Expelled! - Page 17

Cephus · 04-25-08, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

We don't know for certain the world isn't flat... It could all be an illusion. However, empircal evidence STRONGLY supports the THEORY that the world is round. Science is about empirical evidence supporting THEORIES. Not plausibility. Plausibility is for philosophy.

Well, the evidence supports the idea that the earth is spherical. Round is a 2-dimensional shape. It's more of a rough egg shape.

Quote:

There is nothing empirical about ID. Its pseudo-science.

Not only is it pseudo-science, it's painfully dishonest pseudo-science. They keep getting caught telling lies, misrepresenting science, misquoting scientists and repeating proven falsehoods.

I guess lying for the lord is well and good in the ID camp.

rathi · 04-25-08, 09:22 PM

Quote:

The stuff I've found out was exciting to me because the scientific communtity isn't broadcasting anything they find that doesn't dovetail with their presuppositions. Essentially, I looked behind the green curtain before Ben Stein suggested that I should.

What did you find behind the curtain? Specify the evidence that you think supports ID and is being suppressed.

Quote:

Evolution is another thing that non-believers use to try and knock the legs out from under Christians

Not really, considering that many people who agree with evolution are also Christians themselves. The problem comes when certain Christians try to get rid of evolution in schools or put a false explanation in its place.

Quote:

seeing as how any healthy, adult, male human can copulate with any healthy, adult, female human and produce viable young means that we could place every person on Earth on a huge family tree and trace their lineage back to exactly one man and one woman.

Thats not true. Modern genetics proves that impossible. The genetic problems from that kind of inbreeding would have killed us.

Quote:

I don't expect any junior high science teachers to go throwing around names like Adam or Eve, but it would be nice if they at least gave a mention of these proto-humans.

There is no scientific evidence that adam or eve ever existed, so why would science teacher mention them?

scourge99 · 04-26-08, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyoguy

I think my post is relevant because this topic is more or less about the suppression of data that could potentially undermine the atheistic status quo by supporting scripture.

Your position that there exists some "atheistic status-quo" is ridiculous. Moreover, you are insinuating that science is somehow pro-atheism is a bit ridiculous also. Science doesn't have any goal of disproving religion, it just happens that when a religion makes a claim (garden of eden, Noah's ark, etc) and then thousands of years later when that claim is testable and proven ridiculous it makes that religion look stupid, yes, this is true. But its not a goal of science its just an amusing secondary effect of discovery and cumulative knowledge..

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyoguy

The stuff I've found out was exciting to me because the scientific communtity isn't broadcasting anything they find that doesn't dovetail with their presuppositions. Essentially, I looked behind the green curtain before Ben Stein suggested that I should.

Yes, its all a giant conspiracy to suppress ID evidence. Evidence that ID'ers say EXIST but just don't happen to have off-hand when asked for.

Guess what, I have 30 trillion dollars, 12 magic elves, and a flying magic carpet... but you aren't allowed to see them because "bad people" aren't letting you know about them, but they do exist! I swear!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyoguy

I, for one, would really like to have that rug completely lifted up so that we can see how much stuff has actually been swept under there. I think Ben is only giving us a glimpse.

There are an infinite number of plausible arguments. There are very few empirically supported arguments.

Hymns · 04-26-08, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Your position that there exists some "atheistic status-quo" is ridiculous. Moreover, you are insinuating that science is somehow pro-atheism is a bit ridiculous also. Science doesn't have any goal of disproving religion, it just happens that when a religion makes a claim (garden of eden, Noah's ark, etc) and then thousands of years later when that claim is testable and proven ridiculous it makes that religion look stupid, yes, this is true. But its not a goal of science its just an amusing secondary effect of discovery and cumulative knowledge..

Actually, Noah's ark is becoming MORE plausible as science has discovered large amounts of evidence that point to a monumental flood of the entire region.

Voidwar · 04-26-08, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hymns

Actually, Noah's ark is becoming MORE plausible as science has discovered large amounts of evidence that point to a monumental flood of the entire region.

This just reveals the fact that you have no understanding of how many species exist on earth.

Noah couldn't have built a wooden boat that would hold two of every insect species, let alone the rest.

Hymns · 04-26-08, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

This just reveals the fact that you have no understanding of how many species exist on earth.

Noah couldn't have built a wooden boat that would hold two of every insect species, let alone the rest.

well, #1 it wouldn't be the world, it would be the general area. #2, sea animals don't count. #3 It is exagerated. Pretty much every story that old is exagerated greatly, but there is still truth woven into it. I am just saying that it is likely somebody built a vessel in order to survive the flood, which science has almost proved occured.

Voidwar · 04-26-08, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hymns

well, #1 it wouldn't be the world, it would be the general area. #2, sea animals don't count. #3 It is exagerated. Pretty much every story that old is exagerated greatly, but there is still truth woven into it. I am just saying that it is likely somebody built a vessel in order to survive the flood, which science has almost proved occured.

Ah, so then you are just ignorant of the claims the Noah myth makes.

All the animals , two by two, and the whole world flooded.

nkgupta80 · 04-26-08, 03:39 PM

besides the religious argument, why is it that people find evolution so hard to digest?

Cephus · 04-26-08, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hymns

Actually, Noah's ark is becoming MORE plausible as science has discovered large amounts of evidence that point to a monumental flood of the entire region.

That only works if you don't take what the Bible says literally. The Bible specifically refers to a WORLDWIDE flood. Certainly there are plenty of local floods in the Middle East, including a large one around Ur which was likely a cause behind the Babylonian flood myth, but there has absolutely, positively, never been a worldwide flood.

So that either leaves you in the uncomfortable position of reinterpreting the Bible to fit with observations, or rejecting observations in favor of demanding your book must be true.

Cephus · 04-26-08, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

besides the religious argument, why is it that people find evolution so hard to digest?

Mostly because they want to feel special. If we're all just animals then there's nothing "special" about us, we can't be egotistical about our existence. Some people are particularly shallow and short-sighted and can't live their lives if they're not feeling good about themselves.

Some people need to wake up and sniff reality.