Expelled? Go to the movies!

chatmaggot

New member
Hall of Fame
Pre-Lucifer rebellion? Pre-Lucifer rebellion? Scientific evidence for a pre-Lucifer rebellion? Wow.

Well, in the absence of any evidence, and wildly creative bible reading, I guess you can reach any conclusion you want.

Come one man...you can't be that blind! I was not advocating the idea...which is why I said that it was "non-existent". That means it didn't happen. HOWEVER, the "creation organization" you so called believes in it, which is why I said that RTB isn't really a creationist organization. They believe in evolution with God added.

Read my friend, read, before you post!
 

laughsoutloud

New member
:rotfl: Can't you hear the whining tone in their voice as they say, 'It's all inaccurate, none of it's true.' I think they know they're beat and are just trying to throw together a pathetic last ditch effort to save a little dignity after aligning themselves to one of the stupidest theories man's ever invented.
I guess if it is inaccurate and wrong, you supposed to speak in a lower voice, and say, 'It's all inaccurate, none of it's true.' ?

Or perhaps people with truth on their side silently stand by while the propaganda machine rolls on?

After years of debate, creationists have not been able to make any case at all - no evidence, no theory, no nothing.

So they've taken the case directly to the people with a relentless propaganda machine. Who needs facts when you have certainly?
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Come one man...you can't be that blind! I was not advocating the idea...which is why I said that it was "non-existent". That means it didn't happen. HOWEVER, the "creation organization" you so called believes in it, which is why I said that RTB isn't really a creationist organization.

Read my friend, read, before you post!
Sorry, they are just a creationist organization you disagree with.

THis is one more argument against creationism. With evolution, all the various disciplines give similar pictures, reinforcing evolution.

Within creationism, there are a wide variety of young and old earth approaches, and many of the arguments frankly contradict each other. This is because there is no underlying reality to the ideas - just rationalizations based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. If there were an underlying truth to creationism, I would expect a greater fidelity to data about the natural world, as well as an internal consistency with the Bible. Neither of these hold true for creationism.

Just as an example, through Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly 2 separate stories, with different timelines and order for creation, many creationists are forced to conflate the two stories, in clear violation of any reasonable approach to biblical interpretation.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
They do agree with Ben Stein that it should be allowed to question Darwinism. Why does the fact that they don't agree with Ben Stein on how life was created make that a problem?

There is no such thing as Darwinism. Evolution is questioned all the time (this is how science moves forward). All you need is an idea and some data. Where is the data for ID? Where is Behe's revised formula for calculating complexity? Where is the list of things designed, and things not designed? Where is the discussion of a mechanism for how the designer intervened? There is really just an argument from ignorance - we can't see how it could have happened, so it must have been designed. Well, ignorance is a poor argument - it only proves that we don't know. "I don't know" is not a particularly strong challenge to evolution. ID's strength comes from the fact that it is a stand-in for creationism.

You all know that the designer is God, and the hope is that if you can prove ID, then you have proof for creationism. So ID is being marketed to the church, almost exclusively, because a certain segment of the church looks to ID to validate its creationist leanings. That fact that it is not good science, has no data to support it, and is distorting the truth to make its point should be a concern to Christians... frankly, I am even more concerned that the truth is the real victim here, and Christians, who should care, don't.

Imagine for a moment a class in ID:

"Stuff is complicated. Really complicated. Really, really complicated. Today we are going to look at how complicated stuff is. You'll be amazed. You know, this stuff is so complicated, somebody just had to have made this stuff."

(watch plagiarized video from Harvard)

"Good class, teacher, thanks. Will that be on the exam?"
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Wow, so you've already seen the movie? Sneak preview, or something? And you took the time to write down a part of the movie about Richard Sternberg so you could criticize it later...:think: Astonishing, really, that you would care so much. Or...wait. Silly me. You copied that from your anti-Expelled website, didn't you?

Your statement "don't take my word for it - read the site" isn't helpful. I read the site, and as I said - it was stupid propaganda. Why then would I rely on it for accurate information?

Here's Richard Sternberg's own website, with his own information about his troubles. I don't even really care if you look at it or not, as it's obvious that you're smearing the movie for no reason other than your personal bias against God and Creation science.

According to his website, he got pressure for his actions. That's all - pressure for doing some thing he should not have done. He violated the rules of a peer reviewed publication in which he, as editor, had a position of trust (and these rules are important - it is how the scientific community maintains integrity) - and he violated that integrity, and got push-back. He admits he didn't get fired, kept his NIH and Smithsonian gigs... he wasn't blameless in this - why should he not get some reaction? His site and the Expelled Exposed site agree - so I don't see your complaint about the site.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
In what world does this happen? :squint:
Well let's see: biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, archeology, linguistics... to just name a few.

