Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed Movie lacks intelligence?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
I gave you all a clear example that evolution does not make sense, the bombardier beetle. If you are intent that your thoughts on evolution are so true, explain how this beetle evolved. It's a simple point. There are many more examples. But I doubt we have any serious scientific people here. Even Darwin wrote of design in his writings.

And I gave you clear reasoning as to how your understanding of science is fundamentally flawed, particularly when it comes to evolution. Get a freakin' clue.

 

[Brigandier]

OMG BEETLES!!1!one!


You cling to fleeting examples like a drowning man to driftwood.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
I gave you all a clear example that evolution does not make sense, the bombardier beetle. If you are intent that your thoughts on evolution are so true, explain how this beetle evolved. It's a simple point. There are many more examples. But I doubt we have any serious scientific people here. Even Darwin wrote of design in his writings.

Evolution doesn't have to make sense, it's observable, it's testable, it's falsifiable.

That is what makes it a fact and that is what makes it a scientific theory that is *stronger* than the theory of gravity.

The "theory" of Intelligent Design tries to explain how everything works with "God created it", the equivalent "theory" when it comes to gravity could be called "intelligent falling" and simply state that "God pulls you towards earth".

What is the point of that? I mean, the theory of evolution has provided advances in medicine and continues to do so on a daily basis, ID doesn't make any predictions, it's not testable, it's not observable, it's not falsifiable and completely useless, if you REALLY want to test it, say no to vaccines and advanced antibiotics for your children.

What many don't seem to get is that IF the theory of evolution is proven wrong, it changes to fit the new facts, it's not constant and it's not perfect but much like we know that gravity is a fact we know that evolution is a fact, the theories try to explain how, not IF.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

NP .. do you see me disagree with it in principle?
- i'd like to add that "society" modified evolution by allowing the "weak" to also prosper ... and not just human society; so it is already NOT "pure evolution"

NOW .. *my point* and i think you need to answer it>


what do evolutionists GENERALLY view as the origin of life?

--God or Chance?

There is a Part two ... and *why*?

Who cares what they view as origin of life, why must you always mix that in with evolution? The post you responded to said absolutely nothing about it.

You have, by far, the most annoying way of debating that i have ever come across on any board, you have pretty much NO post yet without at least one strawman in it.

Keep it on topic, evolution is evolution, it doesn't even try to provide evidence about the origin of life.

If you want to debate the Big Bang, the primordial soup and the origin of the first organism then do that, but don't mix evolution into it, it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Origin of life if you ask me is when nothing became something, most people can't wrap their minds around that so they turn to God, which does not need such an explanation while not understanding that what they leave behind while doing so is the exact same thing they are turning to.

If you are trying to tell me that i "fit in" with your guys in P&N ..

. . . you may be right .. along with Dave, i proposed *creating it*
- it evolved out of OT .. my mind .. my purpose to get the hot-heads out of OT
:Q




so "nothing became something" .. OK, about as LOGICAL as "god created"
see i had *purpose* .. by my annoying "style" i perceive how you "think"
- i just look at it as a tool as part of 'discerment'

 

[Vic]

For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
I gave you all a clear example that evolution does not make sense, the bombardier beetle. If you are intent that your thoughts on evolution are so true, explain how this beetle evolved. It's a simple point. There are many more examples. But I doubt we have any serious scientific people here. Even Darwin wrote of design in his writings.

This is a common creationist argument. They pull out some sort of random plant or animal from somewhere and say "If evolution is right, EXPLAIN THIS!" as if anyone who accepts the theory of evolution must somehow be able to immediately explain how every animal arrived at its set of attributes in order for it to be correct. Usually you people try and use the bacterial flagellum as your example, but I guess that one has been pounded into the ground so badly that you've given up?

This whole business is a colossal waste of time, and it will never end. Sure you just got owned on the bombardier beetle, but I'm sure you could pull out a dozen other examples and issue the same challenge. It's never ending, and it proves nothing. Instead of attempting to play a game of 'gotcha!', show me some evidence, any evidence that proves the tenants of evolution wrong. There is the famous idea of finding rabbit fossils in the Precambrian. All you need is one... just one of those fossils and evolution is forever completely destroyed as a theory. I'll be waiting.

