Richard Nixon's speech writer makes a stupid movie...

[Chris_]

There are no other theories.  Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.  It is a belief.  And belongs in the domain of belief.

Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.  It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.

The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any alternatives.

If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.

People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.

*Red*

As soon as you have an alternate theory, science is all ears.  Creationism and ID are not "theories" by any definition.

[rich_t]

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

Let me know when they find proof of the missing link.  You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.

But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.

I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more...  But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.

But thanks for the heads up.

If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy.  We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid.  But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far.  While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.

If there was such a missing link, why haven't we found the actual fossils yet?

Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.

If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.

So were are their fossils?

[RedTail]

There are no other theories.  Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.  It is a belief.  And belongs in the domain of belief.

Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.  It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.

The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any alternatives.

If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.

People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.

*Red*

As soon as you have an alternate theory, science is all ears.  Creationism and ID are not "theories" by any definition.

Did you not hear me? From what I can tell the film is not exclusively about Creationism and ID....

Let. It. Go.

There probably are theories, but with the attitudes I've been seeing, no wonder no one's heard about them!

Good night Gentlemen.

*Red*

[Duke Nukum]

There are no other theories.  Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.  It is a belief.  And belongs in the domain of belief.

Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.  It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.

The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any alternatives.

If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.

People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.

*Red*

As soon as you have an alternate theory, science is all ears.  Creationism and ID are not "theories" by any definition.

Did you not hear me? From what I can tell the film is not exclusively about Creationism and ID....

Let. It. Go.

There probably are theories, but with the attitudes I've been seeing, no wonder no one's heard about them!

Good night Gentlemen.

*Red*

Science has never really accepted new ideas easily.  It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment.  It's a priesthood.  Power has to be guarded.  Power told is power lost.

[Chris_]

Whereas the study of evolution is science.

Let me know when they find proof of the missing link.  You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.

But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.

I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more...  But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.

But thanks for the heads up.

If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy.  We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid.  But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far.  While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.

If there was such a missing link, why haven't we found the actual fossils yet?

Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.

If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.

So were are their fossils?

There is no single "missing link."  That is an idea that has been floated by lay people.  There are transitional fossils for every major "leap" between species of hominids.

Let me ask you -- are you a physicist?  If not, do you think your ideas on string theory are particularly valid?  How about math and the relational model?  Are your views on 2VL vs. 3VL particularly valid?  Gravity and gravitons?  Geology and variable strata?

I ask these because people with zero understanding of TToE somehow think that when they have a question they somehow have a valid argument against it.  You have proven that you have no knowledge of formal science and have no knowledge of TToE, yet you persist in making ignorant statements.

Why do people with no knowledge speak of this and then get upset when they can't understand the answers?

[BEG]

I have a way to settle this.  Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it. 

I never saw F 9/11, nor shall I ever.  But I have been able to gather enough information to determine it is a fabric of lies. 

This is a r/w version of the same.  The trailer was enough to tell me that Stein is using the usual Straw Men to buttress his non-argument.  Unless someone can tell me that it concedes that Creationism (or its retarded cousin, ID) is not trying to elbow its way into the science table as an "alternate theory" then there is no point in seeing it.

I saw F 9/11 when I was flipping through the channels one night on HBO.  I forced myself to watch it.  Go see Expelled and make fun of it after, I'll pay for your ticket.  Come back and "educate" all us stupid folks about how we are just blind little sheeple. 

[Chris_]

Science has never really accepted new ideas easily.  It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment.  It's a priesthood.  Power has to be guarded.  Power told is power lost.

In some fantasy world, maybe.  In the real world, science goes where the data lead it.

Do you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE?  If you post Creationism/ID you need to be able to support it with evidence.  And if CR/ID is OK for Evolutions it MUST also apply to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY EVERYWHERE.  Want to know where planets came from?  *POOF* Intelligent Designer.  Gravity?  **POOF* Intelligent Designer. 

CR/ID even if "true" is inapplicable. It furthers no knowledge. It cannot be applied against a problem. It is unfalsifiable. It meets no criteria for science -- as established over 400+ years.

[Chris_]

I have a way to settle this.  Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it. 

I never saw F 9/11, nor shall I ever.  But I have been able to gather enough information to determine it is a fabric of lies. 

This is a r/w version of the same.  The trailer was enough to tell me that Stein is using the usual Straw Men to buttress his non-argument.  Unless someone can tell me that it concedes that Creationism (or its retarded cousin, ID) is not trying to elbow its way into the science table as an "alternate theory" then there is no point in seeing it.

I saw F 9/11 when I was flipping through the channels one night on HBO.  I forced myself to watch it.  Go see Expelled and make fun of it after, I'll pay for your ticket.  Come back and "educate" all us stupid folks about how we are just blind little sheeple. 

I am educating you -- I have been very clear on what a scientific theory is, why CR/ID doesn't fit, why Evolution is not a "belief."  How hundreds of years and billions of data create a general, understandable structure.

It isn't the movie -- it is its premise.

[rich_t]

I will iterate:

Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.

If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.

So were are their fossils?

There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.

So where are they?

