Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: 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.

I guess you've only dealt with Catholics. Other sects do tend to view alcohol negatively (mainly sects who don't drink communion). Even the smallest consumption. Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists often do in my experience (groups I was thinking of). I went to private Lutheran and Baptist school from elementary school to junior high, it's not like I don't know Christians.

Weren't the initial main supporters of Prohibition in the US Protestants?

 

[Miramonti]

The winner in the creation vs. evolution debate will only be decided when both sides admit they are wrong.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jjsole
The winner in the creation vs. evolution debate will only be decided when both sides admit they are wrong.

:roll:

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: jjsole
The winner in the creation vs. evolution debate will only be decided when both sides admit they are wrong.

... either you have a better theory than evolution, a better idea than ID, or you're just full of bullcrap. Care to back up your statement?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: 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.

I guess you've only dealt with Catholics. Other sects do tend to view alcohol negatively (mainly sects who don't drink communion). Even the smallest consumption. Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists often do in my experience (groups I was thinking of). I went to private Lutheran and Baptist school from elementary school to junior high, it's not like I don't know Christians.

Weren't the initial main supporters of Prohibition in the US Protestants?

Try not to take anything I say too seriously, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. That said, there are many sects of Christianity that take a negative view of alcohol (the Mormons spring to mind). However, none of them take it as far as the Muslims. That's religious devotion. By way of comparison, the Christians are the guys who politely ask you not to do something; the Muslims are standing there saying "I dare you motherfucker." So really, I don't agree that Christians, by and large, are all that opposed; if they aren't willing to fight it tooth and nail (see how I cleverly turn this back to evolution here?), then it must not be a huge point of faith.

Originally posted by: jjsole
The winner in the creation vs. evolution debate will only be decided when both sides admit they are wrong.

Absolutely. Evolution doesn't exist. Neither does God. Actually, the universe was forged in the basement of Anthony Pescaderi. Anthony, or Tony to his friends, was trying to invent a cheap alternative to marinara, when he accidentally mixed oil and water. Normally this would do nothing, but the inclusion of several spices, as well as a healthy dose of rat droppings (Tony was notoriously bad about scrubbing out his pots) caused the oil and water to combine, creating a massive fusion event that resulted in a cosmic expansion the likes of which had never been seen before. This massive outpouring of matter, which scientists mistakenly refer to as the Big Bang, contained the genetic material for at least 5 different vegetables, and more than 3,000 animal species; their subsequent restructuring gave birth to an unprecedented population boom which resulted in all life we see today (except for unicorns, which are, of course, invisible). Upon realizing what he had done, Tony decided it was best to wash his hands of the whole affair, and he has been in hiding ever since.

If you believe differently, you are retarded.

All glory to Tony.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: 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.

I guess you've only dealt with Catholics. Other sects do tend to view alcohol negatively (mainly sects who don't drink communion). Even the smallest consumption. Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists often do in my experience (groups I was thinking of). I went to private Lutheran and Baptist school from elementary school to junior high, it's not like I don't know Christians.

Weren't the initial main supporters of Prohibition in the US Protestants?

Try not to take anything I say too seriously, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. That said, there are many sects of Christianity that take a negative view of alcohol (the Mormons spring to mind). However, none of them take it as far as the Muslims. That's religious devotion. By way of comparison, the Christians are the guys who politely ask you not to do something; the Muslims are standing there saying "I dare you motherfucker." So really, I don't agree that Christians, by and large, are all that opposed; if they aren't willing to fight it tooth and nail (see how I cleverly turn this back to evolution here?), then it must not be a huge point of faith.

Originally posted by: jjsole
The winner in the creation vs. evolution debate will only be decided when both sides admit they are wrong.

