Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


Jim Bramlett: "EXPELLED" -- A movie review
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1

    Jim Bramlett: "EXPELLED" -- A movie review

    The following movie review arrived in my in-box this afternoon.


    "EXPELLED" -- a review
    Jim Bramlett
    Apr 21, 2008

    Dear friends:

    I just got in from the movies, seeing Ben Stein's new movie/documentary just released. I am still stunned by its profundity.

    The below review was written by an M.D. friend, Dr. Carl Lindquist. I agree 100% plus. I believe it is the best documentary ever produced and should be seen by every human being!

    Ben Stein is a genius Jew -- economist, philosopher, actor, author and even comedian. Truly a renaissance man. There are a couple of hints in the movie that he just might be a closet Messianic believer. See if you can catch it.

    The wry humor he injects via clips from old movies is hilarious and had me in tears. Ben Stein is so serious yet so funny. A rare combination of brilliance and wit.

    With their own quotes, this movie illustrates the absurdity of the Darwinist view of life.

    Jim
    ______________________________________

    From Dr. Lindquist:

    I saw Ben Stein's Expelled this night.

    What a simply amazing masterpiece!!!! The best documentary I have ever seen. Period!

    His exposure of the tyranny of the evolutionists over Intelligent Design theorists was much, much more forceful and emotional than I had expected it to be. He really tears these tyrants apart. Shreds them with their own words and bombast. They come across as incredibly arrogant, vicious, deluded, evil fools. There's nothing left when he gets through with them. There is no question about it, they convict themselves by their own words and behavior. (No cut and splice out of context like Michael Moore. He just gives them rope -- time uninterrupted for them to talk and clever back 'em-in-a-corner questioning of them -- with which they hang themselves).

    The movie audience young, old, kids watched in rapt attention. No talking, fidgeting, noise of any kind.

    The suffering of those brave enough to mention intelligent design is vividly brought to light.

    And he riddles with humor. Very witty, very funny inserts.

    Highly, highly recommended. MANDATORY FOR ALL STUDENTS, in my opinion.
    __________________________________

    Below is the transcript from Rush Limbaugh on "Expelled":

    RUSH: Ben Stein has a new movie out. He brought it by my house Friday afternoon to screen it for me. It's called Expelled. It is powerful. It is fabulous. And here's the premise of his movie. The premise is that Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it. Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God. His interviews with some of the professors who espouse Darwinism are literally shocking. The condescension and the arrogance these people have, they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began. One of these professors said it might have been that a hyper-intelligence from another planet came here and started our race. This from some professor either in the UK, I forget where it was, but can't be God. These people are so threatened by the existence of God, they will not permit intelligent design to be discussed. Professors have been fired, blackballed, and prevented from working who have deigned to try to combine the whole concept of evolution with intelligent design.

    Ben Stein's new movie is going to open to a thousand screens pretty soon (it opened last Friday), it's not out there yet. It's called Expelled. But the point of it is that these people on the left are just scared to death of God. It threatens everything. We, on the other hand, recognize that our greatness, who we are, our potential, our ambition, our desire, comes from God, and as part of our Creation, this natural yearning to be free and to practice liberty. That is how we think this country came to be great. It is how we think this country will continue to be great and to grow.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,827
    I havent seen this flick but MY BS meter is jumping. This sounds like a propaganda piece for the Right wing fundementalists.

    Rush is wrong about Darwinism - Charles Darwin was a natural scientist that observed nature and advanced a theory of natural selection based on survival of the fittest. Darwin to my knowledge never, ever - I mean NEVER purported to explain the origin of life.

    A theory is not a definitive dogma - it is a work in process advanced to explain the observations and make predictions about SIMILAR conditions. When the theoretical predictions are shown to exist outside of the theory - the theory must be updated.

    The scientific method is useful in defining a finite area of knowledge where observations and measurement by independent observers can be confirmed.

    Religion is not science - has no business and no foundation to address the area within the scope of scientific inquiry. Religion by definition tries to describe - unscientifically - the areas of inquiry that are outside of science like the supernatural, ghosts and demons.