[Chris_]

I will iterate:

Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.

If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.

So were are their fossils?

There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.

So where are they?

There are.  They are called "transitional forms."  There is no such thing as a "missing link."  That is what lay people think.  Just like they think a "theory" will grow up into a "fact."

Here is a primer:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

[ReardenSteel]

No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary

Not surprisingly, there is a climactic showdown between Stein and the leading atheist of the day, Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), that is as unenlightening as everything that has preceded it.

Was the unenlightening"part Ben Stein's questions or the part where Richard Dawkins speculated that aliens may have seeded the Earth with life? Oh, that's right, you didn't see the movie did you NO?

 

Oh, and about the "attempt to link Darwinism and Nazism"... it never happened. (Oh, that's right, you didn't see the movie did you NO?) Stein was very careful to link Nazis with Darwinism. Not the other way around. (a point I explained a bit in my lounge thread)

Just saw 'Expelled' ask me anything
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=5995.0

The tie to the movies of Michael Moore are unfair. Moore lied with the intent of leaving the viewer less informed. (or ill-informed if you like) The Stein movie, if it lied, did so with the intent that ID (not creationism) deserves a place at the table IF it can be proved WITH SCIENCE.

fwiw- I left the movie with the desire to learn more about the facts. Which, BTW, I suspect will lead me down the path toward evolution and Darwinism. (where I started to begin with) The first half of the movie is very funny and the second half is very provacative. What I never want to see... is science ruled by politics which the movie makes a fantastic case AGAINST.

Science ruled by politics leads down the road to Nazi style euginics and todays anti-capitalist equivalent of man made global warming. Science unfettered on the other hand, leads to space shuttles and open heart sugery. Which do you prefer?

[Duke Nukum]

Science has never really accepted new ideas easily.  It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment.  It's a priesthood.  Power has to be guarded.  Power told is power lost.

In some fantasy world, maybe.  In the real world, science goes where the data lead it.

Do you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE?  If you post Creationism/ID you need to be able to support it with evidence.  And if CR/ID is OK for Evolutions it MUST also apply to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY EVERYWHERE.  Want to know where planets came from?  *POOF* Intelligent Designer.  Gravity?  **POOF* Intelligent Designer. 

CR/ID even if "true" is inapplicable. It furthers no knowledge. It cannot be applied against a problem. It is unfalsifiable. It meets no criteria for science -- as established over 400+ years.

Every major new scientific breakthrough starts out as heresy. "Big Bang" was a way of making fun of an idea the scientific establishment at the time wasn't ready to accept.  Plate Tectonics when first proposed was a laughing stock.  The 11th dimension and 10th dimension people used to make fun of each other.   

It's always been emotion first and data second.  Or third.  Or somewhere in the top ten.  I think the fantasy world is thinking "science" is some orderly progression.  It is mostly serendipity.  Or a good deal of it. 

The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence.  Science, on the other hand, is kind of chaotic.  It sees and documents the order in the Universe and believes it came up with that intelligence.  Or that it is that intelligence.  Kind of a Münchhausen. 

Matter is a simple epiphenomena of consciousness.  Science is a simple epiphenomena of federal funding.  Science goes where the funding flows.

[The Night Owl]

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...
...about intelligent design and evolution

By John Rennie and Steve Mirsky

In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Scientific American's Take.

...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Devastating.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

QUERY:

How did the first cells form from completely naturalistic processes?

How did those cells evolve into multicellular organisms?

How did the cells within the first multi-cellular organism develop specialized tasks?

[asdf2231]

I will iterate:

Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.

If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.

So were are their fossils?

There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.

So where are they?

There's about 120,000 of them posting away madly at DU...

[Chris_]

QUERY:

How did the first cells form from completely naturalistic processes?

How did those cells evolve into multicellular organisms?

How did the cells within the first multi-cellular organism develop specialized tasks?

How did the Universe start?

Where are my car keys?

Abiogensis is irrelevant to TToE.

[Chris_]

Science has never really accepted new ideas easily.  It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment.  It's a priesthood.  Power has to be guarded.  Power told is power lost.

In some fantasy world, maybe.  In the real world, science goes where the data lead it.

Do you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE?  If you post Creationism/ID you need to be able to support it with evidence.  And if CR/ID is OK for Evolutions it MUST also apply to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY EVERYWHERE.  Want to know where planets came from?  *POOF* Intelligent Designer.  Gravity?  **POOF* Intelligent Designer. 

CR/ID even if "true" is inapplicable. It furthers no knowledge. It cannot be applied against a problem. It is unfalsifiable. It meets no criteria for science -- as established over 400+ years.

Every major new scientific breakthrough starts out as heresy. "Big Bang" was a way of making fun of an idea the scientific establishment at the time wasn't ready to accept.  Plate Tectonics when first proposed was a laughing stock.  The 11th dimension and 10th dimension people used to make fun of each other.   

It's always been emotion first and data second.  Or third.  Or somewhere in the top ten.  I think the fantasy world is thinking "science" is some orderly progression.  It is mostly serendipity.  Or a good deal of it. 

The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence.  Science, on the other hand, is kind of chaotic.  It sees and documents the order in the Universe and believes it came up with that intelligence.  Or that it is that intelligence.  Kind of a Münchhausen. 

Matter is a simple epiphenomena of consciousness.  Science is a simple epiphenomena of federal funding.  Science goes where the funding flows.

Hundreds of years ago,. maybe.  And that changes nothing.  As I said, an Intelligent designer makes science useless and moot.  It will never be incorporated into any true science.

[The Night Owl]

The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence. 

Order in the Universe does not prove that the Universe was designed because order comes from chaos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers

And, even the unlikely is likely in a chaotic universe...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30strogatz.html?ex=1364616000&en=96af12bdef4456f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[PatriotGame]

HA!
TNO defending the "factual" and "cultural" aspects of Michale Moore and Spurlock.

One thing for certain - no one has ever accused TNO or his leftist lemmings of having any intelligence.

Intellectual lightweights are that way...

[PatriotGame]

The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence. 

Order in the Universe does not prove that the Universe was designed because order comes from chaos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers

And, even the unlikely is likely in a chaotic universe...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30strogatz.html?ex=1364616000&en=96af12bdef4456f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

It's true! It's true because Wiki and the NYT says so.
Both are just OPINIONS based on ZERO scientific facts.
Next?

[The Night Owl]

HA!
TNO defending the "factual" and "cultural" aspects of Michale Moore and Spurlock.

One thing for certain - no one has ever accused TNO or his leftist lemmings of having any intelligence.

Intellectual lightweights are that way...

What sort of process goes in your mind that causes you to interpret my statement that I'm not a fan of Michael Moore to be a defense of Michael Moore?

[The Night Owl]

It's true! It's true because Wiki and the NYT says so.

If the Wiki entry on the Theorem of Friends and Strangers is incorrect, then feel free to point out how it is incorrect. And, if the baseball simulation written about in the NY Times piece is incorrect, then feel free to point out why it is incorrect.

Both are just OPINIONS based on ZERO scientific facts. Next?

How do you know?

[delilahmused]

QUERY:

How did the first cells form from completely naturalistic processes?

How did those cells evolve into multicellular organisms?

How did the cells within the first multi-cellular organism develop specialized tasks?

How did the Universe start?

Where are my car keys?

Abiogensis is irrelevant to TToE.

See this is the thing that bothers me most. It's as if you're choosing what to include in your "science". If it doesn't fit or can't be answered by your theory you simply ignore it. It IS important because SOMETHING had to start the whole evolutionary ball rolling. If I'm to believe there was nothing and then there was SOMETHING...that something just randomly made the entire universe, including planet earth, plopped some single cell "something" into a conveniently located ocean, which divided and eventual hopped out of the ocean started breathing air so that we could all sit here and be lectured and condescended to by people who seem to believe they're more evolved than the rest of us then by God how we got here matters. What begain this process IS important and would seem to be a key to understanding the whole thing be it ID or evolution. Heck, it might even help evolutionists explain HOW one species could become a completely new species.

But evolution has it's problems, too. The lack of fossil record (and if the whole thing is so random why don't we have humans-to-be with noses on their foreheads or something) is extremely suspect to me. So is the inability of evolutionists to explain the Cambrian Era. All the "major" evidence from Piltdown man to those horse embryos (peer reviewed, by the way) have turned out to be fakes. You are having discussion with people who you otherwise consider intelligent, thoughtful human beings and you're being arrogant and angry, filled with the same kind of stubborn messianic zeal you seem to be accusing ID proponents of having, even toward people who are asking legitimate questions in a quest for greater understanding (maybe you need to evolve a little more, huh?) I don't have your high-minded scientific knowledge, but I DO have common sense which allows me to discern whether something is plausible or not.

Cindie

[The Night Owl]

But evolution has it's problems, too. The lack of fossil record (and if the whole thing is so random why don't we have humans-to-be with noses on their foreheads or something) is extremely suspect to me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html

So is the inability of evolutionists to explain the Cambrian Era.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html

All the "major" evidence from Piltdown man to those horse embryos (peer reviewed, by the way) have turned out to be fakes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html

[The Night Owl]

See this is the thing that bothers me most. It's as if you're choosing what to include in your "science". If it doesn't fit or can't be answered by your theory you simply ignore it. It IS important because SOMETHING had to start the whole evolutionary ball rolling. If I'm to believe there was nothing and then there was SOMETHING...that something just randomly made the entire universe, including planet earth, plopped some single cell "something" into a conveniently located ocean, which divided and eventual hopped out of the ocean started breathing air so that we could all sit here and be lectured and condescended to by people who seem to believe they're more evolved than the rest of us then by God how we got here matters. What begain this process IS important and would seem to be a key to understanding the whole thing be it ID or evolution. Heck, it might even help evolutionists explain HOW one species could become a completely new species.

The fact that the science of the past could not explain weather or disease did not make religious explanations of those things any more plausible than they were. Similarly, the fact that the science of today cannot explain how life started does not make religious explanations of how life started any more plausible than they are.