Absolutely. Evolution doesn't exist. Neither does God. Actually, the universe was forged in the basement of Anthony Pescaderi. Anthony, or Tony to his friends, was trying to invent a cheap alternative to marinara, when he accidentally mixed oil and water. Normally this would do nothing, but the inclusion of several spices, as well as a healthy dose of rat droppings (Tony was notoriously bad about scrubbing out his pots) caused the oil and water to combine, creating a massive fusion event that resulted in a cosmic expansion the likes of which had never been seen before. This massive outpouring of matter, which scientists mistakenly refer to as the Big Bang, contained the genetic material for at least 5 different vegetables, and more than 3,000 animal species; their subsequent restructuring gave birth to an unprecedented population boom which resulted in all life we see today (except for unicorns, which are, of course, invisible). Upon realizing what he had done, Tony decided it was best to wash his hands of the whole affair, and he has been in hiding ever since.

If you believe differently, you are retarded.

All glory to Tony.

I :heart: FSM

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: 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.

I guess you've only dealt with Catholics. Other sects do tend to view alcohol negatively (mainly sects who don't drink communion). Even the smallest consumption. Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists often do in my experience (groups I was thinking of). I went to private Lutheran and Baptist school from elementary school to junior high, it's not like I don't know Christians.

Weren't the initial main supporters of Prohibition in the US Protestants?

Try not to take anything I say too seriously, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. That said, there are many sects of Christianity that take a negative view of alcohol (the Mormons spring to mind). However, none of them take it as far as the Muslims. That's religious devotion. By way of comparison, the Christians are the guys who politely ask you not to do something; the Muslims are standing there saying "I dare you motherfucker." So really, I don't agree that Christians, by and large, are all that opposed; if they aren't willing to fight it tooth and nail (see how I cleverly turn this back to evolution here?), then it must not be a huge point of faith.

Originally posted by: jjsole
The winner in the creation vs. evolution debate will only be decided when both sides admit they are wrong.

Absolutely. Evolution doesn't exist. Neither does God. Actually, the universe was forged in the basement of Anthony Pescaderi. Anthony, or Tony to his friends, was trying to invent a cheap alternative to marinara, when he accidentally mixed oil and water. Normally this would do nothing, but the inclusion of several spices, as well as a healthy dose of rat droppings (Tony was notoriously bad about scrubbing out his pots) caused the oil and water to combine, creating a massive fusion event that resulted in a cosmic expansion the likes of which had never been seen before. This massive outpouring of matter, which scientists mistakenly refer to as the Big Bang, contained the genetic material for at least 5 different vegetables, and more than 3,000 animal species; their subsequent restructuring gave birth to an unprecedented population boom which resulted in all life we see today (except for unicorns, which are, of course, invisible). Upon realizing what he had done, Tony decided it was best to wash his hands of the whole affair, and he has been in hiding ever since.

If you believe differently, you are retarded.

All glory to Tony.

Ha ha ha, fair enough. It was a rather broad generalization that I made...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Absolutely. Evolution doesn't exist. Neither does God. Actually, the universe was forged in the basement of Anthony Pescaderi. Anthony, or Tony to his friends, was trying to invent a cheap alternative to marinara, when he accidentally mixed oil and water. Normally this would do nothing, but the inclusion of several spices, as well as a healthy dose of rat droppings (Tony was notoriously bad about scrubbing out his pots) caused the oil and water to combine, creating a massive fusion event that resulted in a cosmic expansion the likes of which had never been seen before. This massive outpouring of matter, which scientists mistakenly refer to as the Big Bang, contained the genetic material for at least 5 different vegetables, and more than 3,000 animal species; their subsequent restructuring gave birth to an unprecedented population boom which resulted in all life we see today (except for unicorns, which are, of course, invisible). Upon realizing what he had done, Tony decided it was best to wash his hands of the whole affair, and he has been in hiding ever since.

If you believe differently, you are retarded.

All glory to Tony.

Heretic! I guess you don't abide by Pastacan II, whereby the faithful acknowledge that FSM, after being created by Tony, whisked himself through time back to before the universe began, and created it himself. DIAPOBW.

 

[BudAshes]

Creationists don't need to be disproved. You can't disprove something that is made up in people's imaginations.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Creationists don't need to be disproved. You can't disprove something that is made up in people's imaginations.

:laugh:

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
All glory to Tony.

May the basil be with you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Absolutely. Evolution doesn't exist. Neither does God. Actually, the universe was forged in the basement of Anthony Pescaderi. Anthony, or Tony to his friends, was trying to invent a cheap alternative to marinara, when he accidentally mixed oil and water. Normally this would do nothing, but the inclusion of several spices, as well as a healthy dose of rat droppings (Tony was notoriously bad about scrubbing out his pots) caused the oil and water to combine, creating a massive fusion event that resulted in a cosmic expansion the likes of which had never been seen before. This massive outpouring of matter, which scientists mistakenly refer to as the Big Bang, contained the genetic material for at least 5 different vegetables, and more than 3,000 animal species; their subsequent restructuring gave birth to an unprecedented population boom which resulted in all life we see today (except for unicorns, which are, of course, invisible). Upon realizing what he had done, Tony decided it was best to wash his hands of the whole affair, and he has been in hiding ever since.

If you believe differently, you are retarded.

All glory to Tony.

Heretic! I guess you don't abide by Pastacan II, whereby the faithful acknowledge that FSM, after being created by Tony, whisked himself through time back to before the universe began, and created it himself. DIAPOBW.

I will abide no religion founded by heretics nailing rigatoni to the door of the pastaria. FSM is the figment of an imagination more twisted than fusilli.

 

[JDub02]

Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

Where does ID get the science community? Can they predict viruses with ID? What beneficial effect to humanity can come from ID?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

This was not a rational discussion? "Shouting down" includes logical debunking? Evolution has holes filled with faith?

Again I will use analogy, do try and keep up. There are a few but loud Holocaust deniers, should we bring their point of view into the classroom? There is less evidence the Holocaust occurred than evolution did, yet we teach it as fact, because it is a fact. This is the same reason evolution is taught in schools. There is zero evedince of the divine in anything much less biodiversity, so why should we bring these views into school?

ANSWER ME THESE QUESTIONS!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

Do fairies and leprechauns exist? You can't prove they do, I can't prove they don't, so by your reasoning a debate over the question would not be a complete waste of everyone's time. Some debates are in fact not worth having. Should we have Catholics debate their faith with Pastafarians (followers of FSM) over which is more "right"? I think the Catholics would be insulted by the suggestion, which is ironic actually.

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
All glory to Tony.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

Perhaps you should read through the entire thread before passing judgment. There are some good arguments made that don't simply bash religion. On page 6 (if you have the default post per page), I actually changed someone's mind on the matter (or at least got them to realize they were incorrect about how the debate had been framed), and I didn't do it by insulting their beliefs. But if you're going to saunter in and say "Well, I didn't bother to read what anyone read, but y'all are idiots," you aren't making a great case for yourself.

Please don't perpetuate ignorance. Read through the thread, see the opinions and arguments and then pass judgment as you see fit. It's the polite thing to do.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

you just don't get it...

science does not engage in discussions of ID or creation--b/c it isn't science.

acknowledging ID, if only to debate its myriad flaws, makes it somehow valid, or at least a topic worth discussing.

it is not worth discussing, as it pretends to be something that it most certainly is not--science.

unfortunately, the wackos and the tragically misinformed have been led to believe that ID deserves legitimate discussion, so some of spoken out against it. Initially, hordes of scientists refused to testify at the Dover, PA trials for this very reason. ID simply gained too much momentum.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JDub02
Wow, I only read the first page, but this thread absolutely proves Ben Stein's point ... that any opposition to evolution gets shouted down as opposed to having a real, rational discussion about it.

Both evolution and intelligent design have holes in the theories. Both are filled the same way .. faith. Faith in God or faith in the lack there of.

You lack the understanding of science to grasp what this is about, you can say that both are theories, if you are a clown making a joke, but if you are an honest thinking human being then you won't do that.

They are not both scientific theories, one of them, evolution, is "to the best of our knowledge" and is used every day in laboratories around the world to create vaccines for viruses that don't even exist yet, it's testable, it's observable, it's falsifiable and it is repeatable, ID can't be used for anything, it's not testable, it's not observable, it's not falsifiable and it is not repeatable.