    I suspect that Religionists are so accustomed to accepting dogma with unquestioning faith that they believe that the Theory of Evolution is dogma which is counter to their religion. Evolution is not dogmatic - it is just the best intrepretation currently available that explains the observations and is subject to revision when new observation can be adavanced scientifically.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    Rush is wrong about Darwinism - Charles Darwin was a natural scientist that observed nature and advanced a theory of natural selection based on survival of the fittest. Darwin to my knowledge never, ever - I mean NEVER purported to explain the origin of life.
    Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    I suspect that Religionists are so accustomed to accepting dogma with unquestioning faith that they believe that the Theory of Evolution is dogma which is counter to their religion. Evolution is not dogmatic - it is just the best intrepretation currently available that explains the observations and is subject to revision when new observation can be adavanced scientifically.
    Now my BS meter is pegged. It is the humanists who are accustomed to blindly accepting the manure spewed by their iconistic intelligensia.

    Evolution (specifically macroevolution) certainly IS dogmatic and taught as a proven fact. It is not taught as a theory even though no one has ever observed it happening nor is there any possible mechanism to achieve it. This is nothing but religion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Green County, Kentucky
    Posts
    9,593
    Quote Originally Posted by PHD View Post
    Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning.




    Now my BS meter is pegged. It is the humanists who are accustomed to blindly accepting the manure spewed by their iconistic intelligensia.

    Evolution (specifically macroevolution) certainly IS dogmatic and taught as a proven fact. It is not taught as a theory even though no one has ever observed it happening nor is there any possible mechanism to achieve it. This is nothing but religion.
    Good short answer. I've heard nothing but good stuff about the movie, and plan to see it eventually (after it comes out on DVD, probably). As far as I am concerned, Biblical Creation does a FAR better job of explaining the observable evidence of the universe than evolution does. There is absolutely no comparison. Evolution is a crutch used by those who refuse to consider that there might actually be a supreme being to whom they might have to be accountable someday, and it has so many inconsistencies and failures that it's ludicrous.

    Perhaps I should add that while I am a Christian (even, gasp in horror, a Bible-believing one!!), when I first became a Christian I still believed in evolution, because that was ALL WE WERE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. It wasn't until later that I began to discover that Creation as laid out in Genesis, and the Flood, did a far better job of explaining the evidence than evolution did, that I changed my beliefs. In other words, I changed what I believed because I saw the evidence; I did not change the facts to fit what I believed. Unfortunately that is exactly what many evolutionists are doing -- changing the facts to fit what they believe.

    Kathleen
    Behold, these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him.
    Job 26:14

    wickr ID freeholder45

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by PHD View Post
    Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning.




    Now my BS meter is pegged. It is the humanists who are accustomed to blindly accepting the manure spewed by their iconistic intelligensia.

    Evolution (specifically macroevolution) certainly IS dogmatic and taught as a proven fact. It is not taught as a theory even though no one has ever observed it happening nor is there any possible mechanism to achieve it. This is nothing but religion.


  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by PHD View Post
    Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning.
    PHD:
    For someone who claims to have a great deal of knowledge about this subject, I am very disappointed that you would make a common blunder about Darwin's book. It is titled The Origin of Species, and the placement of "The" is very important.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan the Power Man View Post
    PHD:
    For someone who claims to have a great deal of knowledge about this subject, I am very disappointed that you would make a common blunder about Darwin's book. It is titled The Origin of Species, and the placement of "The" is very important.
    For someone who desires to be such a "Title Nazi" I am very disappointed that you would make such a blunder in your self serving (and incredibly petty) chastisement of my placement of the article adjective "the."

    The actual title of Darwin's book (contrary to what you say) is "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

    Please try to be more precise next time.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,827
    PhD

    You make my point.

    Darwin and the scientists who came after him are constantly revising the theory in light of new observations.

    I am not aware of any evolutionary scientists that say that Evolution Theory is any more than a theory - a work in progress constantly being updated by new obswervation and analysis. To say otherwise would be unscientific and wrong - that teachers who themselves were not scientists may have taught evolution as dogma just goes to show that they themselves were uninformed.

    Evolution Theory best fits all of the observations together in explanation of Origin of Species - not origin of life. I dont see that the word "The" is operative, rather it is "Species". Species being the differentiation of life into separate and discernable forms.

    I think it wrong for Religionists to disown Evolution as Evolution is science. I also think that Evolution and science have no bearing on the unseen faith based constructs of the Religionists. Science only deals with what can be seen or measured. Religion deals with the unseen which is accepted on faith alone. IMHO, Science and Religion operate in two very different realms with little to no overelap or points in common.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    PhD

    You make my point.

    Darwin and the scientists who came after him are constantly revising the theory in light of new observations.
    First....You need to make a point before you have one.

    Second......They are not! What they are do is create a series of unverifiable assumptions to fit an interpretation of an observation.

    Example---Similarity proves homology......There is no evidence this is true and everything that can be experimentally verified says it is false. The problem is, if similarity does not prove homology then there is no foundation for common descent. Gavin DeBeer proved this a long time ago and the evolutionists reject it because it does not fit with evolutionary dogma. In other words, they don't revise when the data falsifies their religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    I am not aware of any evolutionary scientists that say that Evolution Theory is any more than a theory - a work in progress constantly being updated by new obswervation and analysis. To say otherwise would be unscientific and wrong - that teachers who themselves were not scientists may have taught evoultion as dogma just goes to show that they themselves were uninformed.

    Then you need to read more because it is YOU who is uniformed! Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, William Provine, Eugenie Scott all say that macroevolution (this is the real debate) is fact! These are the most vocal proponents and this is why the theory of evolution is not science. It is dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    Evolution Theory best fits all of the observations togerth in explanation of Origin of Species - not origin of life. I dont see that the word "The" is operative, rather it is "Species". Species being the differentiation of life into separate and discernable forms. .
    So What! That does not make it true! A miracle is also the best explanation right now for the origin of life. Show me any of the people I mentioned above who would accept that and teach it in class.

    Your statements about species also are moot. The argument is not about the formation of new species. The argument is the formation of taxonomic groups above the species level. There is no observation, mechanism, or reproducible experiment that can support this and it IS being taught and touted as fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    I think it wrong for Religionist to disown Evolution as Evolution is science. I also think that Evolution and science has no bearing on the unseen faith construct of the Religionists. Science only deals with what can be seen or measured. Religion deals with the unseen which is accepted on faith alone.

    Again, evolution (basic adaptation and variation at or below the species level) is not the debate. Macroevolution (taxonomic groups above the species level) is the debate. There is no scientific evidence for this so it is religion.

    Macroevolution is not a science. It is a historical science that has not been seen and cannot be measured. It is an interpretation of an assumption that no one saw happen. This IS religion and you are supporting it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northwest IL
    Posts
    5,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    PhD

    You make my point.

    Darwin and the scientists who came after him are constantly revising the theory in light of new observations.

    I am not aware of any evolutionary scientists that say that Evolution Theory is any more than a theory - a work in progress constantly being updated by new obswervation and analysis. To say otherwise would be unscientific and wrong - that teachers who themselves were not scientists may have taught evolution as dogma just goes to show that they themselves were uninformed.

    Evolution Theory best fits all of the observations together in explanation of Origin of Species - not origin of life. I dont see that the word "The" is operative, rather it is "Species". Species being the differentiation of life into separate and discernable forms.

    I think it wrong for Religionists to disown Evolution as Evolution is science. I also think that Evolution and science have no bearing on the unseen faith based constructs of the Religionists. Science only deals with what can be seen or measured. Religion deals with the unseen which is accepted on faith alone. IMHO, Science and Religion operate in two very different realms with little to no overelap or points in common.

    Bill -

    As I mentioned in the other post about EXPELLED - you really need to see the movie. This is NOT a Religionists movie - it is a documentary mostly about the right of free speech and an open forum for ideas.

    Darwin and the scientists who came after him are constantly revising the theory in light of new observations.
    This is IT exactly - some of the scientist - from molecular scientist to biologist have studies the complex building blocks of cells and have felt that the complex nature of the cell belies its start from a random lightening strike - and so, they want to theorize on some kind of Intellegent Design - rather than random selection. However, in the United States, these scientist are being shut down - because they opponents reason that once you start down the road of Intelligent Design - you might, eventually, have to reason that there is a God.

    It's an amazing movie - it is not Creationism - it is not religious right - it is merely an intriguing and often scary view into the world of science within the US.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,827
    PhD:

    1. It was you that stated: "Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning." This statement makes the points that:

    a. Darwin revised his theory over time.
    b. darwin was not dogmatic about the origin of life.


    2. All science is based on theory, and by definition theories are constantly being refined, updated and even discarded when new observation and technology enable greater insight.

    Dawkins and the others are for the most part atheists and they discard the acceptrance on faith of the unseen much as most educated people discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc. What they are left with is Evolution science.

    but their argument is actually a dual argument:

    a. Acceptance of evolution as science.
    b. Rejection of Religion as anything unseen and unmeasurable is unscientific.

    I do believe there are many scientists that are comfortable with both Religion and Science as the two do not overlap.

    For me I am an agnostic - I really do not see a convincing argument for or against the Religionist view and will admit that there is much currently beyond the knowledge of science. Absence of proof not being proof of absence.

    Many Religions on the other hand are very dogmatic, which I am sure any one schooled in the history of religion would agree. As humankind is constantly learning more and more about his world, I suppose that any dogma is counterproductive.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northwest IL
    Posts
    5,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    PhD:

    1. It was you that stated: "Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning." This statement makes the points that:

    a. Darwin revised his theory over time.
    b. darwin was not dogmatic about the origin of life.


    2. All science is based on theory, and by definition theories are constantly being refined, updated and even discarded when new observation and technology enable greater insight.

    Dawkins and the others are for the most part atheists and they discard the acceptrance on faith of the unseen much as most educated people discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc. What they are left with is Evolution science.

    but their argument is actually a dual argument:

    a. Acceptance of evolution as science.
    b. Rejection of Religion as anything unseen and unmeasurable is unscientific.

    I do believe there are many scientists that are comfortable with both Religion and Science as the two do not overlap.

    For me I am an agnostic - I really do not see a convincing argument for or against the Religionist view and will admit that there is much currently beyond the knowledge of science. Absence of proof not being proof of absence.

    Many Religions on the other hand are very dogmatic, which I am sure any one schooled in the history of religion would agree. As humankind is constantly learning more and more about his world, I suppose that any dogma is counterproductive.
    Bill - I think that you would really enjoy the movie. It seems that you are very open-minded and understand the process of theory.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    PhD:

    1. It was you that stated: "Darwin certainly did in his 6th edition of Origin of the Species. He said it was the creator who imparted life in the beginning." This statement makes the points that:

    a. Darwin revised his theory over time.
    b. darwin was not dogmatic about the origin of life.
    You make MY point here. Darwin had absolutely no scientific evidence (nor did he discover anything new) of either. But the religion of evolution allows for this type of mystic pontification while real science would never allow it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    2. All science is based on theory, and by definition theories are constantly being refined, updated and even discarded when new observation and technology enable greater insight.
    Sure but macroevolution is not I repeat NOT science. As I stated before (please read to understand instead of to respond), homology as an example HAS been falsified and evolutionists refuse to accept it. Embryonic recapitulation has been falsified and evolutionists refuse to accept it. The concept of vestigial organs is being falsified every day and evolutionists refuse to accept it.

    What is left is a humanistic religion for atheists and agnostics because there is no other alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    awkins and the others are for the most part atheists and they discard the acceptrance on faith of the unseen much as most educated people discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc. What they are left with is Evolution science.
    Disbelief in one thing does not prove another. Macroevolution does not pass muster as science and you can repeat this malarky until doomsday and if will not change the facts.

    People like you need to wake up to the fact that there is a growing number of very intelligent people who are taking a very dim view of what is being taught as fact in our classrooms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    but their argument is actually a dual argument:

    a. Acceptance of evolution as science.
    b. Rejection of Religion as anything unseen and unmeasurable is unscientific.

    Just nothing but a myopic statement. Macroeovolution is unseen and unmeasurable and thus unscientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    I do believe there are many scientists that are comfortable with both Religion and Science as the two do not overlap.
    How many times here are you going to commit the fallacy of equivocation. Macroevolution is NOT science. You can give platitudes about science until you are blue in the face but the fact remains that macroevolution does not pass muster as science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    Absence of proof not being proof of absence.
    Absence of proof is not showing proof of anything. In other words making statements like "just because we don't know today does not mean we won't know tomorrow" is an unscientific statement.
    Last edited by PHD; 04-22-2008 at 08:53 PM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by PHD View Post
    For someone who desires to be such a "Title Nazi" I am very disappointed that you would make such a blunder in your self serving (and incredibly petty) chastisement of my placement of the article adjective "the."

    The actual title of Darwin's book (contrary to what you say) is "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

    Please try to be more precise next time.
    PHD: I was referring to the common title, without the subtitle; however, you are technically correct.

    When you say "The Origin of the Species", it polarizes people into thinking that Darwin's book is primarily about the human race.

  15. #15
    ..."The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Interesting.
    One would think that this part of the title would have the bells, flags, whistles, neon flashing lights and every possible hue and cry arising from the PC leftist crowd in full tilt mode. How the Nazis could have extrapolated anything BUT what they did from Darwin is beyond me, and why those favoring Darwinianism don't get it is also a question I've never found an answer to. The Left get all riled up when guys like Professor Philippe Rushton come to the conclusion that certain races are inferior to others, but they don't see or don't want to see just how "Darwinist evolution-based" Rushton's ideas really are. It's almost as if they refuse to see the logical conclusion of their pet theory as put into action.

  16. #16
    Try this Darwin quote on for size

    "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [e.g. the ape creatures which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigines] and the gorilla."

    Darwin, C., The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 156, 1887

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan the Power Man View Post
    When you say "The Origin of the Species", it polarizes people into thinking that Darwin's book is primarily about the human race.
    I wouldn't know why. The scientific term species has never been used as a synonym for humans even when "the" is placed before it.

  18. #18
    In as much as I initiated this thread I feel that I need to steer us back onto the its subject. We clearly have drifted a bit from the subject.

    The thread, and indeed the movie, is about the failure in academe to permit a truly scientific inquiry into the subject of the origin of the species. Today, there are two primary explanations: 1. Darwin's theory and 2. Intelligent Design.

    There is little scientific evidence for the former, and considerable implied evidence for the latter. However, modern academic politics forbid any discussion of Intelligent Design - freedom of inquiry is no longer permitted within academic circles on this subject.

    The absurdity of such a situation in our schools and institutions of higher learning needs to be explored, one would think.

    IMO,

    Woolly

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,827
    PhD;

    I would like to see your "proofs". Please advise the test procedure used as I would like to repeat the experiment proving Intelligent Design for myeslf.

  20. #20
    excuse me--- hwen does the movie come out? TIA
    ****************************************
    SnowSquaw
    WHO IS Q? #QANON #WWG1WGA .... Let's do this.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northwest IL
    Posts
    5,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Woolly View Post
    In as much as I initiated this thread I feel that I need to steer us back onto the its subject. We clearly have drifted a bit from the subject.

    The thread, and indeed the movie, is about the failure in academe to permit a truly scientific inquiry into the subject of the origin of the species. Today, there are two primary explanations: 1. Darwin's theory and 2. Intelligent Design.

    There is little scientific evidence for the former, and considerable implied evidence for the latter. However, modern academic politics forbid any discussion of Intelligent Design - freedom of inquiry is no longer permitted within academic circles on this subject.

    The absurdity of such a situation in our schools and institutions of higher learning needs to be explored, one would think.

    IMO,

    Woolly
    I agree! Unfortunately, I think that as we explore further we will learn that the vast majority of these institutions of higher learning are filled with professors who are not open to any ideas that don't fit within their small frames of reference. (Warning: Gross Generalization!) Our universities have become a bastion of those who cannot do and those whose egos do not permit any ideas that contradict their own.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northwest IL
    Posts
    5,146
    Quote Originally Posted by SNOWSQUAW View Post
    excuse me--- hwen does the movie come out? TIA
    It came out last Friday!! Check out their website and you can find theaters that are showing the movie:

    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    PhD;

    I would like to see your "proofs". Please advise the test procedure used as I would like to repeat the experiment proving Intelligent Design for myeslf.
    You started this in attacking intelligent design and touting the fact of evolution. I have challenged your statements and you have provided nothing to back up your claims. The only thing you have consistently responded with was platitudes about how science works. I have news for you....I have been a practicing scientist for over 30 years. I KNOW how it works and I am here to tell you that macroevolution is NOT science.

    You stated previously the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    Rush is wrong about Darwinism - Charles Darwin was a natural scientist that observed nature and advanced a theory of natural selection based on survival of the fittest. Darwin to my knowledge never, ever - I mean NEVER purported to explain the origin of life. .
    I proved you completely wrong in this statement. Now it is up to you to provide the proofs of YOUR macroevolutionary dogma and demonstrate you are not just an ignorant humanist that puts his fingers in his ears and says NO NO NO this can't be true because I don't believe this way.