All the physical and natural sciences embrace and accept evolution - not because they are godless atheists (many of them are Christian, and many more follow other faiths), but because evolution is the best explanation for the facts.

In those areas where we don't know, or where new evidence comes up that causes scientists to revise evolution (unlike religious dogma, there is no problem with revising a theory to fit better with the facts), the evidence still does not support a young earth or special creation.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Prolifeguyswift writes:
it's obvious that you're smearing the movie for no reason other than your personal bias against God and Creation science.
I'm talking about the movie because it is dishonest and inaccurate. Read Expelled Exposed a bit closer - so far, the one area you have specifically challenged has turned out to be accurate, even by your source.

And speaking of obvious, its obvious that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you must not be a Christian eh? To Hell with all those who think differently than you do? Nice!

Oh and Christian Science? - an oxymoron.

Finally, pause for a moment and think about this; I assume you think you stand for righteousness (I assume this because of your screen name, and your willingness to consign me to Hell for disagreeing with you). Sternberg doesn't deny that he went around the rules - violated the trust he was given, to promote his views at the expense of the publication. Of course, since he was doing this for Jesus, his lack of integrity is OK? And you stand by and defend him - because, after all, I guess, "The ends justify the means." That is in the Bible, right?
 

aharvey

New member
Wow, so you've already seen the movie? Sneak preview, or something? And you took the time to write down a part of the movie about Richard Sternberg so you could criticize it later...:think: Astonishing, really, that you would care so much. Or...wait. Silly me. You copied that from your anti-Expelled website, didn't you?

Your statement "don't take my word for it - read the site" isn't helpful. I read the site, and as I said - it was stupid propaganda. Why then would I rely on it for accurate information?

Here's Richard Sternberg's own website, with his own information about his troubles. I don't even really care if you look at it or not, as it's obvious that you're smearing the movie for no reason other than your personal bias against God and Creation science.
Wow, wifey, there's lots of frantic screeching going on in TOL condemning the anyone who dares not to worship this movie, but I think you're the champ so far! I just looked over the Expelled Expose site, and here's what strikes me: they may be right, they may be wrong, about each and every one of their claims. The cool thing is, though, that they not only make their claim, but they explain the logical basis for it, and provide the evidence for it. So there's really nothing stopping someone (you, for example) from not just disagreeing with them, but showing why they were wrong. But what do you do instead? You just shout down the whole enterprise with blistering ad hominem attacks and without a single shred of evidence that they've made one inaccurate statement. The irony is almost blinding, of behaving this way in defense of a movie that claims (laughably, it seems) to be exposing this kind of behavior in science.

Here's a hint: calling something that we all know in advance you disagree with "stupid propaganda" is not the same as demonstrating that it is nothing more than stupid propaganda. Saying that something is obvious is not the same as demonstrating its obviousness. Are you getting it yet?

Here, let's try a real example. If the Expelled Exposed folks were to adopt your method of arguing, they would have simply said something like "It's obvious those Inquisition-loving idiot producers of Expelled went out of their way to prevent anyone with half a brain from seeing the movie and only allowing dimwit YECs to promote the movie." And leave it at that. Instead, they gave several specific examples of specific tactics the producers used especially after the Myers-Dawkins expulsion fiasco. For example, although they couldn't exactly remove the public form for signing up for the screenings, they did start sending emails to folks who signed up and might not be ID-friendly, and only to such folks, telling them, falsely, that the screening had been cancelled. And they refined this basic technique over time. Now there might be a perfectly innocent explanation for this (if you have one, I'd love to hear it!), but at least they made their case.

Is any of this getting through? Science is not afraid of dissenting opinions, it just doesn't care about them; it cares about the logic and evidence behind them.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
Sorry, they are just a creationist organization you disagree with.

THis is one more argument against creationism. With evolution, all the various disciplines give similar pictures, reinforcing evolution.
Are you kidding me? You really don't know much about the various disagreements amongst evolutionists do you? Stephan Jay Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium idea had its many critics like John Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennet, and Richard Dawkins. These kinds of disagreements happen all the time in any scientific field not just evolutionary science. No field of science is ever under one monolithic view held by everyone.

Within creationism, there are a wide variety of young and old earth approaches, and many of the arguments frankly contradict each other. This is because there is no underlying reality to the ideas - just rationalizations based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. If there were an underlying truth to creationism, I would expect a greater fidelity to data about the natural world, as well as an internal consistency with the Bible. Neither of these hold true for creationism.
So a Christian what do you believe? How did man and the universe come about?
 

laughsoutloud

New member
The Bearean
Are you kidding me? You really don't know much about the various disagreements amongst evolutionists do you? Stephan Jay Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium idea had its many critics like John Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennet, and Richard Dawkins. These kinds of disagreements happen all the time in any scientific field not just evolutionary science. No field of science is ever under one monolithic view held by everyone.
But Gould was a public defender of evolution as against creationism, right? Sure, there are discussions about what the data means, and what the best explanation for that data is - but all the folks you mention agree that evolution is the best fit for the data. What is more, disproving evolution will not demonstrate creationism. The data just does not fit a literal reading of Genesis.

Something creationists seem to miss in their battle against science is that, big picture, science is committed to understanding the natural world, not to any particular theory. Sure, people are passionate, and will defend what they believe to be true, but over time, people come to accept the data that best fits the facts. Examples are the Big Bang and plate tectonics, ideas that upset then-current scientific explanations. Over time though, as the data lined up behind the new proposals, the ideas were accepted. Not accepted as dogma, but as the best explanation for the facts. Of course it is messy, of course there are personalities involved - this is people we are talking about, right?

But I do have confidence that, except for undue economic influence (like with cigarettes), or undue religious influence (like the Pope silencing Galileo), over time, the theory that best fits the fact will win. Creationism has been trying (and failing) to make its case for 100's of years. It just does not fit the facts.

So a Christian what do you believe? How did man and the universe come about?
I think evolution tells the story - broad brush, more detail to come, doubtless corrections to be made - but big picture, there is no doubt that the earth is old, and that all life evolved from common ancestors. You have to believe that this is how God did it, because... this is how it happened.
 

SUTG

New member
Are you kidding me? You really don't know much about the various disagreements amongst evolutionists do you? Stephan Jay Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium idea had its many critics like John Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennet, and Richard Dawkins. These kinds of disagreements happen all the time in any scientific field not just evolutionary science. No field of science is ever under one monolithic view held by everyone.

This is one of the things that makes it science. Run your hypothesis up the flagpole and see if it can be broken by observation, experimentation or a theory that fits the data better. So we both agree that there is disagreement, and that disagreement is tolerated and accepted by the scientific community. Neither Dawkins nor Gould nor Maynard Smith were "expelled". Biologists today are still in disagreement about the relative importance of different mechanisms for evolution. What they agree on is that overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, the taxonomy of species, the molecular evidence, the geographical distribution of species, and lots and lots and lots of other facts are all explained by the idea that all of modern life shares common ancestry.

Creationists don't want to bother with the research part, or the looking at the facts part.
 

chatmaggot

New member
Hall of Fame
I just got back from seeing Expelled. I thought it was done well. The words of the evolutionists speak for themselves. The producers and editors added various clips of old television shows and movies and music that made it humurous too.

After the movie people were actually sticking around in the theater discussing it. That didn't happen when I watched Titanic!
 

The Berean

Well-known member
I think evolution tells the story - broad brush, more detail to come, doubtless corrections to be made - but big picture, there is no doubt that the earth is old, and that all life evolved from common ancestors. You have to believe that this is how God did it, because... this is how it happened.

If you believe in evolution why do you need God to be involved? :idunno: The majority of evolution believers do not believe God had anything to do with evolution. Can you show me that God indeed created the evolutionary process? It sounds to me you use science to interpret Scripture.
 

aharvey

New member
If you believe in evolution why do you need God to be involved? :idunno: The majority of evolution believers do not believe God had anything to do with evolution. Can you show me that God indeed created the evolutionary process? It sounds to me you use science to interpret Scripture.
Hmm. More creationists aren't as upfront about this, questioning a theory because it doesn't "need" God to be involved! And as far as I can tell (do set me straight: be specific!), a theory would "need" God to be involved only if it had obvious defects so severe that they could only be overcome with supernatural assistance. Do you view all scientific theories through this filter? Do you know of any scientific theories that "need" God to be involved? Besides ID, which hardly qualifies as a scientific theory (include it if that's the best you got, though)!
 

laughsoutloud

New member
If you believe in evolution why do you need God to be involved? :idunno: The majority of evolution believers do not believe God had anything to do with evolution. Can you show me that God indeed created the evolutionary process? It sounds to me you use science to interpret Scripture.
Yes, this is called methodological naturalism. Folks used to imagine that angels pushed the planets around in their orbits. Over time, it was discovered that things that happen in the natural world have natural causes. Introducing God into the explanation does not result in a better or more accurate explanation. This is the case with everything that we have investigated - no supernatural explanations required. This isn't a dismissal of God - it is just the way it is. This does not mean that God didn't design it to be that way, or that there are things science cannot look into that God is involved in - just that natural phenomena have natural causes. So science is not anti-God, science is just not able to study the supernatural (or to find any evidence of the supernatural at work).

This is why many religious thinkers are hostile to science - it does not validate their belief that God is actively involved in the day-to-day workings of the world. But this attitude is unfortunate - like shooting the messenger bringing news you don't want to hear.

Martin Luther encouraged Christians to hold fast to the Bible, and reject the notion that the earth circles the sun, because the Bible teaches that the sun circles the earth. I am willing to bet that you don't believe that the Bible teaches any such thing - because you have changed the way you interpret the Bible to incorporate scientific discoveries you cannot deny.

What is more, I bet you are confident that the way you interpret the Bible is the right way, and that Martin Luther was simply wrong. Pretty tidy, isn't it? "I know the Bible is true because it agrees with everything I believe."
 

The Berean

Well-known member
Hmm. More creationists aren't as upfront about this, questioning a theory because it doesn't "need" God to be involved! And as far as I can tell (do set me straight: be specific!), a theory would "need" God to be involved only if it had obvious defects so severe that they could only be overcome with supernatural assistance. Do you view all scientific theories through this filter? Do you know of any scientific theories that "need" God to be involved? Besides ID, which hardly qualifies as a scientific theory (include it if that's the best you got, though)!

Since I'm not the one claiming to be a Chrisitan AND believe in evolution you are asking the wrong person. Actually you are asking the questions I was planning on asking laughsoutloud. :up:
 

The Berean

Well-known member
Yes, this is called methodological naturalism. Folks used to imagine that angels pushed the planets around in their orbits. Over time, it was discovered that things that happen in the natural world have natural causes. Introducing God into the explanation does not result in a better or more accurate explanation. This is the case with everything that we have investigated - no supernatural explanations required. This isn't a dismissal of God - it is just the way it is. This does not mean that God didn't design it to be that way, or that there are things science cannot look into that God is involved in - just that natural phenomena have natural causes. So science is not anti-God, science is just not able to study the supernatural (or to find any evidence of the supernatural at work).
Can you show evidence for this. You are simply asserting this view. HOW do you God designed "it: that way?

This is why many religious thinkers are hostile to science - it does not validate their belief that God is actively involved in the day-to-day workings of the world. But this attitude is unfortunate - like shooting the messenger bringing news you don't want to hear.
What's a "religious" thinker? Fuuny you think you bring a message they don't want to hear. You simply bring a mesage YOU believe to be true, not neceassrly a message that is objectively true.

Martin Luther encouraged Christians to hold fast to the Bible, and reject the notion that the earth circles the sun, because the Bible teaches that the sun circles the earth. I am willing to bet that you don't believe that the Bible teaches any such thing - because you have changed the way you interpret the Bible to incorporate scientific discoveries you cannot deny.
Not really. One can claim the Sun circles the Earth and the Sun earth circles the sun since both assertions are really truu. It all depends on the reference frame one uses. I'm my work with commerical satellites we often assume a stationary Earth reference frame with the Sun circuling the Earth to determine the power requirements of the satellite during times when the solar panels ar exposed to the Sun and for times when the satellite is in the earth's shadow.

What is more, I bet you are confident that the way you interpret the Bible is the right way, and that Martin Luther was simply wrong. Pretty tidy, isn't it? "I know the Bible is true because it agrees with everything I believe."
I can say the very same thing about you. I'm sure YOU are pretty confident that the way you "interpret" the Bible is the right way. Ironically, you are using the same argument to argue your view. And you didn't answer my questions from my previous post.

1. If you believe in evolution why do you need God to be involved?
2. Can you show me evidence that God indeed created the evolutionary process?
3. Why do you believe God exists? (new question)
 

aharvey

New member
Since I'm not the one claiming to be a Chrisitan AND believe in evolution you are asking the wrong person. Actually you are asking the questions I was planning on asking laughsoutloud. :up:
No, it is the very fact that you claim to be a Christian and reject evolutionary theory because it does not "need" God that I asked you these questions! Allow me to repeat them: As far as I can tell (do set me straight: be specific!), a theory would "need" God to be involved only if it had obvious defects so severe that they could only be overcome with supernatural assistance. Do you view all scientific theories through this filter? Do you know of any scientific theories that "need" God to be involved? Besides ID, which hardly qualifies as a scientific theory (include it if that's the best you got, though)!
 
Top