Ben Stein Expelled

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Age doesn't make something immune to being incorrect, outdated, irrelevant, or immoral, or a target for criticism. Sorry. If that was the case, we would still be primatives not having this conversation. Bad argument.

No but your argument is Christianity fails because the bible reads poorly which is just fucking stupid.
Whatever I've posted in this thread too many times since the inception of the internet, i'll pass on this one.

[Grumath]

Sorry perro, that one was just waaaay too easy to pass up...

[Grumath]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

No but your argument is Christianity fails because the bible reads poorly which is just fucking stupid.

Poorly? You mean incorrectly? Big difference.

If I wanted to read into biology and diseases and I picked up a book that didn't talk about germs or microbes but talked instead about how people getting sick is something that happens when they are bad or immoral, I would put it down and call it an incorrect pile of shit. It could go on to make a few good statements here and there, but its wrong from the onset.

Now lets examine creation. I pick up a book that said it was done in 7 days and other obvious fallacies. Why do I take a different course of action and try and make allegories and interpretations of it? Its incorrect, put it down. Write a newer updated book. Has nothing to do with "reading poorly"

[PerritoBites]

Its funny how they call nuts the people who believe the bible word for word, but then believe they are right when they pick and choose what to believe from the same book.

And yes, this thread got derailed... but I'm pretty sure everyone was expecting that hehe. I was going to comment on the "DOCUMENTARY" but everything was already said.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

It's the same in some but not all cases. Your example is in fact a good one, a creationist would say something stupid like bones test our faith. An ID propenent could accept that dinosaurs did exist many years ago and even that the roots of humanity could be traced back to chimpanzees. They just believe that the path was structured by a hidden being. I don't think it's fair to outright attack that belief as long as it's recognized as a belief and not a science.

The problem is of course all the former creationists who latched onto ID in order to finally put an end to that evolution nonsense. I don't understand why intelligent members of either camp consider the two mutually exclusive.

Gotcha. That's an important distinction to make that I don't think the ID proponents are doing a very good job of making, then. They seem all too happy to lump themselves in with the "evolution is the devil's work!" camp of crazed fundie creationists, or to accept those fundies into their fold.

If ID advocates would give up on the "ID is science" push, and also stop trying to attack the fundaments of evolution, people would take them more seriously. As I've said before, I don't want to impose anything on their religious beliefs; they're free to think whatever they want to think, no matter how stupid I may find it. At the same time, when they start claiming that what they're doing should be taught in science classrooms, and when they start attacking evolution to advance their political causes, then I take issue with them.

If they were to just come out and say "Look, evolution seems pretty solid, but I personally believe that God created everything and also created evolution and other natural laws," then fine. More power to them. But for some reason, they're insisting on attacking sound scientific principles in their crusade for acceptance.

[Grumath]

Yeah sorry for the derail contributions. Ben Stein's stance is half noble in my eyes. Criticism is necessary for advancement, and that is *sort of* what he is trying to do. But CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, especially of a well entrenched idea or theory, involves bringing forth new or better ideas with solid evidence. If all you do is attack a position without positing something in its place (something that makes sense mind you), you aren't doing anything productive.

The Founding Fathers were mostly deists. That means they believed in a creator. Would they if they had lived today? I strongly say NO to that question. They believed in creation because it was the only plausible theory at the time. Assailing that theory without a competing theory with some evidence to back it would have been useless. So they accepted the best theory they had at the time. They did not have the tools, knowledge, or technology to put forth a theory to compete with creation theory at the time, so they accepted it. So I think Stein is jumping the gun. Evolution is pretty solidly rooted at this point. But nothing should be immune to reevalution or criticism. You need something more than "a magical cloud man did it".

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

But you can always be an anti-religious nut, which this thread is so obviously filled with.

Seriously, if it's such obvious, factless, irrational, baseless bullshit why does ~50% of the planet believe it? Let me guess, they are all 'brainwashed masses' among you 'enlightened'?

Excuse me while I die from laughter.