    I eagerly await your response.
    Last edited by PHD; 04-23-2008 at 06:39 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,827
    PhD;

    I have re-read every one of the posts above several times and I see no PROOFS; just claims by you that such and such has been proved. Proved by who, how?

    Evolution has never been "proved" - nor can it be "proved". Evolution is a theory that best fits the real world observations and as a theory it is subject to constant re-evaluation based on new knowledge; new experiments and new information.

    I strongly doubt that Intelligent Design can be PROVED either. You may accept it on Faith Alone, but that certainly is not proof.


    What kind of scientist are you?

    You make claims and call them proofs which at best is unscientific.

    You ask for "proof" of a theory which every scientist should know that theories are not dogma, that theories are only the best available expanation of observations subject to revision over time.


    So I ask again - what test can we all run independently that will show sufficient precison beyond debate that proves either ID or evolution.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    3,827
    Further thoughts:

    Intelligent Design as I understand it claims that the world we see was designed by supernatural intelligence.

    Maybe so. Maybe not.

    But I question whether that is a proper topic for compulsory tax supported general education Science Classes which focus on Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.

    If we are to include Intelligent Design in our public school educational curriculums I suppose we must include all possible explanations, narritives, stories and religions from Islam to the Sumerian, Norse, Gaelic etc etc etc Pantheon and every other unscientific cultural expression of pre-scientific societies. As this is clearly unworkable - I think Intelligent Design is best taught in the religious curriculums at churches or private schools who are very much entiltled to free expression of unscientific ideas just not in a general secular educational system.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    PhD;

    I have re-read every one of the posts above several times and I see no PROOFS; just claims by you that such and such has been proved. Proved by who, how?.
    Where have I said this? You will need to be more specific than that. I stated that Gavin DeBeer proved (literally falsified) that there was no foundation for common descent via homology because that is exactly what he did!


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    Evolution has never been "proved" - nor can it be "proved". Evolution is a theory that best fits the real world observations and as a theory it is subject to constant re-evaluation based on new knowledge; new experiments and new information.
    It is your unscientific minions who are talking about proof not me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    I strongly doubt that Intelligent Design can be PROVED either. You may accept it on Faith Alone, but that certainly is not proof.
    I have never said it has. Again a diversion of the issue. The issue is that YOUR minions are saying that Macroevolution HAS been proven and is a fact. Sorry... Your argument is not with me here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    What kind of scientist are you?
    Obviously a better one than you if the above is the best response you can muster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    You make claims and call them proofs which at best is unscientific.
    I have done nothing of the sort. The only statement I made was about Gavin DeBeer. I was assuming you would know about his data. However, if you are like most humanists (e.g. ignorant of the evidence and just accept macroevolution on blind faith), I will go into more detail demonstrating how he falsified homology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    You ask for "proof" of a theory which every scientist should know that theories are not dogma, that theories are only the best available expanation of observations subject to revision over time.
    I did not ask for "proof of a theory." I asked for "proofs of macroevolutionary dogma" and in this context I was asking for evidence supported by scientific means. Any veteran of scientific rigor would understand this.

    Now since my previous statements appear to be over your head, lets ask them again in a more simplistic manner.

    Show me your evidence supported by scientific means for the reasons why you believe macroevolutionary dogma.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill P View Post
    Further thoughts:

    Intelligent Design as I understand it claims that the world we see was designed by supernatural intelligence.

    Maybe so. Maybe not.

    But I question whether that is a proper topic for compulsory tax supported general education Science Classes which focus on Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.

    If we are to include Intelligent Design in our public school educational curriculums I suppose we must include all possible explanations, narritives, stories and religions from Islam to the Sumerian, Norse, Gaelic etc etc etc Pantheon and every other unscientific cultural expression of pre-scientific societies. As this is clearly unworkable - I think Intelligent Design is best taught in the religious curriculums at churches or private schools who are very much entiltled to free expression of unscientific ideas just not in a general secular educational system.
    Another dodge!

    To flippantly distill this issue down to something as simplistic as teaching ID in a high school science class is demonstrating a complete ignorance of the facts. It is much much much bigger than that. There is a blatant concerted effort by the pro macroevolution community to completely destroy the careers and thus eradicate any scientist who challenges macroevolutionary dogma.

    Evolutionists out of one side of their mouth, will say that intelligent desgin has never been published in their peer reviewed journals and out of the other side, demand the firing of anyone who accepts an article for publication.