Even better yet, why not spend some time trying to prove YOUR OWN viewpoint? Show us some experiments that prove design has taken place, show us some evidence that some intelligence poofed us into existence. Considering literally everything on this planet is supposed to have been designed by a superior intelligence, there must be some traces of that, right? Right? Even if you prove evolution wrong right this minute, that just means that we would have zero plausible theories for how life came to be instead of one. ID will still be crap.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: apoppin

I would love to see the 'evidence' that disproves evolution.

It does not make sense to teach intelligent design. It is not science, it is not falsifiable, it is religion masquerading as science.

Don't worry though guys, no matter what Ben Stein craps out it is exceedingly unlikely that any school district will have a serious go at teaching intelligent design again. The decision in the Dover, PA case destroyed intelligent design so utterly, so completely, it would take a huge sea change in order for a curriculum that included ID to survive more then 15 minutes in a courtroom.

And Yet we have your Pseudo-science, it is not falsifiable, it is also religion masquerading as science.

I would also very much like to see the 'evidence' of intelligent design.

--You are blind imo; perhaps because it surrounds you and you are a tiny part of it although you are clearly ignorant of purpose vs. planning.

Evolution is FACT .. it may have been DESIGNED that way
- buy you are too arrogant to admit it is "NOT impossible"!

a least that is the way i see it

our science is way too primitive to say anything with certaity of our Origins .. and clearly our "logic" is ALL flawed or we would have "answers" .. or else we are too small to comprehend it [doubtful]

Now, MY point is to prove - to religious people - that "he" does NOT exist
--That IS easy!

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

ID is a fraud. It is completely unsupported and unprovable. The basic argument for ID usually boils down to some sort of attack on evolution. What ID people seem to fail to notice is that even if evolution were to be proven false tomorrow, it would not make ID any more correct.

the pseudo science that dismisses the very concept of a "god" - a "purpose" - as IMPOSSIBLE .. the One that establishes Evolution on an uncertain shaky basis of "spontaneous generation"
.. more appropriately - spontaneous generation of Bullsh!t for over 100 years

^^that one^^^

ID people are just more rabidly nuts since they have to fight you - the "establishment"

Before your Prophet Darwin arose, it was the other way 'round .. since the Egyptians to Aristotle to Newton and finally .. now .. same stupidity with only a few RENEGADE geniuses that are usually not appreciated until long after they are gone.

crazy planet of the apes[/quote]

You really aren't making much sense. I am unaware of any science that declares a god to be impossible. In fact, I'm having trouble determining what you're even trying to argue. Darwin was not a prophet any more then Einstein or Newton were prophets. If his theory had not survived a century of rigorous testing it would have been thrown on the scrap heap of history. It just turns out that he was right.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: apoppin

Eh? That's not even the argument. Evolution makes no statement as to where the principles that guide evolution came from. What pseudo-science are you claiming I subscribe to?

The principles that guide evolution are this: The fittest survive. As the environment changes,t he qualifications for fitness change and new traits are expressed. that is the principle that guides evolution. I believe it's called something like natural selection, or some other nonsense science phrase.

NP .. do you see me disagree with it in principle?
- i'd like to add that "society" modified evolution by allowing the "weak" to also prosper ... and not just human society; so it is already NOT "pure evolution"

NOW .. *my point* and i think you need to answer it>


what do evolutionists GENERALLY view as the origin of life?

--God or Chance?

There is a Part two ... and *why*?

Who cares what they view as origin of life, why must you always mix that in with evolution? The post you responded to said absolutely nothing about it.

You have, by far, the most annoying way of debating that i have ever come across on any board, you have pretty much NO post yet without at least one strawman in it.

Keep it on topic, evolution is evolution, it doesn't even try to provide evidence about the origin of life.

If you want to debate the Big Bang, the primordial soup and the origin of the first organism then do that, but don't mix evolution into it, it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Origin of life if you ask me is when nothing became something, most people can't wrap their minds around that so they turn to God, which does not need such an explanation while not understanding that what they leave behind while doing so is the exact same thing they are turning to.

If you are trying to tell me that i "fit in" with your guys in P&N ..

. . . you may be right .. along with Dave, i proposed *creating it*
- it evolved out of OT .. my mind .. my purpose to get the hot-heads out of OT
:Q




so "nothing became something" .. OK, about as LOGICAL as "god created"
see i had *purpose* .. by my annoying "style" i perceive how you "think"
- i just look at it as a tool as part of 'discerment'

It's my opinion that the origin of life came with the creation of time and space, the big bang, there are evidence to support that opinion (google "the echo of the Big Bang" and how the gases that created it could actually lead to organic matter, it has even been proven in a laboratory).

