Ben Stein Expelled - Page 16

Zerai · 11-17-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

If you say the universe just "always existed" and leave it at that, then you violate plenty of scientific laws. Science asserts that the universe is governed by a certain set of laws, and assuming matter has always been there for an infinite time violates the law that causal systems have an origin. You hit the brick wall I mentioned earlier, where all of our scientific laws fail. Just the concept of infinite time is mind-boggling, and doesn't make any sense. I find it far less logical to accept that matter has simply been floating forever without any point of origin than that there was a point of origin, the beginning of the universe.

You don't violate scientific laws. However there is no proof it's existed forever so it's still being worked on. While yes, it might be easier to believe it had a starting point..what was before that? You can never get rid of the infinite time paradox, you're just choosing to limit yourself because you can't understand it.

Quote:

I never said that "because more people believed in it, it's more true. I also never said there is proof for anything. I said there is overwhelmingly more historical evidence for the Christian God, and if we operate under the assumption that there is some unknown God out there, then it is statistically most likely to be the Christian God based purely on historical evidence.

If I told you that you had to either pick a space beetle or the Christian God as being the true Creator, and if you chose wrong you would be tortured and then slowly killed, while if you chose correctly you would be given a billion dollars... which would you pick? Do you really think they are equally likely?

I fail to see how the offer or the punishment changes how I'd pick. And yes, I do believe they are just as likely.

Quote:

Whole alien thing

So let me get this straight. Accounts from a book which has been edited, modified, rewritten, you name it, over the course of human history for the past 2 thousand years...all seem to conveniently agree with itself in certain things while being completely contradicting in others, show overwhelming historical evidence? I think I'd rather pick something completely different and I think I'd be more correct.

Come on now. The people 2 thousand years ago were so completely ignorant compared to ourselves in these times, that how can you want to believe completely anything they wrote? Diseases were curses and magic. They killed people for being witches. Everything about them was primitive. Yet, God showed himself to them, and not anyone else? Seriously. How can you believe this stuff? Doesn't any little alarm bells in your head go off? When some bum on the side of the street goes up to you and says Jesus was here, do you believe them?

The only reason religion hasn't died off where other ignorant beliefs have (such as the world being flat) is because you can't prove it. Except with Common Sense. "Nuh uh, prove there isn't a giant invisible guy upstairs controlling everything who is omniscient and omnipotent and belief in him is governed by faith, so true believers are rewarded, but no proof will ever be shown or it ruins that whole facade". Really. It boggles my mind that so many people put stock in this. With the world being flat, we just had to analyze the world around us. Eventually enough observation can prove it isn't flat. But God you can't disprove..but on the same hand you can't prove he exists either. And thats why it's still around. You can't just put your foot down and say no, it doesn't exist, here is why. The inverse is also true. But come on, analyze christianity with some logic.

Pinchandroll · 11-17-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

This is a retarded analogy, and will you quit abusing the word "Evidence". It's people like you who warp the definitions like "theory", and make it impossible to have a decent debate.

How is it a retarded analogy? I wrote it up off the top of my head so obviously it's not great, but how am I abusing the word 'evidence?' What I am describing is, by definition, anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be tested for reliability by corroborating witnesses and documents (wikipedia says it better than I can). So, when you have multiple corroborating accounts of anecdotal evidence, it carries some merit, yes? Let's expand the analogy and say there are a million witnesses all saying the same thing. Either it's the biggest coincidence ever or they're telling the truth. So I most definitely am using the word evidence correctly, and the example I gave is not a "retarded analogy."

Quote:

First of all calling the bible (which I assume you're referring to) "reliable eyewitness accounts" is absolutely rediculous. We have no idea who wrote what, when and the whole thing has been, copied, translated and edited over TWO THOUSAND YEARS. People can't even agree what happened on 9/11 or who shot Kennedy, yet somehow the bible is a reliable historical document?

How about this: The New Testament has approximately 5600 different copies, yet remains 99.5% textually accurate. Sources: Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, A Ready Defense by Josh Mcdowell, and Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bible by Richard Fales. So, you can't really argue that copies and editing have had any effect on the content. As for historical accuracy... it's not even much of an argument any more that the Bible as a purely historical document is quite accurate. There are a ton of books out there on the subject... here are a few in case you don't believe me: Archaeology and Bible History by Joseph Free, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by Fred Bruce, etc. etc. There's so many out there; the authors of the books of the Bible are definitely reliable.

Quote:

But let me humor your analogy. Even if we did have 10 of those perfect agreement eyewitnesses, all we would be left with is 10 people who saw "something, they interpreted as an alien". With no physical evidence, no footprints, no video, no DNA evidence we would have jack. It could have been a guy dressed as an alien for all we know. It doesn't qualify as "evidence" for anything but the fact 10 people saw something.

See my response to your first quote. Corroborated eyewitness accounts = pretty good evidence (good enough for the court of law, at least...)

Quote:

Your prophecy argument is even more stupid. Please enlighten us all what exactly the bible (or any other religious text) has correctly prophesized. And no vague Nostradamus crap please.

I have to head out tonight but I'll respond with some sources about this point later.

I know there are some more posts directed at me so I can look over those when I get back tomorrow since I'm enjoying this discussion.

EDIT:

Quote:

Even within the framework of the Christian Bible, the "eyewitness" accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contain numerous inconsistencies and occasional outright contradictions.

Like what, specifically?

Millie · 11-17-2007, 06:25 PM

The Bible as "eyewitness testimony?" How is that any more reliable than some ancient Greek person's "eyewitness testimony" that Poseidon sank his ship at sea, or that Apollo gave his crops a good year?

Nevermind the fact that eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable as "evidence" of anything. In fact, in most court cases it's inadmissable as evidence, precisely because it's been statistically demonstrated to be unreliable more often than not.

Even within the framework of the Christian Bible, the "eyewitness" accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contain numerous inconsistencies and occasional outright contradictions.

Others have touched on the issue of the Bible's questionable authorship, so I needn't belabor that point. But the bottom line is that the Bible is anything but "evidence" of its claims. It's no more accurate "evidence" than a book of fairytales, or a collection of Greek myths, etc. The only difference is that it's more widely accepted in today's population. But I guarantee you some Romans were having this exact same conversation back when their population was starting to reject the concepts of Jupiter, Juno, Venus, et al.

Cane · 11-17-2007, 06:35 PM

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah

This is all from evilbible.com, which I found by googling "Gospel Contradictions."

EDIT: I pasted a couple, there were many more.

Hardcore Cracka · 11-17-2007, 06:51 PM

This thread is so full of shitty presuppositions it makes my eyes bleed.

Schatze · 11-17-2007, 07:39 PM

I don't know how these people who have such a huge disbelief or distrust of science ever get into cars, use microwaves, talk on cell phones, take medicines, browse the internet, etc.

There definitely seems to be some cognitive dissonance as science is all fine and dandy and trustworthy until it impinges on some nebulous belief system dating back thousands of years. At that point, instead of the multiple times you're trusting your life to science each and every day, it's time to start attacking science.

At some point, I'd like to find a perfectly rational theist who has this sort of complex, and sit them down and try to get an honest answer of the cognitive gymnastics it takes to get in a plane yet not believe in evolution. Of course, I'm pretty sure of the mechanisms involved, but I want to know how it's actually reconciled in the individual.

Kaosu · 11-17-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schatze

I don't know how these people who have such a huge disbelief or distrust of science ever get into cars, use microwaves, talk on cell phones, take medicines, browse the internet, etc.

There definitely seems to be some cognitive dissonance as science is all fine and dandy and trustworthy until it impinges on some nebulous belief system dating back thousands of years. At that point, instead of the multiple times you're trusting your life to science each and every day, it's time to start attacking science.

At some point, I'd like to find a perfectly rational theist who has this sort of complex, and sit them down and try to get an honest answer of the cognitive gymnastics it takes to get in a plane yet not believe in evolution. Of course, I'm pretty sure of the mechanisms involved, but I want to know how it's actually reconciled in the individual.

I'm going to eloquent post (re) something that easily explains:

Family Guy - The Big Bang - The most popular videos are here

SalaciousTunare · 11-17-2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerai

You don't violate scientific laws. However there is no proof it's existed forever so it's still being worked on.

Wrong... the universe had a beginning. One method of proving was through the Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

The trouble arises with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We can conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning, the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state).

Schatze · 11-17-2007, 08:07 PM

That just outlines the ridiculousness of their beliefs. I'm talking about sitting one down and having an honest theist explain their aversive reaction as best they can to any idea that impinges upon their inculcated belief system, and how they go about rationalizing it as compared to, say, trusting every single other facet of their life. That goes for the "evolution makes no sense!" etc. etc. crowd.

I'm guessing it's not wholly different than any other aversive reaction to a thought or idea, nor the cognitive mechanisms that allow the conflict, but I think it would be interesting to understand and have related to me honestly.

Gecko · 11-17-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schatze

That just outlines the ridiculousness of their beliefs. I'm talking about sitting one down and having an honest theist explain their aversive reaction as best they can to any idea that impinges upon their inculcated belief system, and how they go about rationalizing it as compared to, say, trusting every single other facet of their life. That goes for the "evolution makes no sense!" etc. etc. crowd.

I'm guessing it's not wholly different than any other aversive reaction to a thought or idea, nor the cognitive mechanisms that allow the conflict, but I think it would be interesting to understand and have related to me honestly.

As an honest theist with a Masters Degree in science I'd be glad to sit down and discuss my 'beliefs' with you.

Of course, your presuppositions, ad hoc opening, and complete simplistic overview of the immensely complex universe in relation to your simplistic comprehended logic and listening to what others tell you will probably limit our discussions.

Evolution makes perfect sense. It is a great and valid theory. The problem is when those on the Christian side get offended by materialistic scientific methodology which is the only valid and good way to do science, and this spills to the scientists and kiddies who hate religion because they have agendas due to the vacuum they live their lives in, as well as an overt desire to have others be like they are. The Richard Dawkins form of evangelizing evolution as a religion is why there is such a problem, as well as his disciples who do not 'get' science but cheer because they hate religion, solely.

Amazingly enough, many of the more intelligent people in history, including today believe in God. Think about that before you try to deduce with your simple ignorant mind that you have the meaning of life understood, while ignoring your betters.

Kaosu · 11-17-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gecko

As an honest theist with a Masters Degree in science I'd be glad to sit down and discuss my 'beliefs' with you.

Of course, your presuppositions, ad hoc opening, and complete simplistic overview of the immensely complex universe in relation to your simplistic comprehended logic and listening to what others tell you will probably limit our discussions.
.

Complete(ly) .... Simplistic comprehension(?) of logic?
I jest. I'm just nitpicking.

However ..

Master of Science in ...what? Education? Health? Computer? Nursing? Throwing around a degree, as generic as "Master of Science" isn't going to give you respect or anymore e-street-creds on FoH mile.

Or even establish you as a particularly smart or intelligent person.

Not that I disagree with you with most of what you said, because I do agree.

Which God though? Its been said, all of the God(s) from different branches of Abrahamic religions are still the same God. However, even people with faith may still hold disdain that even slightly differs from theirs with that thought. With that, many people that may believe in the abrahamic god, are labeled into what people may think as Pagan or "personal gods."

Religious circles can be pretty confusing at times; I mean we have our very own religious loon right here in FoH, posting around in the shaw.

Schatze · 11-17-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Evolution makes perfect sense. It is a great and valid theory. The problem is when those on the Christian side get offended by materialistic scientific methodology which is the only valid and good way to do science, and this spills to the scientists and kiddies who hate religion because they have agendas due to the vacuum they live their lives in, as well as an overt desire to have others be like they are. The Richard Dawkins form of evangelizing evolution as a religion is why there is such a problem, as well as his disciples who do not 'get' science but cheer because they hate religion, solely.

Yes, I don't get science at all. I've been pulling off a clever ruse in academia for years. By the way, masters in science, what field?

I do love your fence sitting, though, it's remarkable. In one paragraph you've stated that you recognize that evolution is a solid theory (I'd say one of the most solid theories to arise in science to date), that it IS a problem that people who have been inculcated as Christians (or any other religion) have a knee jerk aversive reaction to a scientific theory. You then go on to draw some sort of false equivalence between creationists and those who are not creationists, and then throw in the typical "evangelizing evolution" and "hate" religion lines I've seen posted hundreds of times in these sorts of discussions.

So, let me get this straight. Evolutionary theory, or any of its revised variations, Darwin's theories --> neo-Darwinian synthesis, are factual systematic descriptions of the real world. And those who erroneously reject evolutionary theory based on religious grounds are wrong.

Yet it's not alright to call these individuals on this issue. Why? Why do they deserve special protection from being called out on holding what meets all the psychological criteria of an illusory belief or even a delusion? If you do call these ID'rs or creationists on what, quite frankly, is in my opinion a delusion by all clinical criteria (I would consider it part of a maladaptive pathology), you're evangelizing and spreading evolutionary religion?