What you're using right now is another logical fallacy religious folks love to employ. It's called the "appeal to popularity" (Appeal to popularity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and the basic premise is "If ___ many people think this is true, there must be some truth to it!"

In fact, that's a totally bogus line of reasoning. Just because one person believes something doesn't mean it's true. Just because 3 billion people believe something doesn't mean it's true. As someone pointed out earlier, the majority of the human population at one time believed that the Earth was flat. Were they correct, just because they were in the majority at the time? Of course not. Popularity of an idea does not necessarily = truth of the idea. All it means is that the idea is popular, or appealing. It doesn't mean the idea has any basis in reality or reason.

Of course, I have no doubt someone will then turn this around and claim "LOL the majority of scientists believe evolution; that doesn't mean it's true!!!1" The counter to such a silly argument is that no one is claiming evolution is true based on its popularity. People are claiming evolution is true based on observation, proven hypotheses, and repeatable predictions made by evolutionary theory. In other words, we have evidence to support evolution. No evidence whatsoever exists for creationism.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Age doesn't make something immune to being incorrect, outdated, irrelevant, or immoral, or a target for criticism. Sorry. If that was the case, we would still be primatives not having this conversation. Bad argument.

Greek and Roman mythology fits your statement as well. Yet we know and accept it as mostly wrong and read it as fiction and not something to base our lives around. It is entertainment at best. Which is what the Bible should be since it is incorrect, outdated, irrelevant, and immoral for the most part.

Why the fuck are you, Perrito and the rest of the devout atheists so unhappy in your chosen faith that you feel the need to evangalize and convert the rest of the word?

You're no fucking different then the islamo-fascists.

Must suck to be you.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Zehn - Vhex

Asshole schmucks like me who feel they're somehow enlightened and above the topic so they post about how ridiculous it really is.

If you don't want to add anything to the discussion, then get out. Seriously. Thank you for adding absolutely nothing of any substance to this thread.

I have infinitely more respect for the creationists and ID advocates on this thread than I do for anyone who chooses to troll the thread. At least they're arguing a point of view and trying to do so reasonably. If you don't want to participate, then either keep your mouth shut or go somewhere else.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by tad10

Why the fuck are you, Perrito and the rest of the devout atheists so unhappy in your chosen faith that you feel the need to evangalize and convert the rest of the word?

You're no fucking different then the islamo-fascists.

Must suck to be you.

Please be civil on this board. If you can't maintain a basic level of civility without resorting to personal attacks and flames, then I will bar your access from the thread.

Thanks.

[Grumath]

Originally Posted by tad10

Why the fuck are you, Perrito and the rest of the devout atheists so unhappy in your chosen faith that you feel the need to evangalize and convert the rest of the word?

You're no fucking different then the islamo-fascists.

Must suck to be you.

Uh oh... Somebody just cursed, didn't turn the other cheek, and didn't follow the Golden Rule. Your rehashed solar zombie messiah would be ashamed. Get ye to church and have a Christ Cracker... Thou shalt not troll should be added in your holy book for modernity purposes.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Uh oh... Somebody just cursed, didn't turn the other cheek, and didn't follow the Golden Rule. Your rehashed solar zombie messiah would be ashamed. Get ye to church and have a Christ Cracker... Thou shalt not troll should be added in your holy book for modernity purposes.

Please read what I just told Tad above. Play nice or don't play at all.

[Millie]

So here's how this thread's gonna work from here on out. It's going to be discussions of

a) The movie
b) Evolution vs. ID vs. creationism, etc.
c) Reactions to the movie when it comes out

That's it. No personal flames, no trolling, etc. I'm putting my foot down, and we're going to try to steer this thread back on track before it veers into Rickshaw Country.

If you want to continue discussing religion v. science, fine. If you want to have that discussion passionately, great. But please keep the personal attacks off the thread.

Thank you.

[Khorum]

Jesus lives in my navel.

[Grumath]

Here is a 2 hour PBS NOVA Special on the subject of ID vs Evolution

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS