'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys with evo...

[Darwins Stepchild]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
heh heh heh That was in the definition I supplied, go after THEM. Plus your morals you claim to have? Christian morals have been absorbed by the atheists because,, really,, what use do atheists have with morals? IF there were no God then there are no need for morals.

Wayne, just when I think you have sunk about as low as a person can get, you find a way to prove me wrong. You are such a shallow person.

Apes have a better sense of right and wrong than you do.

[Patch]

M Haigler wrote:

Just what I expected from the liberal left media, maybe now you know why it wasn't widely distributed to them. Let people make up their own minds. If evolution is so "rock" solid then there should be no problem stacking it up against ID or Creationism. Let the students ask the questions and determine what makes sense and what is (primordial) mudd.

Amen and pass the popcorn.

[Patch]

Dr Sausage wrote:

<quoted text>
But Wayne, MAN WROTE THE BIBLE!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
II Timothy 3:16-17

[Darwins Stepchild]

Patch wrote:

<quoted text>
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
II Timothy 3:16-17

Right. We know the Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/sarcasm]

[Hazmat]

Drew Smith

It's a waste of time trying to convince so-called God fearing people that Evolution is the more viable explanation for our existence than so-called "Inelligent Design".

The very fact that a humanoid would have faith in the existence of a superior being that no one can see, feel or touch - is enough to show that rationality has nothing to do with that person's beliefs.

[Wayne]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Right. We know the Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/sarcasm]

And evolution is true because evolutionists say it is? HAH! Must be because you have no other proof.

[chipfle]

Patch wrote:

<quoted text>
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
II Timothy 3:16-17

Welcome to the new American dark ages!

[Wayne]

chipfle wrote:

<quoted text>Welcome to the new American dark ages!

No, America needs to come OUT of the dark ages you evos have created for the last 150 years. Dumbed down kids that graduate with a 3rd grade reading level and have no more respect for people than they do animals. Oh wait, according to YOUR philosophy, we ARE animals, right?

[Forum Cruiser]

Dr Sausage wrote:

<quoted text>
What then did you hope to gain by showing me this experiment by Dr. Beauregard? What are your interpretations of the experiment?
Also, I found an interesting interview with Dr. Beauregard. Here's an excerpt:
Q: Are spiritual experiences delusions created by a misfiring brain?
A: No. There is no God spot in the brain. Spiritual experiences are complex, like intense experiences with other human beings. There is, however, a mystical state of experience that is not quite the same thing as an emotional state. That does not prove that the mystic contacts something outside herself, but it is consistent with it.
http://www.harpercollins.com/author/authorExt...

Well, I have been discussing this for a while here and do not remember if you were here at the beginning. My claim is that our creation is two fold. Physical and spiritual and that any discussion of ID would have to include both sides of who we are. If we have a spiritual side this is evidence of ID and Dr. Beauregard's experiment is possibly ID's first experiment r/t our spiritual side.

Thank you for the interview link. What the God spot in the brain is referring to is a part of the brain that basically motivates us to believe in God. Dr. Beauregard claims that another common misconception disproved by his experiment is that there is no specific region of the brain that responds specifically during communion with God. In other words our belief in God or our predisposition to belief in God is not motivated by the material.

[Forum Cruiser]

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
1.No one ever claimed that atheism was complicated. But you have repeatedly displayed that you feel "intellectually superior" and already know more about my position than I do.

This is not accurate but if you were to re-read many of your posts r/t your being the “progressive” one or “intellectual” one and replace the term atheist with Christian you would understand why I would respond with a fairly defensive approach. You might relate better.

The fact is I have been very tolerant of your view to the point of not even responding when you have made many attempts to make your atheist perspective seem like the superior one. If you believe my disagreeing with you is evidence of my feeling “intellectually superior” then this is more evidence of insecurities on your part as opposed to an attitude or belief on mine. You see I know myself and I understand people of all perspectives can be intelligent and through out this I in no way ever attacked your intelligence~~I merely disagree.

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
2.When you generalize and claim that atheism leads to immorality and killing, you are claiming to be morally and ethically superior.

There is no sound logic behind this. It is a deductive fallacy.

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
You still have not providd any proof for you blanket accusations that atheists are immoral nor that atheism leads to mass murder. Are you ready to retract those hate statements yet?

Wow, are you doing this on purpose~~twisting my words....

I personally (and professionally) hate blanket statements that are not peppered with disqualifiers especially as it relates to humanity. Part of the reason for this is the “soul factor”(my term). Since we all have our own soul whose characteristics are currently not currently well known human behavior is not well understood. Atheists can be immoral and this can be a result of their world view and as I have stated several times already this may not apply to you. Also keep in mind, morality is determined by society but as far as religious perspectives are concerned accepting atheism is the ultimate immoral decision.

My claim was that atheism HAS lead to mass murder and the Nazi holocaust is an example of this. The evidence was laid out for you quite well in this forum and if you choose to reject it that is your decision. The evidence was also laid out quite well in the movie Expelled.

I also believe it would be easy for an atheist perspective to lead to more mass murder in the future given the lack of accountability inherent in the perspective.

[Forum Cruiser]

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
Eugenics is not now or ever related to natural selection. Eugenics is artificial selection requiring a controlling authority (an intelligent designer), whereas natural selection proves that nature needs no controlling authority. These concepts are at opposite ends of the spectrum. In this forum you have read one post after another highlighting this (most not posted by me) but it seems that you are too close-minded to see the falacy of your argument.

And I have responded to the argument a few times already~~possibly you missed it. It is not much of a stretch to move from natural selection to eugenics. This is suggested in some of Darwin's writings and was promoted by the nazi's. We have already been over this. There are those that believe that "natural selection" would serve humanity better if there was a "controlling authority" and of course they would like to be that athority. You claim it would no longer be natural selection~~remember, we are part of nature.

[Darwins Stepchild]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
And evolution is true because evolutionists say it is? HAH! Must be because you have no other proof.

No, Wayne. You continue to misunderstand the science. ToE is the closest theory we have to the truth according to mountains of evidence pointing to it, and none pointing away from it.

I know you think that if you believe hard enough, things will become true. Sadly, the real world doesn't work that way.

[Dennis2]

Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
Standards have hit an all time low when I have to spoon feed a Darwinist about basic principles of their faith.
Random mutation is the sole creative force in Darwinian evolution. Random means blind and undirected (unless you believe that an intelligent designer is causing the mutations).
Darwinism is fundamentally blind and undirected whether or not the oafish mechanism of natural selection is operating. Go and ask one of your better informed atheist pals if you don't believe me.
<quoted text>
The fallacy here is not very deep but it has to be nailed down. Did the computers and software programmes used to solve those difficult problems appear by a blind undirected Darwinian process or were they constructed and meticulously programmed to the last detail with an end purpose in mind by intelligent designers? Did the programme decide what useful result to look for or was it the scientists who decided.
When the design phase is complete, will the product manufacture itself in a Darwinian manner, or will it require a factory set up by intelligent human agents. This is an example of Darwinist writing high tech articles to bamboozle their readership with fallacious bullshit. The argument you gave is one for intelligent design, not Darwinism. To be fair though, a lot of people fall for it.

No, Stuart was absolutely correct. Evolution is NOT a random process, unless you are planning on redefining "random" to suit your agenda. There are random aspects to genetic mutation, but selection (natural, sexual, etc) is far from random. There does not need to be a pre-determined end-point or course for something to not be random. Random would imply than any change is equally likely to occur at the genetic level, and from there, any phenotypic change is equally likely to be maintained and propagated. That isn't even close to how evolution works. So don't pretend to correct people on things of which you know very little. For the record, I'm a biologist both through education and in my career, and I've done extensive reading on evolution as well as on the farce known as ID/creation "science".

[Dennis2]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. There IS a God and He reveals Himself in Scripture. ANYONE can read it for themselves. And believe it or not. And don't take mans word for it. If you are an agnostic shut out other peoples opinions and let God Himself guide you through His word.

I've read the Bible. I grew up in a church going household. I did Bible classes, communion classes, confirmation, all of that stuff. Spent time in both Catholic and Lutheran churches. I repeat, there is ZERO evidence, much less proof, of a god. You have nothing but your chosen desire to believe, but certainly not valid proof. There are others who believe every bit as adamantly as you do, in completely different gods, and are just as sure as you are, using the same arguments.

[Dennis2]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
And don't use the weak argument that the bible is written by man. Of COURSE it is, EVERY BOOK in the WORLD is written by man. Or woman. The difference is, the bible is God Breathed, The Spirit of God INSPIRED man what to write in the pages of the bible.

So you say, so the Bible says, but then who cares, you, and any book, can say whatever it feels like. That doesn't make it true.

[Stuart Weinstein]

Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
Standards have hit an all time low when I have to spoon feed a Darwinist about basic principles of their faith.
Random mutation is the sole creative force in Darwinian evolution. Random means blind and undirected (unless you believe that an intelligent designer is causing the mutations).
Darwinism is fundamentally blind and undirected whether or not the oafish mechanism of natural selection is operating. Go and ask one of your better informed atheist pals if you don't believe me.
<quoted text>
The fallacy here is not very deep but it has to be nailed down. Did the computers and software programmes used to solve those difficult problems appear by a blind undirected Darwinian process or were they constructed and meticulously programmed to the last detail with an end purpose in mind by intelligent designers? Did the programme decide what useful result to look for or was it the scientists who decided.
When the design phase is complete, will the product manufacture itself in a Darwinian manner, or will it require a factory set up by intelligent human agents. This is an example of Darwinist writing high tech articles to bamboozle their readership with fallacious bullshit. The argument you gave is one for intelligent design, not Darwinism. To be fair though, a lot of people fall for it.

Nice try. But thanks for the laughs.
Indeed random mutation provides fodder for evolution. The variation it produces is that upon which selection acts. However, selection is not random, and works because of differential reproductive propensity (more big words which you don't understand no doubt). Populations evolve in a direction that increases their fitness in their current environment.
Whats actually quite fascinating is that you fell for the first objection,( I gave 6 basic objections that creatobabblers tend to give), you get a prize. Some years later,the engineers still don't know how this circuit works. None the less, you consider this an example of intelligent design, even though the intelligent designers (the engineers, who didn't design it but the computer did) still have no idea how it works.
So what now? The computer is the intelligent designer?
The computer and the program simply play the same role that the environment and selection play in nature. This is precisely why engineers developed these methods. They wanted to harness the creative of power of descent with modification (ooops more big words). There is no predefined outcome in terms of the circuit design; if there was, engineers wouldn't need to do these simulations. The scientists set the circuit behavior they were looking for (selection criteria which is just what nature does); they had no preconceived notions as to the design of the circuit itself; the computer came up with that, on its own using random variations acted on by selection. Your attempts to muddy the waters are laughable, but expected. The only thing the program does is compute the behavior of the circuits, add components to them at random, eliminate the ones which underperform, "x-breed" the rest, add components at random, repeat. After several generations, the mindless computer built circuits (with unneeded parts to boot!) that handily defeated or tied the best patented designs at the time, you know, designs made the old fashion way by intelligent designers.

[Stuart Weinstein]

What intelligent designer adds unneeded parts to a circuit? None. However, stuff designed by nature does, which is why your DNA and that of eucaryotes in general have gobs of repetitive DNA that is not decoded. Indeed, many experiments show that when much of this repetitive DNA is removed, the organism shows no ill effects.
I'm sorry you feel you're being bamboozled.
But as Leslie Orgel said "Evolution is cleverer than you are".
In the not too distant future, genetic algorithms will be designing computers too. The above experiment was repeated by a different group using logic circuits to produce novel logic engines. Same result. Evolution is cleverer than intelligent designers.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Alan]

chipfle wrote:

<quoted text>creIDiot - since you seem to have missed this the first time, I'll repost it - and keep doing so until you show some intellectual integrity (I know thats asking a lot from a creIDiot).
Read it - it really is rubbish. Johnson isn't even a competent lawyer, his science is laughable. As theolegalism its sort of coherent, even kind of clever once you weed through the really noxious quote mines. The science doesn't rise to the level of bad, its simply incoherent. His eye "argument" is illustrative. Classic creIDiot irreduceable complexity, completely ignoring the many intermediate vision systems we know about and understand the development of. Tell you what, suggest just one of these holes youre so sure of, otherwise you are demonstrated to be just another deluded fleecie lier for Jesus.
How about it Al, are you just another ignorant deluded fleecie liar-for-Jesus?

I like you chipfle. With your mastery of the ad hominem argument, you do much to support my thesis that while the religiously minded are changing (dare I say evolving) into something resembling scientists, Darwinist are regressing into raving fundamentalists.

Keep it coming!

[Stuart Weinstein]

Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
I like you chipfle. With your mastery of the ad hominem argument, you do much to support my thesis that while the religiously minded are changing (dare I say evolving) into something resembling scientists, Darwinist are regressing into raving fundamentalists.
Keep it coming!

You have to laugh at people who complain about ad hominem while employing it themselves.

They figure it relives them of the burden of independent thought.

[Alan]

Drew Smith wrote:

Where in that statement is Darwin saying what humans *should* do?(He is referring instead to what humans are *actually* observed to do, that is, to express sympathy to their fellow human beings.)
.... he is not telling us how we "should" behave. He is telling us how humans *do* behave, based upon observations.

From The Descent of Man:

"NOR COULD WE CHECK OUR SYMPATHY, IF SO URGED BY HARD REASON, WITHOUT DETERIORATION IN THE NOBLEST PART OF OUR NATURE. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. HENCE WE MUST BEAR WITHOUT COMPLAINING THE UNDOUBTEDLY BAD EFFECTS OF THE WEAK SURVIVING AND PROPAGATING THEIR KIND; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

When Darwin says

"NOR could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

He is telling us what we SHOULD not do.

When Darwin says

“Hence we MUST bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”

He is telling us what we SHOULD (and indeed MUST) not do.