    They say that no respecting scientist disagrees with macroevolution and conversely will attempt to fire any scientist who advocates intelligent design.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    13,420
    Preemptive warning!

    Okay folks, let's tread lightly - this could degenerate into an ad-hominem fest in a hurry. Keep the arguments on the subject and beware of getting personal!

    End preemptive warning!



    All the above having been said, it's interesting that Darwin himself reportedly did not believe in macroevolution. He also is thought to have proposed that he was essentially proposing the concept as a what-if exercise and that it'd remain the arena of the scientific community to ratify or debunk it.

    Science has subsequently failed to ratify it, and scientists that accidentally debunk it are, as Expelled points out, targeted aggressively for deviating from the "party line."

    Useful links for research on what Darwin actually had to say at the time:
    The Origin Of the Species
    The Origin Of the Species (6th ed.)
    The Descent of Man

    oO
    IMPORTANT NOTE: Any religion-related posts I make are as a member and not as a forum staffer, and are not intended to promote any specific agenda or doctrinal understanding as official or unofficial board policy. Official staff actions on my part will always be clearly marked as such.

    Deja moo - the feeling you've seen this bull before...

    "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  29. #29
    Finally saw the movie last night.....Below is my critique as a summary


    1. This is a documentary. It is still pretty entertaining but remember what it is. E.G. don't come expecting an action thriller.

    2. They talk most of their time on the origin of life and not much on the unscientific conclusions associated with macro-evolution. They do a pretty good job with the discussion but I would have liked them to go deeper into this house of cards.

    3. They do an excellent job with the interviews. Dawkins, Flew, Myers and Provine make living fools of themselves. Although, after laughing you will begin to feel a little sick because these folks are at the forefront of this debate and are considered the intelligentsia of the Evolution / Humanism movement.

    4. You will also feel sad for the people interview for this documentary who have sacrificed their scientific careers for daring to challenge the unchallengable and question the unquestionable.

    It is a must see if you have an interest in the debate

  30. #30

    See Phyllis Schafly's commentary on this movie

    See Phyllis Schafly's commentary on this movie

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63094

  31. #31

    'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

    'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

    By Alexander J. Sheffrin

    Christian Post Reporter

    Opponents and those who challenge some or all of the tenets of Darwinism have been encouraged recently as the “Academic Freedom” legislation advanced for review in four states.

    If passed, the bills would guarantee the freedom of both teachers and students throughout public schools to share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom without fears of reprisal.

    Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan said that the efforts to pass the bills were a response to the concerns of teachers and students who reportedly felt marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized if they shared personal views that ran counter to Darwinism.

    Darrell White, co-director of the Louisiana Family Forum summed up the intentions of the recent legislation drives as an opportunity that would "free up teachers and students [to] fully explore various scientific weaknesses of Darwinism as well as other areas of science.”

    “In educational institutions that receive taxpayer support, it is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to discuss freely the evidence and scientific arguments for and against evolutionary theory,” explained biologist Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design think-tank, according to LifeSiteNews.com

    The Academic Freedom legislation, however, has been faced with some opposition.

    Efforts in Florida to pass a bill that would have given students the opportunity to “think critically” and “constantly raise questions” regarding evolution fell flat last week when opponents criticized the bill as an attempt to infuse religion in schools.

    But supporters argue that such legislation efforts are about freedom and civil discussion.

    “Charles Darwin himself said that fair results could only be obtained by fully balancing and stating the facts and arguments on both sides of each question,” noted Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, in a statement.

    “What these bills seek to do is to restore Charles Darwin’s approach to teaching evolution — to teach it in a balanced, objective fashion,” he added.

    Luskin credited Ben Stein's new film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” with contributing to the proliferation of Academic Freedom legislation. The film, which released nationwide last month, features researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080510/32317_'Academic_Freedom'_Legislation_Advances_in_F our_States.htm

  32. #32
    This is a most encouraging development. For too long the anti-God crowd have had a monopoly of viewpoint in our classrooms. That should end.

    Level the playing field by considering all points of view.

    IMO,

    Woolly

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North of Cincinnati
    Posts
    7,809
    BillP, I challenge you to watch the movie. You will learn if you are willing to. I saw it, and I qualified for Mensa years ago--I did NOT leave my brain at the door.
    Somewhere in the clouds, Your peak is shining, Have courage and go
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc_cqbxF0cg

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.