Originally posted by scottishinnzI've never once asked you to produce the designer, I have said that
I'll freely admit it is hard to know exactly what the conditions were, but even so, it's a whole lot more based in reality than some hypothetical (although that's really the wrong word, since this "designer" cannot be tested for) designer. Pretty much whatever is put into these experimental flasks, given a reducing atmosphere ends up as an organic mole ...[text shortened]... f you will), but that IDers make the logical falacy of then deciding there must be a maker.
ID or design can be present and we should be able to see it in many
cases.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, misunderstood you.
No you did not see me suggest anything about teaching any subject.
What you did see me say was that abiogensis and creation are two
subjects we cannot test to, ID was the only one we could. You may
take that and run with it any way you want to, but it was a simple
statement nothing more. Scott brought up the point that we may know
something of what the ...[text shortened]... know what took place in the forming of life,
it is a leap of faith to suggest otherwise.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI can see simaliries, but I can't see how one can claim that they are analogous to one another.
Really, you cannot see the comparison between machines and life?
The start stop mechanisms with in both do not suggest they are in any
way similar? The fact that energy drives both, that the vast array of
other odds and ends do not do anything for you?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaywhy not address my post to Whodey on the previous page?
It is a simple thing if there were claims in the movie that were false
that is indeed something to be concern over. The claims of the movie
were what? If you do not know what the movie claimed by watching it
how do you know the claims against the movie are true, simple?
Kelly
It seems strange to me, Kelly, that you refuse to debate anyone who hasn't seen the movie on its content, yet you are perfectly happy to espouce your opinions of articles you haven't read.
Ok having gone and watched the film, it is actually a complete load of BS, for the most part anyway. Watch his sources, and the experts, go beyond the film and actually find the specific stories yourselves. With only 2 or 3 hour of research after the film It is quite possible to find information from various sources that tell those stories form both sides. This film is truly propaganda in the worst possible meaning of the word. I'll be back with the specific examples in an hour or two. I gotta go to the bank.
Originally posted by MexicoAnd he had a TV show called 'Take Ben Stein's money' or something like that, where a contestant matched trivia knowledge where he supposedly did not get to hear the questions in advance and 90 percent of the time outdid his opponent. It also launched the career of Jimmy Kimmel who now has his own show.
And Stein's horrible acting doesn't help.
Seriously his "shock and dismay" face is laughably false all the way trough the film. Didn't he used to write presidential speeches?
Originally posted by MexicoI used to have a fair bit of respect for him - no matter what his beliefs are, but his massively stupid comments that he's made about science since he did this expelled movie has made me pretty much lose all of it.
And Stein's horrible acting doesn't help.
Seriously his "shock and dismay" face is laughably false all the way trough the film. Didn't he used to write presidential speeches?
This was the absolute final straw for me:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=
"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you."
and:
"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
Originally posted by MexicoPlease take your time and elaborate.
Ok having gone and watched the film, it is actually a complete load of BS, for the most part anyway. Watch his sources, and the experts, go beyond the film and actually find the specific stories yourselves. With only 2 or 3 hour of research after the film It is quite possible to find information from various sources that tell those stories form both sides. Th ...[text shortened]... of the word. I'll be back with the specific examples in an hour or two. I gotta go to the bank.
Originally posted by Retroviruswe'll firstly I went to the film and tried to remain as impartial as possible given the subject matter. I was truly interested to hear stiens take on it because he has said some interesting things in the past.
Please take your time and elaborate.
However, firstly he clips quotes, those which I recognised from college are out of context, from biologists with old movie reels from the holocaust, the implications of which are obvious. Evolutionary biology = eugenics and the holocaust. Which is pure anti science propaganda and nothing more. Ironically enough its probably a worse case of true propaganda than anything the nazi's released. Although this isn't surprising because since WW2 the art of manipulation through media has been well studied.
Another irony here is the mixture of Stalinist and Nazi clips.... Particularly as soviets rejected Evolution as capitalist propaganda.
Secondly his cases of the hard done scientist only seem unfair to those who want it to be unfair. Millions (exaggeration) of tenure applications get denied every year, they don't make a movie about all of them. And some of the "scientists" who weren't published even though their paper was "peer reviewed" we're laughable as we'll. I'll leave it to you to go and read who the peer reviewer was, I don't want to ruin the surprise its quite funny. (Case in question is Sternberg and Meyer, who bypassed normal peer review quite cleverly). The other cases he uses are odd too, effectively he interviews the "victims" who of course claim its all religious discrimination, but even some surface reading into the cases show it goes much deeper.
Furthermore, with a little background reading, Sternberg didn't loose his job over the issue as he claims, it was actually his last issue as editor anyway. There are various other odd things. Such as the Discovery institute's director being interviewed and every thing he says being taken at face value without and background examination. However Any evolutionist being interview has their character assaulted by clips and such micheal moore style.
Also there is a move to sue the film because Dawkins and a few others were interviewed under false pretences, being told the film was an unbiased story of the clashes between religion and science. Its clear from the onset that this is horrifically untrue.
there is a lot more but I'm sick of typing. I planned to go see the film by buying a ticket to another film, and then pay for both if the film turned out to have a valid standpoint. It didn't the implication that hitler dedicated Mein Kampf to Darwin was both patently false and offensive.
Originally posted by RetrovirusYou see similarities, yet why shouldn’t they be compared to one another?
I can see simaliries, but I can't see how one can claim that they are analogous to one another.
Why doesn’t it strike you as something worth doing? Wow, to me that
screams as analogous, keeping levels at workable levels, stopping and
starting processes as needed, none of those things to you seem to suggest
this isn’t just an accident as an apple falling from a tree? Motors and CPU
do not just do the things they do, cars don’t just get all the various parts
falling together to function as they do, there is a plan and purpose to it,
yet for some, they cannot look at even cars it seems and see design,
unless they see the blue prints, know where the factories are, see and speak
to the designers and so on. I used to wonder why so many would claim
they do not see any evidence in the universe for design, but if some here
cannot see cars as designed by looking at them without the proper training
to show them how, I no longer wonder why they fail to see design at all,
they do not want to.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI said that if we were going to discuss the movie for its content you
why not address my post to Whodey on the previous page?
It seems strange to me, Kelly, that you refuse to debate anyone who hasn't seen the movie on its content, yet you are perfectly happy to espouce your opinions of articles you haven't read.
should see it first! What is claimed about it, the sites you go to for
your information may not be correct, they may be too, in which case I
have to agree with you, the movie would have some major issues on
its face. We may find one or two issues with the movie, if that is the
case, so be it, there are one or two issues with the movie, that isn't
all the content, but if that is enough for you, it may be enough for you
to ignore it all. We may find an issue or two with the sites you are
going to for your information as well, if only one or two issues is
enough to dismiss the movie would that same standard for the sites
you go to as well?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat about me? I watched it, as far as I can see its pure propoganda, do you have an address to any of my points?
I said that if we were going to discuss the movie for its content you
should see it first! What is claimed about it, the sites you go to for
your information may not be correct, they may be too, in which case I
have to agree with you, the movie would have some major issues on
its face. We may find one or two issues with the movie, if that is the
case, ...[text shortened]...
enough to dismiss the movie would that same standard for the sites
you go to as well?
Kelly