I remember the answers during the Dover trial, they had to admit that it is not a scientific theory anymore than astrology is a scientific theory, it simply lacks every bit that could make it scientific.

ID claims that science that contradicts it is simply "bad science" while evolution changes if new evidence that contradicts it is found.

A scientific theory is NEVER done, if it is proven wrong, it's not discarded, the new evidence is added to it and it develops, that is why a scientific theory is always "to the best of our current knowledge".

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
A scientific theory is NEVER done, if it is proven wrong, it's not discarded, the new evidence is added to it and it develops, that is why a scientific theory is always "to the best of our current knowledge".

Scientific theories evolve. Do you see what I did there?

 

[kranky]

I'm sure to be wasting my time posting this in the old thread, but anyway...

I saw the movie. Ben Stein's premise appears to be valid: people in academia who wish to investigate ID are ostracized. He interviewed a number of people who were fired from their jobs, some for merely suggesting that ID was a possibility. Not one of them was actually advocating that ID was the answer, they only wished to study the possibility. Apparently any mention of ID generates a rabid backlash and people start campaigning to get the person fired.

No doubt the people in the movie were chosen to bolster Stein's claims, but indeed they had very impressive credentials. But as soon as they proposed studying ID, boom - fired, and they could not get another job in academia.

Two things disturbed me. Tying Darwinism to the Nazi concentration camps, although there was a tenuous connection, was a bit over the top and didn't strengthen the premise of the movie. And those who are advocates for Darwinism kept trying to make the point that there is no God. I do not understand why Darwinism = atheism, but they really wanted to make that connection. Those interviews seemed to go like this (boiled down):

"Is there any possibility of Intelligent Design?"
"Maybe an idiot might think so, because there IS NO GOD! GOD DOES NOT EXIST!"

Stein focused on trying to get an answer to the origin of life on earth - not the evolution of existing lifeforms - but how did it start? The opponents of ID say they do not know, but they are certain it could not be ID, and therefore there is no point in studying ID.

Stein did get the last word, though, as in the final interview with Richard Dawkins, Dawkins proposed that life could have been brought to earth by another civilization. To me, this was the same as saying ID is a possibility.

As I said in my post near the top of the thread, I don't know if Stein is right or wrong regarding ID, but two things were clear:

1. The premise that academicians are "expelled" for proposing to study ID is correct.
2. Darwinists are as fanatical in their faith as ID proponents are in their own. The concept of "let's study something and see what we learn" is out the window on this topic. Neither side can prove how life began. I don't understand what is so threatening. Study the thing and let's go where it leads us.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: kranky
I'm sure to be wasting my time posting this in the old thread, but anyway...

I saw the movie. Ben Stein's premise appears to be valid: people in academia who wish to investigate ID are ostracized. He interviewed a number of people who were fired from their jobs, some for merely suggesting that ID was a possibility. Not one of them was actually advocating that ID was the answer, they only wished to study the possibility. Apparently any mention of ID generates a rabid backlash and people start campaigning to get the person fired.

No doubt the people in the movie were chosen to bolster Stein's claims, but indeed they had very impressive credentials. But as soon as they proposed studying ID, boom - fired, and they could not get another job in academia.

Two things disturbed me. Tying Darwinism to the Nazi concentration camps, although there was a tenuous connection, was a bit over the top and didn't strengthen the premise of the movie. And those who are advocates for Darwinism kept trying to make the point that there is no God. I do not understand why Darwinism = atheism, but they really wanted to make that connection. Those interviews seemed to go like this (boiled down):

"Is there any possibility of Intelligent Design?"
"Maybe an idiot might think so, because there IS NO GOD! GOD DOES NOT EXIST!"

Stein focused on trying to get an answer to the origin of life on earth - not the evolution of existing lifeforms - but how did it start? The opponents of ID say they do not know, but they are certain it could not be ID, and therefore there is no point in studying ID.

Stein did get the last word, though, as in the final interview with Richard Dawkins, Dawkins proposed that life could have been brought to earth by another civilization. To me, this was the same as saying ID is a possibility.

As I said in my post near the top of the thread, I don't know if Stein is right or wrong regarding ID, but two things were clear:

1. The premise that academicians are "expelled" for proposing to study ID is correct.
2. Darwinists are as fanatical in their faith as ID proponents are in their own. The concept of "let's study something and see what we learn" is out the window on this topic. Neither side can prove how life began. I don't understand what is so threatening. Study the thing and let's go where it leads us.

This has already been discussed.

See the section marked "The Expelled":
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

 

[kranky]

Yeah, I had checked that out. I'm not that impressed, as the site has a clear agenda "The NCSE is devoted to defending the teaching of evolution, primarily against attacks by religiously motivated antievolution."

I maintain that studying the origins of life on earth is not equal to saying Darwinism is crap. And I still don't understand why there has to be a connection between studying the origins of life and religion. You study, you research, and see where it leads.

The Darwinists don't know how life started, the ID proponents don't know either. But there certainly ought to be room to study it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: kranky
I'm sure to be wasting my time posting this in the old thread, but anyway...

I saw the movie. Ben Stein's premise appears to be valid: people in academia who wish to investigate ID are ostracized. He interviewed a number of people who were fired from their jobs, some for merely suggesting that ID was a possibility. Not one of them was actually advocating that ID was the answer, they only wished to study the possibility. Apparently any mention of ID generates a rabid backlash and people start campaigning to get the person fired.

1. The premise that academicians are "expelled" for proposing to study ID is correct.
2. Darwinists are as fanatical in their faith as ID proponents are in their own. The concept of "let's study something and see what we learn" is out the window on this topic. Neither side can prove how life began. I don't understand what is so threatening. Study the thing and let's go where it leads us.

The problem with this line of thinking is in saying that people want to investigate ID. Alright, let's work out an experiment to test the principles of intelligent design. Intelligent design proposes that a supernatural or metaphysical force was involved in the creation and continued existence of life on this planet. The first step to designing an experiment for intelligent design is to show that such a force could exist. As it is impossible, by definition, to test for the presence of God, we have nowhere to go with our experiment.

Since ID cannot be experimented on, it boils down to simply saying that God could be involved. Well, that's true. To that end, there's lots of alternate theories that could be true; aliens, flying spaghetti monsters, Tony in the basement, etc. But we're talking about teaching intelligent design in a science class, where experimentation is used to obtain data, to test hypotheses and theories. You cannot have a scientific theory that is untestable; that runs completely counter to the very essence of what science is. So trying to insert this untestable "God was involved" idea into a science class doesn't make sense.

Proponents of Darwinian evolution are not all atheists. I imagine the reason Stein portrayed them as so in this film is to make an irrational appeal to emotion so that religious viewers would see this and think, "Oh no, those atheists are trying to teach my kid that God doesn't exist!" It's the same reason Stein discusses evolutionary theory over a montage of Nazi rallies; it is solely an appeal to emotion, a common logical fallacy used to argue a point when reason is not on your side. These facts tell me that Stein is not trying to create an honest documentary, but rather a propaganda film that paints one side as unequivocally wrong, even evil (why else the comparison to Nazis?); it's similar to Michael Moore, but possibly even more extreme.

As for the origins of life on Earth, I'm just copy-pasting what I wrote earlier in this thread:

Evolutionary theory describes how organisms adapt and change over time, leading to new species. It says nothing about how life originated because it's not a theory that tries to describe how life originated. Gravitational theory doesn't seek to explain why water feels wet. Does that make it wrong? Atomic theory doesn't discuss how light moves in a vacuum, so it's obviously false. The theory of relativity doesn't tell me why my family does stupid things, time to throw that one away.

Your belief that evolutionary theory should try to explain the origin of life does not mean that evolutionary theory is trying to explain the origin of life. It is not, it has never claimed to, and it never will. Evolution does not seek to answer the question "Where does life come from?;" it answers the question, "Why is there such a diversity of life?"