is perhaps more miraculous, than if were a literal record of events.

I would have more respect for these people if they did not try to disguise creationism in this way. ID is an intellectually dishonest attempt to smuggle creationism onto the science curriculum.

Incidentally though perhaps it might not be to your taste Rhonnie, there is a highly entertaining review of the Creation Museum by John Scalzi, that I would recommend to anyone else.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 20:43      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for your respectful comments, Calli. I've encouraged Jonathan to join GC and continue the discussion because I'm definitely not capable of it. The evidence put forth from both sides of the debate is just overwhelming for me to process.

What I have been able to ascertain, though, is that the difficulty with evolution as the origin of life is this:

What caused the jump from inorganic to organic? What caused that lump of whatever to become a living organism? One scientist in the movie posited that it was protein on the backs of crystals. Well, where did the crystals come from? the proteins?

I can see how species change and adapt to their environment, but how did one cell evolve into all of the various intricate creatures we have today? I just don't see it happening without the help of something else. Who, we don't need to agree on, because that would be adding religion to the mix. I just need a better answer than Richard Dawkins' "aliens brought life to this planet" because that begs the question, from where did those aliens get life?

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 21:17      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
I just need a better answer than Richard Dawkins' "aliens brought life to this planet" because that begs the question, from where did those aliens get life?

The summary of 'expelled' on RichardDawkins.net contains this example of how the propagandists distort what Dawkins says...
quote:
From RichardDawkins.net:
Richard describes how Panspermia is the only way that ID would even be science (since whoever seeded life would have evolved through something like Natural Selection), but Stein just wants to use this to say, "Richard Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design, so long as it doesn't mention god!" He's OK with aliens, but not god! 'How ridiculous,' we are all expected to think.

So, Dawkins isn't saying "aliens brought life to this planet", he's saying that's the only way you could twist ID into something halfway scientific.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Dave
Geek
Member # 1977

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 21:55      Profile for Mr. Dave     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
...The evidence put forth from both sides of the debate is just overwhelming for me to process.

What I have been able to ascertain, though, is that the difficulty with evolution as the origin of life is this:

What caused the jump from inorganic to organic? What caused that lump of whatever to become a living organism?

Who says it was a "jump?" I suspect you don't really grasp the sheer enormity of the timescale involved. (That's nothing to be ashamed of, BTW - when I try to wrap my head around it, I often end up cowering under the bed.)

Scientific method is all about reviewing the hypotheses, examining the evidence, revising the hypotheses to explain the evidence with the fewest possible unverifiable assumptions, then reviewing the hypotheses, examining the evidence... lather, rinse, repeat. Since thousands of years of observation tend to support the theory that the Universe tends to "favour" processes that have the simplest explanations and require the least input of energy, scientists prefer to eliminate those hypotheses that require some active intervenor (ie. "God.") when there's any evidence that things might have "just happened."

The problem, of course, when dealing with the origins of life is that our lively little planet has long-since erased virtually all direct evidence which could prove matters one way or the other, and so we have to fall back on hypotheses and models which produce outcomes observably identical to the Universe in which we live. That is, Science never offers "the" explanation, merely the one which best fits the evidence which is available at the time.

quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
One scientist in the movie posited that it was protein on the backs of crystals. Well, where did the crystals come from? the proteins?

I remember an experiment done several decades ago (and I really wish I could provide a link) where a flask was filled with a mixture of simple organic and inorganic molecules (hydrogen, methane, water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, etc) of the sort found in abundance in deep space, or (probably) on the surface of pre-Life Earth. An electric arc (think: lightning) was passed through the mixture; this was found to produce some very simple amino acid-like compounds. Such compounds are capable of forming crystals, and observational evidence suggests that compounds capable of forming crystals will tend to do so spontaneously due to interatomic and intermolecular attractions whenever ambient conditions don't actually prevent crystalization.

Now that I've seen that in (alot of) writing, I'm struck by the thought that the Gnostic Theist/Religeous Reich claim that "Science denies the existence of God" is a bit of a straw-man - Science merely denies the Hand of God, and makes no claims at all about the rest of God. [Wink]

Thank you for allowing me to share some of your confusion, and to share some of mine with you.

--------------------
I'm not normally like this, but then I'm not normally normal.

Posts: 193 | From: Leverkusen Institute of Paleocybernetics | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 03:36      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Thanks for your respectful comments, Calli. I've encouraged Jonathan to join GC and continue the discussion because I'm definitely not capable of it. The evidence put forth from both sides of the debate is just overwhelming for me to process.

I just don't understand this. Rhonnie you have a very good heart, but you are also an intelligent educated woman with a questioning mind, who is well able to articulate your own arguments and defend your views.

Now I really don't care if you choose to debate this further here, and if your reluctance stems from a fear of where you might find yourself, if you follow this argument to its conclusion, I can understand how that might be very scary. Indeed Darwin himself was much troubled by similar concerns, but whether or not you debate it here, that questioning intelligence of yours will ultimately find a faith that cannot look the world square in the face insufficient. I also believe this is also something that is just too central to your sense of yourself and the world, to just defer to the greater wisdom and intelligence of your husband, (even if he possesses such qualities!)

Though we have very different views, I wish you well Rhonnie.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 04:34      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? Because I was a liberal arts major, not a scientist, and I've drifted far from the academic sphere. I can critique the writing, but not the arguments themselves.

I've also been having trouble using my brain in the past few months. (Yeah, I know to some of you it's obvious. [Razz] ) In all seriousness, I have trouble processing information even in daily life (which is why I haven't been posting here much lately). I don't know if it's a side effect of the medication I'm taking; I'll ask my psychiatrist about it when I go in for a medication check in a few weeks.

I can't believe I'm the only person in this huge community who's seen the movie. I'll let them talk about it. I'll read what all of you have to say in response, but there's no guarantee I'll be able to process it correctly. It's depressing.*

*Which, ironically, is part of why I'm under the care of a psychiatrist. [ohwell]

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 05:16      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
I can't believe I'm the only person in this huge community who's seen the movie.

Rhonwynn, really, I'm going to say this as gently as possible: The movie is mumbo-jumbo pretending to be science, was made under false pretenses, and is designed to capitalize by catering to fundies who just want an "authority" to prop their beliefs on. That's not the kind of movie that generally appeals to the community of this forum.

For the record: My issue with this movie is not that it has a religious theme. My issue is that it's fundamentally dishonest and deliberately misrepresents facts, and that inhibits rather than promotes understanding. The only people that benefit are Ben Stein and Mark Mathis, and they do it by using tactics and for reasons that are the antithesis of the stated beliefs of their intended audience. Lies, and greed. I think there were some commandments or something about that, and come to think of it, there was a Jewish guy that had some stuff to say about that too. (And I think it's more than a little hypocritical of the intended audience to uncritically embrace the movie with open arms, just because it spoon feeds them what they wanted to hear.)

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 05:19      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
I call upon the Flying Spaghetti Monster to attack!

/touched_by_his_noodly_appendage

Flying Spaghetti monster:

 -

Astronomy Picture Of The Day on the very day after Dman's posting:

 -

Spooky. [Eek!]

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlenewsie
Geek Apprentice
Member # 7241

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 12:29      Profile for littlenewsie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Dave:
I remember an experiment done several decades ago (and I really wish I could provide a link) where a flask was filled with a mixture of simple organic and inorganic molecules (hydrogen, methane, water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, etc) of the sort found in abundance in deep space, or (probably) on the surface of pre-Life Earth. An electric arc (think: lightning) was passed through the mixture; this was found to produce some very simple amino acid-like compounds. Such compounds are capable of forming crystals, and observational evidence suggests that compounds capable of forming crystals will tend to do so spontaneously due to interatomic and intermolecular attractions whenever ambient conditions don't actually prevent crystalization.

That's the Urey-Miller experiment, which was performed during the 1950s. In this experiment, Stanley Miller shot electricity through an atmosphere like the one on the primitive earth, creating amino acids. This experiment proved that with the right conditions, amino acids could be created, which could lead to primitive one-celled amoebas and eventually human life. For his atmosphere, Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor. However, scientists now agree that Miller chose the wrong atmosphere for his experiment. Scientists hypothesize that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere, as the hydrogen would have escaped into space, not stayed as the atmosphere. Instead, the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. Scientists conducted the same experiment with the modified atmosphere. Instead of amino acids, scientists created formaldehyde and cyanide when they repeated the process. Apparently, when formaldehyde and cyanide are combined you get embalming fluid.

It all sounds a bit sketchy to me.

Granted I'm not a scientist or even a science major, but I just did a speech about this whole topic, so I've researched it, but I'm in no way saying that I'm an expert by any means.

There's a lot of proof for evolution, but a lot of the things I've found say that the proof is faulty, case in point being Miller's experiment which is still used in textbooks today.

And yes, I want to go see this movie; I just need to find a way to get there. The closest theater that is playing the movie is thirty minutes away, and I don't have a car.

--------------------
"Teachers ramble on and on about freedom of the press but God help you if you try to use it." Gordon Korman

Posts: 46 | From: The Other Side of PA | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 12:57      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For what it's worth (source):
the Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth.
...
When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids.
...
Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids.


Scientific theories are open to discussion and will be modified or abandoned if the facts do not support them.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam