Support thread: thrown out of someone's house b/c of beliefs

Post Reply New Topic

If you don't trust the Skepticality podcast, the Scientific American podcast of April 9th also discusses the film. They mention http://www.expelledexposed.com/, so you can read if you don't want to listen.

So you can appreciate Bert Stein's position, here is what he said in an interview on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, March 17, 2008:

Ragtime, this shows either that Ben Stein is so thoroughly ignorant of evolution that he is totally unqualified to comment on the scientific aspects, or that he will not allow reality to stand in the way of his prejudices and is therefore totally unqualified to say anything at all on any aspect of evolution. Can you see why it shows that?

I also said the makers of "Expelled" knew in advance what they wanted to hear. Let's see what Ben Stein himself had to say about this in an interview on April 19, 2008 in the Christian magazine World (I highlight the bits relevant to my claim):

Tell me, did Ben Stein admit to that agenda either to his interviewees, or in the film?

Have you heard of how the makers of "Expelled" themselves expelled possible critics from screenings?

If you still think "Expelled" is not a piece of propaganda, please explain why, if you can.

Last edited by Gromit on 25 Apr 2008, 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anyone with ability to read on a second grade level knows it true. Any one with the ability to think like as well as your average 5 year old who has read this thread knows its true.

After all I put up the evidence.


Are you telling us you don't have enough intelligence to click on a link and read an article?

Beyond any reasonable doubt perhaps, but never proven. Like I said, science is not about proof.


Again it has been proven. Take 2 minutes of your time and you'll see that. It really doesn't matter what your personal beliefs on religion are, evolution has been proven. Just as I can prove that there is a tree in my front yard, I can prove that evolution does happen with absolute certainity. If you would take two minutes to read the article I posted it you wouldn't even consider questionign that statement. Insisting on remaining ignorant of the facts does nothing at all to help your cause. Ignorance beeds ignorance, not knowledge. Anolis lizards have evolved into separate, distinct species. That is evolution pure and simple. That fact alone means evolution happens. Notice, I didn't say that fact alone means evolution happens in every species - those are words I never said that you chose put into my mouth. I said evolution happens. That is undeniable unless you choose to be ignorant of the facts and evidence you have the ability to see with your own eyes. A scientist would never choose to be ignorant, even if he didn't like the evidence before his eyes

Interpreting my statement about evolution having been proven from experiements with anolis lizards as my saying that every species has evolved is no different than interpreting a statement such as "trees are used for firewood" as meaning that every single tree on earth is used for firewood. that fact that you have to distort mys tatements to such an extent to support your attempts at discreditating them should be a pretty big clue to you that you are misinformed on the topic

I can prove that cats are born with tails and fur. But from your line of logic I can't say that has been proven because its something that scientists would do. Saying that one cannot prove cats are born with tails and fur as just as nonsensical is saying evolution has not been proven, and not even close to the basis of science.


Theory alone doesn't show any knowledge. If we based science on theory and not proof as you are demanding, we'd still believe a lot of nonsense like women must have one less rib than men and bees are created by leaving a carcass in a shed in the summer.

Flies come from carcasses, not bees. Bees are formed by flowers. I go to bee class tomorrow! Hope to get a hive this summer or fall.

Last edited by monty on 25 Apr 2008, 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Um... Triangular Trees, I agreed that evolution has happened in certain cases, however, the issue of "evolution happens in every species" is the issue in question. Honestly, we are speaking past each other. Nobody doubts that evolution to some extent happens, and that includes the ID people, but the issue is whether or not evolutionary theory is true, and honestly, that cannot be proven and science doesn't say it can prove things, only prove things beyond reasonable doubt. Frankly, try to recognize that my position is not evidential but rather epistemological and address it on that level.

No, it isn't. Evolutionary theory is often interpreted as the idea that all speciation occurs through evolution. That is why gaps with evolution are often pointed out. Frankly though, other examples such as Nylon eating bacteria also work to prove that certain creatures are developed through evolutionary methods. Actually, I am not misinformed on the topic, and I haven't really been distorting much, you've simply tried to use a term outside of its common usage and I addressed that by pointing out that the scientific method isn't a means of proving things, as if you merely pointing out lizards, it really would be pointless as monty already pointed out various evolutions in plants and IDers can accept instances of evolution but not macroevolution, meaning that the post would have had no point.

No, you can prove that *some* cats are born with tails and fur, and even make a good case that cats, as a rule, are both with tails and fur, but you cannot prove that cats are born with tails and fur. Frankly, provisional knowledge is very important to the basis of science, and science itself is not concerned with facts so much as theories with the facts simply being used and interpreted for the theories.


Science IS based upon theories though. The theories are based upon facts(proof is a bad term as it carries absolute and mathematical interpretations, use facts). Well, frankly, for the last part, there weren't any facts supporting the theory of spontaneous generation of life, which is why it was rejected. Really though, if you just study science or its philosophy, you will see that scientists are really very concerned with developing theories, even though they do experiments.

...and yet I keep coming back because I'm a sicko masochist. Or an addict. Or something.

Now the subject has drifted to evolution? I thought we were talking about the origin of life, featuring Ragtime's dumbass "god-of-the-gaps" argument. What Raggy doesn't understand is that, if I could explain to him a likely mechanism by which life may have arisen on Earth, he would have to accept that these reactions would eventually take place, somewhere in the universe, on any planet on which conditions promoted them. Once the mechanism is known, it would be merely a multitude of dice-rolls before the first self-replicating organism began crawling around in some mudhole. It's just the law of averages at work, here.

The thing is, I don't have a mechanism to propose, so, even though I know ten times about the subject as he does, I'm still tethered to the fact that I'm just taking someone's word for it, no matter how authoritative. This doesn't mean that Ragtime's beliefs have any merit, per se, but I'm not quite in a position from which I could accuse him of being in denial for sticking to his beliefs, no matter how unsupported they are. I would need to propose a very thoroughly drawn-out and extremely likely mechanism before he'd have to capitulate on this issue to save his integrity.

However, Ragtime was behaving like an outright ninny when he began accusing me and others of somehow lying to him. I have been extremely straightforward on this subject, and I have been more than fair.

Last edited by Griff on 25 Apr 2008, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesome,

your ignorance and inability to read what is right in front of you is astounding.


Even if you were so ill-educated on the common usage of speech amongst english speaking people, you honestly believe that my comment meant evolution had been proven in all speeches., any reading of my post you keep criticizing would have told you that my statement could not possibly be construed in that way. After all I even said that evoultion on a grand scale and for all species is a theory.

of course your insistance on remaining ignorant of all the facts in order to purport your belief is very telling

Anyways, In two weeks i'm graduating from as a university valedictorian for the second time and I belong to Mensa. I've more than enough education to know that you don't have the first idea as to what you are talking about. Its a shame too, because you could make a compelling case for the beliefs you are proposing if not for the fact you are insisting to remain ignorant of the most basic facts surrounding those beliefs. But have fun, no doubt your illusions of knowledge can impress high schoolers who have no real knowledge of science and scientific theories. maybe in the future you're be willing to base your case on facts and knowledge instead of ignorance. Until then nothing you say has any credence

TTs, would you kinda do me a favor and explain organic chemistry 212 to ol' Ragtime, here? I'm not advanced enough in the subject, and, frankly, I find the subject of personal interest.

Um... right. Nice grandstanding there. Honestly, I don't give a crap.


Um... yeah. Look, when "evolution" is used within the context of a discussion on evolutionary theory, it invariably means evolutionary theory. It is correct that I didn't check very much in terms of your actual statement, however, still, that does not mean that your usage of the term "evolution" in relationship to the term "proof" could be seen as irresponsible. I think we both already stated that evolution was a theory though. Frankly though, you don't even know a damn thing about all of my beliefs so lay off with this moralistic overtone, and I doubt that you have even tried to understand or critique my response.

Good for you! I don't really care. I could probably get into Mensa too but I don't care for solving a bunch of useless puzzles. Frankly though, I really tend to doubt that this is a matter of actual intellect or knowledge, but rather of your own cognitive biases preventing effective communication by preventing you from seeking to find where the middle ground is, or beginning to prove your position, or even understanding what my actual position really is as you seem to have it in your mind that I believe in Intelligent Design or some such. Frankly though, broad-based statements of "credence" by a fool on the internet really have no validity, and if you thought in any instance that they did, I would have to argue that Mensa should revoke your membership(which means no more puzzle solving society for you!). To be honest though, even if I were ignorant, it seems a sign of your own incompetence to be incapable of addressing my position in a solid manner with facts about the nature of scientific method and things of that nature to buttress your own position.

I'm too smart for Mensa! Hehe.