What? You've just conflated religion with a materialist scientific theory? What? How do you evangelize a scientific theory? Of course, you're just trying to draw a false equivalency between two groups, by twisting the meanings of words, with which you have overlapping beliefs, to somehow justify your personal beliefs by placing yourself within two extremes on a non-existent bipolar scale.

I do love the fact you use the exact same apologetics that I see almost every single Christian who is not a creationist use, as a means to both distance yourself from your whack job fringe and at the same time excoriate those who deride the same whack job fringe, and position yourself in the "center" as if that were some sort of bulwark or aegis. The only other people I see who say the exact same things, verbatim, are Americans who were raised in a part of the country where criticizing religion is culturally taboo. If you do not fit either of those categories, I'll be shocked and simply label you a disingenuous placating coward.

Fortunately, I'm from somewhere where creationists are a tiny, oft made fun of, minority. Where religion is a private thing, that, when aired in public, is no longer a private personal matter and is therefore no longer protected from criticism. So I feel no need to adhere to your societal norms, thanks. Also, I'll take the time to point out that my criticisms were directed solely at Christians who were also creationists. I don't really care if anyone has theistic beliefs, I've interacted with nuns, priests, etc., outside of a religious setting (Catholic university) and find at least Catholic priests/nuns to be incredibly intelligent and interesting and compassionate people, every one I've met. But even the nuns/priests don't bring up religion in every day interactions, nor at non-religious public functions, nor do they try to interfere in politics of the university etc. etc. But since they all tend to at least have advanced degrees (nuns master's at the least, priests one or more doctorates), and are at a university, they also have no problem whatsoever with science, even in areas where technically they're supposed to (condoms, birth control *gasp*). Catholics here are pretty good at that; most of our elected officials are also Catholics.

Arakkis · 11-18-2007, 02:36 AM

I am sorry if I get so technical in the following paragraphs that I lose a lot of folks. Schatze has flexed his science epeen and I must flex mine right back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schatze

You sure don't know what the fuck observing means when it comes to science, or anything really. Okay, let's add in black holes, all sub atomic particles, etc. etc. in with dark matter as "being unobserved" because we can only see their indirect effects on other things. Let's also add in vision, touch, taste, etc. Because we can only perceive these indirectly because of the effects the stimulus has on other things. Erythrolabe photolyzation in L cones, for long wavelength 450-750 nM light, the photolyzation itself is nothing more than the absorption of a quanta's worth of energy by retinal changing it from the CIS to trans configuration, which triggers the activation of phosphodiesterase which breaks down cGMP, a second messenger, into GMP, which causes the ligand activated Na+ channels to close which leads to a reduction in gNa+ which leads to hyperpolarization, which leads to, depending on the type of bipolar the photoreceptor is associated with, flat or invaginated (and the associated neurotransmitter glutamate or GABA) to the possible stimulation of the ganglion, but also because of the horizontal cells in the inner plexifrom layer... and on and on. Each of the other sensory modalities are as complex. Why bring this up? Because by your definition of observe, we can't observe anything, not even with our own senses, because the percepts themselves are incredibly indirectly related to the actual physical stimulus. Your definition of "observe" is complete nonsense and is a "special" (as in retarded) definition you're using in this specific case to try to discredit a scientific idea.

If you think invoking a pathway that I am intimately familiar with is going to phase me, you have another thing coming. The neuronal circuitry that allows vision has been elegantly elucidated by multiple experiments including microelectrode stimulation of individual neuronal cells, inactivation of voltage gated ion channels using tetrodotoxin and other neurotoxins, knockout experiments in mice where the genes of different receptors were removed, and all the subsequent observations both upstream and downstream that these stimuli cause that have been DIRECTLY measured using various techniques (e.g. microelectrodes). If, several hundred years from now (this is an arbitrary estimation) evolutionary biologists have assembled a body of evidence from DIRECT observations as profound as the one above, I would call evolution as the origin of all species proven.