However, as i said, evolution has nothing to do with that, it's just my opinion and doesn't really have anything to do with anything else than your post, let's leave it at that.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

:camera:
:evil:

This man speaks of the truth.

:gift:
:lips:
:frown:

:clock:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

Yes, the Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

And I've given you many arguments, and you've ignored them all. Don't expect me to do for you what you won't do for me.

While your "example" has already been discredited. The scientific community refutes this "scientific evidence" because it. is. not. science. You're not getting treated like a lunatic, you're being treated like an ignorant child. Did it take an intelligent design to make the sky blue?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

Exactly, that is why it's named that, NOT "the origin of life".

You don't know anything about anything that has even the remotest thing to do with anything that is discussed here, you even think that origins of species is the same as origin of life, you have proved yourself to be ignorant, save yourself the embarrassment and don't post before you have gone through the classes in grade school that explains this.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
I gave you all a clear example that evolution does not make sense, the bombardier beetle. If you are intent that your thoughts on evolution are so true, explain how this beetle evolved. It's a simple point. There are many more examples. But I doubt we have any serious scientific people here. Even Darwin wrote of design in his writings.

Let's see. What would you rather be taught in a SCIENCE class in a school:

Evolutionary theory:
Over the course of hundreds of millions of years various genetic mutations proving more suited to the environment resulted in the diversified flora and fauna we see today. The bombardier beetle is one such creature.

ID:
At some time in the past, an unknown creator used magic to make all plant and animal life spring into being as they exist today, including that complex little fellow, the bombardier beetle.



Seriously? Am I incorrect in my summary of ID?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

*i* get it

:roll:



:lips:

i have been TRYING to get the evolutionists to agree with me .. that they HATE god and therefore he does not exist .. there is nothing "scientific" about it really one way or the other
:Q

OK?

a scheme of mine to make them look AS bad as the hypocrites they claim to hate that DO the SAME thing because they cannot ACCEPT that their god would use something so IN-elegant as "evolution" .. heck, most of those extremists also think sex is "dirty"

now you made me give it away .. now worries .. that one is not useful any longer here. i guess you guys evolved - a little
:brokenheart:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

sirjonk, well, they usually use some mathematical formula to prove the probability of our complex existance to prove that it is improbable along with the rest (this is what they refer to as "the scientific part of ID"), however, this is one in an infinite number of possible outcomes, all as possible as this, it's the old "painting the target around the arrow" methodology of "ID science).

Not to mention, you can't possibly get wet when it rains, the probability that those exact water molecules and ONLY those water molecules will rise to the sky, all around the earth and rain down on you is even less probable than the calculations that they use to disprove evolution.

So either ID is flawed or you cannot get wet when it rains.

Other than that, you're right. In short, ID is creationism with an mathematical formula for probability added.

 

[piasabird]

So what the hell is this big bang theory, and according to the theory what caused the Big Bang and where did the Universe come from?

 

[leingod86]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

*i* get it

:roll:



:lips:

i have been TRYING to get the evolutionists to agree with me .. that they HATE god and therefore he does not exist .. there is nothing "scientific" about it really one way or the other
:Q

OK?

a scheme of mine to make them look AS bad as the hypocrites they claim to hate that DO the SAME thing because they cannot ACCEPT that their god would use something so IN-elegant as "evolution" .. heck, most of those extremists also think sex is "dirty"

now you made me give it away .. now worries .. that one is not useful any longer here. i guess you guys evolved - a little
:brokenheart:

Dammit guys...we've been trolled. I've finally realized it. You had us going apoppin! This post blew your cover since no one could say something this idiotic in seriousness. I salute you, Hero of Trolls.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

Yes, the Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

And I've given you many arguments, and you've ignored them all. Don't expect me to do for you what you won't do for me.

While your "example" has already been discredited. The scientific community refutes this "scientific evidence" because it. is. not. science. You're not getting treated like a lunatic, you're being treated like an ignorant child. Did it take an intelligent design to make the sky blue?

Typical response for sure. When given an example it is refuted with you must be a child or ignorant without showing any direct evidence my supposition is wrong. What are you afraid of? You claim you want the truth but you won't even try to see all the evidence. Science you say is true definitive. But when science is used to refute past theories, it is ignorance. I for one want everyone to know what the truth is. If there is no God - prove it. If life evolved from the expanse of nothing - prove it. Until people are willing to see all the evidence nothing will change. So as someone else said - the argument is futile.

 

[piasabird]

Nothing became something = God Created the Universe!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

*i* get it

:roll:



:lips:

i have been TRYING to get the evolutionists to agree with me .. that they HATE god and therefore he does not exist .. there is nothing "scientific" about it really one way or the other
:Q

OK?

a scheme of mine to make them look AS bad as the hypocrites they claim to hate that DO the SAME thing because they cannot ACCEPT that their god would use something so IN-elegant as "evolution" .. heck, most of those extremists also think sex is "dirty"

now you made me give it away .. now worries .. that one is not useful any longer here. i guess you guys evolved - a little
:brokenheart:

Why would Evolutionists hate Ra?

This thread would have been 10x better without your participation, you added nothing at all and derailed the thread constantly, most of the time by posting strawmen and lengthy replies with lots of strawmen.

Don't try to be clever, you SUCK at it.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

There is nothing scientific, and there will never be anything scientific about ID. When your entire theory is "Wow, this is complex, it must be something else!", then you are not using science. If the ID crowd is ever capable of creating actual evidence, then I'm sure there will be plenty of scientists out there to look at it. But since they haven't, and likely never will, there isn't much to go on.

If you think things are created, then look at your own eyeball. It is a disaster of design. The optic nerve is the wrong place for one. What kind of designer would put that together? How about our lower back and knees?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what the hell is this big bang theory, and according to the theory what caused the Big Bang and where did the Universe come from?

Why did it have to come from something when time and space was inserted into the reality in the instance it happened?

 

[leingod86]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what the hell is this big bang theory, and according to the theory what caused the Big Bang and where did the Universe come from?

We don't know. What we do know is that every prediction using the Big Bang as a template has proven correct. Not that this completely proves the theory, but it makes it reasonable to assume that it is accurate. Not knowing the cause/source of the Big Bang is irrelevant to whether or not it happened. If you want to stick "God" in somewhere, that's the spot.

 

[leingod86]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Originally posted by: Vic
For the millionth time, the scientific theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin (or "genesis") of life itself. There never is a "so nothing became something" (or ex nihilo, or abiogenesis) because evolution begins with the assumption that "something" was already present to begin with.
:Q

:moon:

:roll:

Yep - that's why Darwin's book is titled Origin of the Species. Makes total sense to me now after your fine explanation. I gave one example - there are many more. But when it is presented in the scientific community it is treated just as I have been treated here - like a lunatic. That was the point of the movie Expelled. To address why the scientific commnuity refuses to hear "scientific evidence" to refute the theories they call facts. Apples and oranges

Yes, the Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

And I've given you many arguments, and you've ignored them all. Don't expect me to do for you what you won't do for me.

While your "example" has already been discredited. The scientific community refutes this "scientific evidence" because it. is. not. science. You're not getting treated like a lunatic, you're being treated like an ignorant child. Did it take an intelligent design to make the sky blue?

Typical response for sure. When given an example it is refuted with you must be a child or ignorant without showing any direct evidence my supposition is wrong. What are you afraid of? You claim you want the truth but you won't even try to see all the evidence. Science you say is true definitive. But when science is used to refute past theories, it is ignorance. I for one want everyone to know what the truth is. If there is no God - prove it. If life evolved from the expanse of nothing - prove it. Until people are willing to see all the evidence nothing will change. So as someone else said - the argument is futile.

The burden of proof is on Creationists in this regard. We know that evolution happened. We know the Big Bang happened. The only room for Creation lies in the cause of the Big Bang. If you want to fill in that gap, feel free to prove it, the scientific community will be thankful for your contribution to our understanding. Until then, the "god of the gaps" has no room in legitimate scientific learning.

Edit: Just to make it clear WHY the burden of proof lies on Creationists: It's nearly impossible to prove, definitively, that something CANNOT or DOES NOT exist. It is much more simplistic, and less prone to error, to prove that something DOES exist. If you want to say "God exists" the burden of proof lies on you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what the hell is this big bang theory, and according to the theory what caused the Big Bang and where did the Universe come from?

:roll: