Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Said a guy who was an epic fail. Of course he'd say that.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
There is so much hate in this thread, it's truly sad.

Welcome to P&N v.5

 

[RESmonkey]

LOL RELIGION

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Said a guy who was an epic fail. Of course he'd say that.

Haha, that's the first time I've seen the phrase "epic fail" associated with Marx.

Anyway, that famous line IMO is nowhere near as insightful as two lines that immediately follow it: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions."

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Chuck Darwin, the pope and a platypus walk into a bar...

The Pope asks... "Chuck", your genetics sure blessed you with a lovely head of hair dude!

Darwins asks..."Genetics? hmmm, Never heard of it.

That's a good point too. The average undergraduate student knows more about biology than Darwin ever did. Yet creationists keep trying to call his character into question as if that would have any bearing whatsoever on modern biology. As if a deathbed conversion (which is completely false) would suddenly convince Atheists that there is a God. He was a scientific genius and his memory is honored for it, but he was a mammal just like the rest of us. We'll leave the deification to religion.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
What really irks me here, is that CHRISTIANS are the ones responsible for saving all of the scientific data that had been amassed prior to the Dark Ages, and are now one of the groups leading charge to discredit science because some of the dumber ones think it countermands their entire basis for morality.

They also preserved the art of making Ales, whines and other alcoholic beverages (monks specifically). They even created their own new recipes.

Now days, Christians (yes I know there are moderates who aren't, but they don't voice their opinions as loudly) are typically against the consumption of alcohol period...

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't know if Ben Stein is right or wrong, but I do know that he has done a lot more research on the topic than any of those in this thread who are using their "jump to conclusions" mat.

+1

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

And what is the medium for transmission of information between an organism and its environment, and how does the organism "know" when it needs to evolve (or is that incorrect)? If an organism which spends all of its time on land experiences a drastic environmental change such that it now spends 90% of its time in water, what mechanism of interaction initiates the adaption process? Do sensory organs recognize increased contact time with an unstable, liquid substance which, in turn, causes a "panic" (of death) which starts cellular mutations in order to combat an extinction threat? How do these organisms know how to respond to stresses? Information is transfered from something, so where does the compatibility between an organism and external information come from? In other words, how does the organism know how to interpret the information to initiate the evolution of new parts that provide it with compatibility? For example, the organism above might start to evolve its feet into flippers. If this organism never experienced living time in water, how would it, or whatever's "in charge," know that flippers are beneficial to swimming? (As if there was a predetermined response to that particular stress situation, despite never experiencing it.)

(ugh, I'm just a mess of questions right now )

That paragraph shows your misunderstanding of Evolution, and the process of Natural Selection. It's a common misconception that animals directly and magically respond to their environment by changing their genes.

I.E. the environment dries up, water becomes scarce, and plants evolve thick coverings (cacti) to hold in water.

That's not how evolution works. Evolution is the culmination of genetic mutations (freaks honestly), and outside environemental pressures that select which of those mutations will last into the next generation.

More like how the process works is this;

Prior to the drying up of the environment, a rare strain of plants had an odd outer covering that held in water. They were a freak, a genetic mutation. It was a recessive trait, with no benefit. However, when the environment started to dry up, all plants without this protective covering died. The only plants left were ones that could contain their water. Subsequently the only plants left were the ones with this covering.

Have a better understanding?

Another good example is the possible origin of certain organs. Take eyes for example. It's commonly thought that an eye only works as a whole structure, but that's not necessarily true.

Lets say for example you have an animal with an eye spot, a grouping of cells that respond when hit with certain wavelengths of light (a previous genetic mutation possibly millions of years old by now). Let's also say that one of these animals has offspring with a freak genetic mutation. This mutation leads to the animals having a bulging of the skin on top of these eye spots filled with puss or fluid (not implausible, humans can be born with weird growths).

This seems like it wouldn't make any difference right? Well think about it, all an eye spot can do is tell if there is light or no light. However an eye spot behind a round clear lens (the bulging fluid filled ball), can not only tell if there is light or not, it can now also tell the general direction. Blow up a balloon and shine a flashlight through it if you don't believe me.

If this animal with the eye spot happens to be a predator, wouldn't that be a huge advantage? Now it can actually tell exactly where it's prey is. Subsequently, the animal with this defect is able to eat to its heart's content, and have tons of offspring.

This offspring also has the genetic defect, and they have tons of offspring. Eventually all that is left is the offspring of this first animal (they out breed the "normal" ancestors) with the bulging, fluid filled ball above an eye spot.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
What really irks me here, is that CHRISTIANS are the ones responsible for saving all of the scientific data that had been amassed prior to the Dark Ages, and are now one of the groups leading charge to discredit science because some of the dumber ones think it countermands their entire basis for morality.

They also preserved the art of making Ales, whines and other alcoholic beverages (monks specifically). They even created their own new recipes.

Now days, Christians (yes I know there are moderates who aren't, but they don't voice their opinions as loudly) are typically against the consumption of alcohol period...

Well, in all fairness, for a very long time Christianity wasn't exactly optional in much of Europe.

 

[Ruptga]

Dangit, I hate it when people think they can't trust both science and religion, it's just so silly

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't know if Ben Stein is right or wrong, but I do know that he has done a lot more research on the topic than any of those in this thread who are using their "jump to conclusions" mat.

+1

The only one jumping to conclusions is the person assuming that just because you know nothing about the subject the rest of us must not either. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: if you do not believe in Evolution, you are not smart. You are dumb or deluded. Period.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yay, yet another video thread.

I bet you're wrong, though, Stein is a pretty smart cookie. Or are you just saying he's wrong because you disagree with him?

Stein is smart?

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Juddog
Very interesting video. Basically points out how Ben Stein is a fool.

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

What a retarded video. I had to close it after the first "You fool" intermission because I was laughing so hard. Yes, the person dubbing over it is right: Darwin wasn't trying to explain those things, but that was precisely Ben's POINT. Great job of listening you did there before making a video like that. You really had to reach, twist, and distort in an attempt to shame and discredit, so you don't deserve my time.

Darwin does not explain those things and only attempts to explain diversity. In his film, Ben accepts that evolution certainly explains variation within species and far more to a certain extent, but he suggests that Darwin may have taken it too far when he tried to say that they all came from a common single-celled ancestor. He attacks evolutionary biologist who are more willing to accept that aliens seeded life than any other kind of intelligent design (doesn't that qualify as ID also?).

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't know if Ben Stein is right or wrong, but I do know that he has done a lot more research on the topic than any of those in this thread who are using their "jump to conclusions" mat.

+1

The only one jumping to conclusions is the person assuming that just because you know nothing about the subject the rest of us must not either. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: if you do not believe in Evolution, you are not smart. You are dumb or deluded. Period.

Let ME be clear: He's not disputing evolution. Stop pretending that they are mutually exclusive. He's simply trying to get evolutionary biologist to accept that evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life and that they can't dismiss ID as contradictory to evolution if they can't explain the origin. YES, creation as told in the Bible is contradictory to evolution, but many of the questions raised by actual scientific observation are dismissed as "creationism in disguise" or shoe-horned into "single-cell common ancestor" evolutionary theory rather than even considering alternate explanations.

You ARE jumping to conclusions when you "conclude" that he doesn't believe in evolution. He DOES.

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
What really irks me here, is that CHRISTIANS are the ones responsible for saving all of the scientific data that had been amassed prior to the Dark Ages, and are now one of the groups leading charge to discredit science because some of the dumber ones think it countermands their entire basis for morality.

They also preserved the art of making Ales, whines and other alcoholic beverages (monks specifically). They even created their own new recipes.

Now days, Christians (yes I know there are moderates who aren't, but they don't voice their opinions as loudly) are typically against the consumption of alcohol period...

What? It's not "moderates" who drink and "orthodox Christians" who don't... you've got it backwards. Anyone taking the Bible literally KNOWS that Cristianity is OK with alcohol, but not drunkeness. Jesus Christ himself supposedly turned water to wine and served it to a whole party of wedding guests.

It's people who have seen the negative aspect of alcohol abuse who "preached against it" and then stupid sheep mentality to took it farther. Some ignorant Christians claim that the Bible wasn't talking about an alcoholic beverage when it mentioned wine. HA! That's no better than the ones that think it's a sin for a male to have long hair or for anyone to wear a hat in church: Culture does not equal Christian doctrine/law. It's society and culture that made it disrespectful to wear a hat indoors and during a national anthem and it's society that began demonizing alcohol. Just because more of those people are Christian doesn't mean you can peg it on them exclusively. Just like there are ignorant and smart non-Christians, there are ignorant and smart Christians.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CZroe
He's simply trying to get evolutionary biologist to accept that evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life...

I don't know a single evolutionary biologist (and I know more than a few) that believes evolution explains the origin of life.

...and that they can't dismiss ID as contradictory to evolution if they can't explain the origin.

They don't need to explain the origin. Nobody has demonstrated that an origin exists!

Moreover, the ideas proffered by the ID camp are very simply unscientific. You know why? Because it isn't just biological life forms that they believe to be "intelligently designed." No, sir. It is in fact the grand totality of physical existence which has been "intelligently designed," according to them.

But what does that mean? How could they detect this design using a scientific methodology? They cannot! If everything in the universe is "intelligently designed," then there is no contrast to discern "design" from "non-design." Either they could never be wrong, or they would never know it even if they WERE wrong. That's patent unfalsifiability, and precisely why ID is properly rejected by anyone with real understanding of scientific investigation.

YES, creation as told in the Bible is contradictory to evolution, but many of the questions raised by actual scientific observation are dismissed as "creationism in disguise" or shoe-horned into "single-cell common ancestor" evolutionary theory rather than even considering alternate explanations.

I suggest you take an introductory course in genetics.

 

[Coldkilla]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

YES, creation as told in the Bible is contradictory to evolution, but many of the questions raised by actual scientific observation are dismissed as "creationism in disguise" or shoe-horned into "single-cell common ancestor" evolutionary theory rather than even considering alternate explanations.

I suggest you take an introductory course in genetics.

LOL I agree.

 

[Phokus]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...s_no_Michael_0420.html

Ben Stein had an abysmal opening for his movie... nobody is buying his bullshit :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim
They also preserved the art of making Ales, whines and other alcoholic beverages (monks specifically). They even created their own new recipes.

Now days, Christians (yes I know there are moderates who aren't, but they don't voice their opinions as loudly) are typically against the consumption of alcohol period...

How can any Christian claim to be against the consumption of alcohol? Their messiah has 25 proof blood.

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...s_no_Michael_0420.html

Ben Stein had an abysmal opening for his movie... nobody is buying his bullshit :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I had absolutely no idea this film was coming out until I saw this thread. I haven't seen a single ad for it. The article specifically mentions an aggressive ad campaign, but I didn't see a shred of that. Maybe my city is too liberal...

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: Juddog
Very interesting video. Basically points out how Ben Stein is a fool.

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

What a retarded video. I had to close it after the first "You fool" intermission because I was laughing so hard. Yes, the person dubbing over it is right: Darwin wasn't trying to explain those things, but that was precisely Ben's POINT. Great job of listening you did there before making a video like that. You really had to reach, twist, and distort in an attempt to shame and discredit, so you don't deserve my time.

Darwin does not explain those things and only attempts to explain diversity. In his film, Ben accepts that evolution certainly explains variation within species and far more to a certain extent, but he suggests that Darwin may have taken it too far when he tried to say that they all came from a common single-celled ancestor. He attacks evolutionary biologist who are more willing to accept that aliens seeded life than any other kind of intelligent design (doesn't that qualify as ID also?).

You say "great job of listening there" when you didn't even listen to the video. Not only are you a hypocrite but you also disproved your own statement right from the get-go.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...s_no_Michael_0420.html

Ben Stein had an abysmal opening for his movie... nobody is buying his bullshit :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Wow... 9 % at rottentomatoes.

Rottentomatoes

 

[Juddog]

I.D. and Creationism are mutually exclusive.

if we take modern evolutionary theory versus Intellectual Design, it is like oil and water. One is science, the other pseudoscience. One has specific predictions, follows direct empirical evidence, and is well-established (evolutionary theory). The other, Intelligent Design, is muddled with a complete lack of explanation, baseless claims, very obvious fallacies, outright dishonesty, and arose fairly recently out of antiscience initiatives (the desire to change the methodology/philosophy of science). Not only this, but ID proponents directly oppose and slander modern evolutionary theory, often using dishonest polemic (like Dembski). Biological scientists as well as many other scientists criticize ID fairly heavily whenever the topic arises, given its many faults (it's nothing *but* faults, really).

Unlike what was written above, however, ID proponents do not put themselves under the "creation science" banner, although it's an offshoot from the same general movement: antievolution, antiscience, pro-deity. It's an attempt to wrap a scientific (pseudoscientific) veneer around a group of "intellectuals"' theological ideologies. You can find this is Meyers' writings, Dembski's writings, Wells' writings: a prior commitment to a specific antiscience or antievolution goal that is not to be concerned with petty things like facts, hypotheses, or acadmic honesty.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Scientifically speaking, it's very rare for any scientist to be 100 % sure about anything. It is this very skepticism which is now being prayed upon by the ID pushers in an attempt to disguise philosophy and religion as science. The problem here is that creationists make up some bullsh!t idea and try to pass it off as scientific when it's not, then complain when their idea gets exposed for the sham that it is and try and make it into some kind of free speech statement.

If someone wants to discuss ID, then that's fine - but it doesn't belong in the science class, it belongs in religion / philosophy. It fails even the most basic tenets of scientific methods. Before they started to try and force ID into the public school system nobody gave two sh!ts about it. Now that they are trying to force their way into the public school systems and teach our kids this bullcrap it's time to get angry about it and stop it dead in it's tracks. People were too complacent with it in the beginning which is why it got as far as it did.

yep.
:beer:

 

[Juddog]

ROFL just saw this on Digg:
Public acceptance of Evolution by country:

Great, people like Ben Stein pushing our country's education backwards.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Juddog
ROFL just saw this on Digg:
Public acceptance of Evolution by country:

Great, people like Ben Stein pushing our country's education backwards.

I wish that chart was inaccurate, but I believe that 40% of this country denies evolution.

What a travesty

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Juddog
ROFL just saw this on Digg:
Public acceptance of Evolution by country:

Great, people like Ben Stein pushing our country's education backwards.

I wish that chart was inaccurate, but I believe that 40% of this country denies evolution.

What a travesty

It is pretty sad when you think about it. As much as I love this great country of ours I feel that with some of the current trends we are going to start falling behind in the sciences.

Most of the universities that I have visited have basically brought scientists into our country from other countries.