But science has not done that. Through a variety of experiments, science has proven that there is an evolutionary force acting through random genetic mutation within the framework of natural selection. This is a fantastic beginning, but atheists have invoked this as proof that all religion is false and that the ignorant unwashed masses that continue to cling to these outdated concepts are worthy of scorn and ridicule. Fuck that. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and attacks on this basic tenet of our country is trying to move this country closer to persecution for religious beliefs. On the other hand, those proponents of right wing evangelical Christianity that will not listen to any alternative to an Earth created in 7 days about 12,000 years ago continue to give hard line atheists something to point to and declare that there are no intelligent religious people. I think the extreme of both sides are equally ignorant, close minded, and despicable.

Quote:

You fail. You don't even understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not random. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

This is so startlingly illogical it amazes me. Evolution CAN ONLY ACT THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS. Unless, of course, you are saying that there is an intelligent changer running around improving animals. Hell, even I can't buy into that and I am pretty open minded.

Quote:

Included in your post is also the implication that evolution is directional, which it is not, and that extinctions, whether singular or mass, somehow work "counter" to evolution, or "slow" it down, which they don't. At all. And furthermore displays a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is. Isn't it funny how the people who don't understand evolution are the ones who invariably have problems with it?

It is called a population bottleneck. While isolation of a breeding population may result in a speciation event (i.e. allopatric speciation), a world wide bottleneck would render a majority of species extinct, thus reducing the variability of all organisms. It has been sometime since I have looked at the mathematics of evolution, but if you reduce the total amount of all alleles on Earth I am pretty sure that reduces the opportunities for genetic drift to act upon them.

Quote:

By the way, as an aside, the 3 billion year figure is wrong. Life appeared almost as soon as the crusts cooled on Earth. It just took at least 3 billion years for life to go from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms.

With an estimated Earth age of 4.55 billion years, that leaves about 1 billion years for every single species ever to have been developed through random chance. This just gives random variability less time to produce the intricate mechanisms that make life possible, thus proving my point further.

Quote:

Instead, you think something more "plausible" is that there is an even MORE complicated thing out there that had to have come into existence somehow which was able to "intelligently design" everything, not to mention create all the fake evidence of evolution, and throw in a bunch of shit like appendixes, 20 degrees nasal eccentric blind spots, our singular passage for both ingestion and inhalation, cancer, etc. etc.

I have NEVER said I don't believe in evolution nor have I claimed that there is false evidence of evolution. You are assigning to me traits you assume must be present in anyone so ignorant as to believe in the possibility of God. You need to take a long hard look at your preconceived prejudices coupled with your amazingly closed mind. It is sad that intelligent people can be so ignorant.

Quote:

You essentially posit an even more complex and improbable solution to what you deem a complex and improbable solution (because the designer himself would have to be at least as complicated as the most complex things he designed, multiplied by the entire fossil record). So, to solve the problem of how mindboggling complex living organisms are, you posit an even MORE mindbogglingly complex and ineffable mechanism for their creation. Go you!

Why can't you believe that there is something more intelligent and complex than human beings? If we are the best that this universe can do I am not impressed.

Quote:

Not only that, but where'd THAT designer come from? Surely not from natural forces! So now we need a designer for the designer who is even more complex than the designer who is even more complex than the things that he designed. It's turtles all the way down, man!

ID is a SHITTY idea. The only way it makes an iota of sense is if you admit you're a creationist bearing a false flag and invoke a mystical, religious answer. Which is not science.

edit; removed the word "theory" from describing ID because it doesn't have that degree of legitimacy. Also erythromycin != erythrolabe

I will admit to a certain amount of hope that there is a greater power than our own conscious. Humans are shitty despicable animals and as I hope that we are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. Unfortunately, the only answers to your question come to us from books that were written thousands of years ago that have been changed multiple times. I don't believe that the Bible/Koran/etc. holds all the answers because these so called perfect books are littered with evidence of bigotry, violence, and hatred, all traits that I could not stomach in a God worthy of my belief. Thus the only answer I can give is that we will eventually find all the answers to all the questions of the universe in due time. For now, why don't we scientists roll up our sleeves and get about solving these questions instead of arguing in circles ad infinitum.

Quote:

At some point, I'd like to find a perfectly rational theist who has this sort of complex, and sit them down and try to get an honest answer of the cognitive gymnastics it takes to get in a plane yet not believe in evolution. Of course, I'm pretty sure of the mechanisms involved, but I want to know how it's actually reconciled in the individual.

If you would like to turn this into a more civilized discussion and would like to know more about how I reconcile my faith with rationality I would be happy to discuss it. Ask away.

Kaosu · 11-18-2007, 02:47 AM

Quote: