Ben Stein misses his own point
posted at 5:35 pm on April 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
John Derbyshire finds a rather disturbing comment from Ben Stein in an interview he did with TBN earlier this month, promoting his new film Expelled: The Movie. In explaining his reaction to researching the Holocaust by visiting Dachau and Hadamar, Stein railed against the distortions of Darwinian theory that led to the systematic eugenics murders and genocide of the Nazi regime. However, Stein misses the target by a mile when he says this at about the 28-minute mark:
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
I found a lot to recommend about Expelled, but this leaves me wondering if Ben Stein missed the point of his movie. Science does not lead to Dachau; ideology perverting science led to Dachau. The Holocaust occurred when raving anti-Semites and materialists latched onto scientific theory as a philosophy, making it into a rationalization for what they would have done regardless.
How could Stein say this without a hint of irony? The best themes in Expelled take Academia to task for the same destructive sin. Instead of pursuing all paths of scientific pursuit, the academics have imposed their philosophy and their ideology against religion as a means to keep anyone from testing the theories of random, accidental beginnings of life. In a similar manner to what’s seen in the global-warming debate, dissenting voices are excoriated as heretics and idiots, rather than letting the science speak for itself.
Instead of making the proper point that Stein makes in the movie, he now suggests that science itself is evil. That’s absurd. Scientific knowledge has for centuries gone hand in hand with the quest to come closer to God through understanding His creation, as Stein’s own movie argues. The application and expansion of science has led to huge advances in life, health, knowledge, and living standards. Can evil acts come from scientific advances, and can some scientists be evil? Of course — as with any other profession, but the acts come from overt human actions, not from the science.
The pure scientific method ignores ideology in favor of reproducible results, which leads to knowledge — not genocide. Expelled wants Academia to stop applying ideology to science, which is absolutely correct. Stein’s quote above discredits that message and makes the effort sound like an argument against science altogether, and Stein’s broad accusation against scientists is grossly unfair. It sounds like Stein is applying his own ideology instead of supporting the scientific method.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
Right again. And for those who don’t know, they call Darwins book, The Origin of Species. That’s not correct. Here is the whole title of the book, “The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.” Charles Darwin was a racist. In Darwin’s own book, “The Descent of Man,” in a chapter called “The Races of Man.” Darwin wrote:
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the SAVAGE RACES throughout the world.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Since the world is here, there are only two choices, MB4. Somebody made it, or it made itself. My prayers are for you (no joke. I will be praying for you) that one day you will realize there is a Creator, you need to find out who He is, what He wants and do what He says! Romans 6:23
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Is she at the age of accountability Anne, meaning does your daughter understand why Jesus died for her sins? I only ask to let you know that before the age of accountability children are saved, meaning God will not hold them accountable, not until they understand and are able to make a conscience decision to accept or reject the Lord Jesus as their Savior. I’m pleased you Christian influence near you, that your husband is a believer. Please watch this Anna. It’s especially for you.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Hi, phronesis. I hope you are doing well. Christians try to follow the so-called Golden rule of conduct:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Matthew 7:1
On the other hand, God has commanded us to “judge righteous judgement.”
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24
We should be able to recognize false teachers and “from such turn away.” Matthew 7:15-20
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:15-20
In otherwords, we should be able to judge that which is wrong, in either doctrine or practice, and avoid (or correct) those who are involved, but we must not condemn them – God must do that. I hope that helps.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Gene said:
According to who?
Do the math.
Gene said:
Considering the laws of thermodynamics deal with energy and a closed system(s), they are simply not applicable.
Typical response. What happens when the sun shines on a dead tree in the earth’s “open system”? Does it come back to life and start producing leaves; or does the sun’s energy accelerate decay (entropy)? Why is that? What’s missing?
BTW, thanks for the insults. Again, I see humility is not yet a selected trait among Darwinists.
labrat on May 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Yes, keep quoting mythology and scripture during a debate about evolution.
/sarcasm on
It really doesn’t show you to have a closed mind, dislike of non-xians and dislike of any fact that challenges your faith.
/sarcasm off
And what concern is that of yours?
For a person who has constantly claimed erroneously that evolution claims that we all came from a rock that came from nothing billions of years ago? You are a Hovind shill who can only parrot his disproven claims.
Tell me exactly how I am ignorant of evolution. Tell me what abiogenesis means. And if all you can do is spout more Hovind claims, say your time.
Wow. Now you are resorting to lying about what I think?
And where do you get that idea from?
Not in the manner you claim or are trying to twist it to mean.
Versus a group of people who wish to force mythology onto people as fact, stand in the way of research and stifle medical research based upon their religion objection.
So glad I have your ire and attention. Nice that your dislike of me also caused you to post a lie about what I support or believe.
But as a friendly note, you may want to change your linked page under your profile. According to the likes of right4life, YouTube is not a valid source for anything.
I’d hate to see your fellow creationism supporter denounce your source and embarrass you.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Ah Being pedantic now are we? Oaky, I see that I have to be very specific or overly so or you will twist what I state.
Again, perception being what it is, from the perspective of an atheist raised as a theist in a western nation, paganism was anything and still is seen as anything not xian.
In order to avoid the pedantic play on words, any non-abrahamic religion is considered pagan.
You posted a link to a source that illustrated cited what laws came from what religion or what god? No. You posted one sentence taken out of quote and ignored the larger body of text that did not support your claim. But it was a great example of quote mining.
So you did not read the quote I posted or follow the link about the origin of Roman laws. If you did, you would have read that there creation was by, for and of men not any gods or religion.
So again, if it is so obvious and there is so much proof, provide it. Once you prove that the Romans and Greeks based their laws on their various religions somehow, then we can move onto the Sumerians and other pre-xian peoples.
Wow. Another ad hominem. And you totally missed the point again. You claimed, and I quote:
A as in one religion? Even the definition you cite clearly states various religions. So your previous claim that paganism is a religion is an erroneous one. You even missed where I stated polytheistic.
Now, if you can refrain from making remarks about me, try to actually support your claims with verifiable facts.
Odd how your diction and mannerism are not that one would expect form a learned person.
And what about the Nazis? Again, Hitler was xian, though he was doing God’s work and even had God on the official belt buckles.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that he, like many others, used whatever his wanted to justify and support his plans.
It does however take an honest intellect to realize that communism is not atheism. That sort of simplistic thinking lead to all manners of witch hunts again anyone non-xian.
After all, the same simplistic thinking led to the idiom that since communists are atheist then atheist are communists.
And again, you ignore the very definition you yourself provided. Paganism is various religions. You seem to think that there is only one.
And again, in relation to the topic of Rome, you are ignorant of their society. Native Romans followed whatever Roman or other gods they chose to, but they also were open minded about other religions. They even provided what we would call generic temples for visitors to their cities to facilitate worship.
With the influx of people and trade, Roman did not strictly follow or believe in just their own goes. Hence the reference to polytheism earlier as weel as pagan rather than just Roman polytheism.
So I quoted a paragraph from a link I could not find?
And you seem to be confused as to what quote mining is.
You posted just one portion taken out of context that supported your claim while you ignored the larger paragraph I posted. And, unlike the cite you linked to earlier with the butchered quote, I posted the entire paragraph in its entirety.
Okay, exactly how is atheism a religion? Religions are based upon mythology, superstition, mystical claims, spiritual laws and the like.
And I know you are more learned than I, but you fail to comprehend the root origin of the term atheism. Most of the definitions of atheism are those created by xians about a people they tent to hate. The root origin of the term means a – without, theos – god. In other words, atheist are simply godless.
So how is being godless a religion?
And again, where do you get the idea that I think I am a god? My opinion is not inflated. I simply can back what I talk about with facts. You have yet to rational debate your claims or properly back them up.
And where have I made a comment about my worth that would lead you to think that all others are considered lesser by me?
And again, you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.
evolution cannot be falsified. the evidence doesn’t matter, the ideology is the key
And again, it can be provided that you come up with a theory that fits the evidence better than the current theory.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Wow. Resorting to juvenile name alterations? Yeah, that won’t make you seem more closed minded or anything.
And Genie is the best name you can call me? So even when you act as a juvenile, you are an underachiever.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Math as stated by a creation apologist?
And you claimed mind-bobbling. Where has it been proven to be impossible?
Again, open system for a closed system argument.
What insults? And since when is humility a factor in a discussion about the facts of evolution and the proven failure that ID and CS are?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 6:44 PM
You’re very welcome. You debate in a very wise, effective, way, and I wanted to let you know that. As you know, people accuse me of being sarcastic and stern (among other things.. lol), but the Bible says in Jude 22-23, “Some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.”
A Christian’s witnessing should normally be with “compassion” but sometimes with sober warnings of Hell, depending on circumstances. It should, of course, always be biblical, truthful, and done in loving concern.
Keep up the good work, Rose.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 6:46 PM
And name calling and name alteration fits into that loving and xian way exactly how?
Odd how those claiming to have the godly moral ground do not follow the basic golden rule.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Wow, still going on eh?
apacalyps, Are you still sticking with:
I may have missed it but did you ever explain your position on DNA testing that concluded Neanderthals were a separate species from humans and how that fits with your theory?
If you did and I missed it I apologize. Could you point me to your post on that?
Drew on May 2, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Try and keep your posts a little shorter please. Keep it less than 250 words. And try to make some sense for a change.
I was just curious when you registred at hotair? That’s all. no big deal. Was it recently?
And I’m still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you say “abiogenesis”. You’ve said many times it is not involved with the evolution theory.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Why? To please you or to allow you to avoid backing up claims you cannot?
Right. More personal comments rather than substance.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
It isn’t. I know what your talking points are. You link to and parrot Hovind and his laughable claims.
So, again, if you have a problem with abiogenesis, what is it? You claimed I am either ignorant or lying.
So care to back up that claim with some substance?
Then you can also back up your fabrication that I think evolution is not science.
Then you can address why you resorted to mane calling or name alteration. Still trying to claim your are a moral and upright xian after that glaring example of a double standard?
Or you could avoid me and answer Drew and others, if there are any, you have failed to address.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 7:40 PM
What?? Yeah, and up is down. Sir, you implied that entropy only occurs in a closed system. The death and decay all around you proves that not to be the case.
Facts??? Proven failure??? Hardly.
Psalms 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.
This question was asked 3000 years ago. David didn’t need science to tell him the answer, and neither do I.
labrat on May 2, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Kudos apacalyps, you’re the man. Keep up the good fight everyone.
Good night all.
labrat on May 2, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Drew, sorry, you seem like a nice fellow, but I have no time to go off on your little rabbit trail of how man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. All of the examples given as evidence for this supposed transition have been proven false over the years. The famous “Nebraska Man”, as I stated before, was actually made from one tooth, which later turned out to be the tooth of a pig.
The “Piltdown Man”, found in 1912, was used for over forty years as evidence for evolution. In 1953, it was discovered that it was a complete hoax. Someone had purposely hidden a chemically treated human skull cap and an ape jaw and tried to make everyone believe that they had found the missing link.
“Lucy”, was found in 1974 and is nothing more than a three-foot tall chimpanzee type animal. It is not a “missing link”.
Don’t the hoaxes (there are many more too) and the coverups bother you? Do have anything to say?
There is much more information about this topic on the Internet if you did a search. Also, in the book, “Bones of Contention” and “Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man”.
Don’t be Brainwashed into thinking your ancestors swung by their tails.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 7:46 PM
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species.
Darwin, himself, admits that the eye evolving is rightly absurd, yet, he then goes on to explain in his book how it may have happened… lol …
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 7:55 PM
All through the Bible God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, etc. Jesus Himself turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, and He called religious leaders ‘hypocrites’ and ‘vipers’ to their faces. In Matthew 23:29, Jesus said to them,
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are WITHIN FULL OF DEAD MEN’S BONES, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly APPEAR RIGHTEOUS unto men, but within ye are FULL OF HYPOCRISY AND INIQUITY.”
Jesus used strong words for strong circumstances.
Jesus Is Way Cool!
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 8:20 PM
I never implied anything about entropy. You may have assumed that when I spoke of the laws of thermodynamics.
Again, you are trying to take a set of laws designed around a close system regarding energy and apply it to an open system and information.
And where has any of the claims of ID and CS been proven by repeatable experimentation and peer review?
Sorry, quotes of a religion, mythology or superstation is not applicable to scientific investigations of evolution.
Probably earlier than that since your religion was created long after the rise of mankind.
So both of you prefer mythology. That is fine and you are free to do so, but your limitation should not and frankly will not limit research. You may find that research offensive, but that too is irrelevant.
After all, you live in a secular society and in a secular country.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Sure, if you are into mythical figures.
So your religion allows you to call those you disagree with names. You can alter my posts all you like. That action alone goes to show your true nature. Censor that which you do not like or agree with.
And exactly how is calling people names criticizing people other than in the grade-school bully sort of way?
So much for your loving xian way. It appears that it is only for others you deem worthy.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I’ve said no such thing. I simply asked how you reconcile your assertion that Neanderthals were, “human in every respect, it was an old man with arthritis” in light of
DNA testing that shows Neanderthals are a separate species from humans.
Based on your reply, am I accurate in assuming you think the DNA findings are simply a hoax? If I am wrong in that assumption, please correct me.
Drew on May 2, 2008 at 8:29 PM
If you are going to treat the man as if he were the love child of Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer, at least bother to get his quotes right… here’s what he said:
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Brainwashed?
I’m sorry… how old did you say the Earth was, again?
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 8:31 PM
And another typical quote mining worth of Moore and Stein.
Now for the rest of his statement that is often left out:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
Reason. Something I have yet to see form the religious claims of ID and CS.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 8:35 PM
No. Because you’re posting a whole bunch of stuff and saying nothing.
I laugh the way you talk about Hovind (who you hate). He is arguably one fo the top Creation Scientists in the world and he would wipe the floor with you in a debate. But, I also like Jonathan Wells, Ken Ham, Philip E. Johnson, Bill Cooper, James Perloff, Henry Morris, all of whom are heroes of mine and I quote quite often here. Take a look… read some of the articles at Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. You might learn something. Now, let’s stick to the topics at hand.
Gene… look. You wrote:
All I am asking you is to please define abiogenesis? What do you mean? I want to know what you mean so I can answer it. Thanks.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 8:35 PM
May the good Lord Jesus bless you forever labrat.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 22:37-40) Despite the fact you are dealing with certain, let’s say, “issues” Gene, and should obviously be locked up for the safety of the general public, as you can see I have a mandate as a Christian to love you, and to help you in any way I can.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 8:42 PM
*****Versus a group of people who wish to force mythology onto people as fact, stand in the way of research and stifle medical research based upon their religion objection.
So glad I have your ire and attention. Nice that your dislike of me also caused you to post a lie about what I support or believe.*******
Show me anywhere someone here “wishes to force” their “mythology” onto you, or “stifle medical research” (other than chopping up embryos, which so far has given people lots of tumors, but not one single cure). Guess posting lies is okay for you.
And by the way, “xtian” is a moronic way to attempt an insult.
Squiggy on May 2, 2008 at 8:49 PM
According to you, but then again you fail to actually reply to anything with a serious reply.
And that is an unfounded assumption on your part. I do not have to hate anyone to laugh at their unfounded claims.
Is that why all of his claims have been proven wrong? Like his claim that a large body of water orbited the Earth and caused the flood? Or how about his claim that a giant block of ice made it trough he atmosphere and buried all the animals found frozen at the poles?
If he is one of the top creation scientists, then your cause is in far worse shape than I thought.
Perhapes he can return to debating provided he can stay out of jail in the future.
Considering they reject research out of blind faith and cannot meet the standards that all scientific theories have to, I seriously doubt I will learn anything other than how not to debate or how closed minded they are.
Then why have you bothered to post irrelevant information?
Okay. Let’s use the standard definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Answer what? Are you going to give me a Hovind claim that we all came from a rock again?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM
So since you are calling me and others names, you want other to call you names I suppose.
Oh, lovely. I do not follow your religion, so I have “issues” and should “obviously” be locked up.
And to think we sent our soldiers overseas to fight people with the same mindset as you when we have so many here domestically.
You can keep your twisted xian love to yourself thank you.
I’m sure calling people names is s Sign of that love, but again, keep it to yourself.
And since we are discussing science, please keep your mythology and mythological figures such a Jesus out of the rational conversation.
If all you have is mythology and superstition, then there simply is not debate with you. You cannot debate science with a person who has based his entire view of existence on mythology and superstition and who chooses to reject anything but.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 8:58 PM
see you’re not a lost cause, you’re learning something from my posts.
whats the use of posting anything to you? if you disagree you call it ‘quote mining’ you darwinists are very resistant to the truth.
lets see, Islam informs the laws of sharia, and the Bible informs the laws of the West, but the romans, with their emporer as god, didn’t let their religious beliefs form the basis of their laws, and of course neither did the greeks…this is so idiotic its laughable!! are you for real??? look at the root of the word ‘culture’ …notice that part of that word is ‘cult’…go look it up! pathetic.
now you’re lying, but hey anything goes in the CULTof evolution
talk about pedantic, please. the religion of emperor worship was different than the cult of Molech, but each was aa what??? religion yeah thats it!!! and those religions were the basis of the law and culture of each of those civilizations. I know this is hard for you so I’ll try to speak s l o w l y!!
no one would ever make that mistake with you.
oh this is too funny! you want me back everything up, but you back NOTHING up. this is laughable, and I’ve already posted the proof about hitler being an evolutionist,
It does however take an honest intellect to realize that communism is not atheism.
so? and from you think their religion had no effect on their laws…right.
you prove my point AGAIN. you have not backed up anything with any ‘facts’ just your opinion, which to you must be right, since you speak from on high!! you’ve just proved my point! THANKS!!
you quoted from a link I provided haven’t seen many links you’ve provided, oh yeah except youtube!!
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Anyone who supports the idea of teaching the religious based notions of ID and CS in science classes are trying to push mythology onto others.
Stem cell research is just one issue theist have with specimen. The Pope and others condemn invitro fertilization.
Yes, and the mythology of a soul holds back medical research. A collection of 16 cell does not make a human being.
I have not lied. The supports of ID and CS wish to put religion back into schools.
And only a moron would assume that it was meant as an insult. I did not use “xtian” but xian. It is an abbreviation much like xmas.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 9:04 PM
What I am saying Drew is that the Neanderthals were simply post Flood humans who were deformed from diseases, arthritis, rickets… if a person gets older there’s a disease called acromegaly when the pituitary gland keeps secreting homeones, it’s an overproduction of growth hormone which causes excessive growth. In children, the condition is called gigantism. In adults, it is called acromegaly. Your nose gets bigger, your forehead gets thicker, ears get longer… ever see that happen in older folk, Drew? The Neanderthals were simply post Flood humans with disease. They are not radically different. It’s about 4% different.. and it’s within the range of humans today.
But, as I said now several times. I’m not interested in debating the ape to man theory. It’s ridiculous. I laid out a list of hoaxes by evolutionists who have tried to claim man evolved from ape like ancestors. You didn’t say a word about any of these, not even to denounce them. How come?
Do you believe man evolved from an ape-like ancestor?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Watcher. Do you believe your eye evolved?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM
My daughter is 5. She likes Sunday School because she gets to color and dress up pretty in a dress. Her religious exposure is through her grandparents, and until she’s older, I’m not going to debate her about God. When she asked why the sky is blue, I didn’t tell her ‘because God says so,’ I explained about light reflecting and wavelengths.
And my husband wishes for me to make the correction – he was raised Lutheran, and goes to church to please his parents. He’d rather me describe him as ‘mostly agnostic.’
I’m off to eat dinner, and then to watch BSG. I’ll pop back later to say hi, my friend.
the goddess anna on May 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM
I do feel sorry for you. I have posted more sources than just about anyone on this thread, and you have posted very few. but you think you don’t need anything to back up your opinions…and thats all they are, and they’re very illogical…but we’re back to ‘little god’ hypothesis of mine about atheists, which you prove with every post.
paganism is a religion. each cult has its own beliefs, its kind of like catholics and protestants…sufis and shias…go look it up. oopps I forgot thats too hard for you!!
if ID was a religion it couldn’t be tested, as you have said, and failed. religions can’t be tested.
I can see why evolutionists don’t want to debate creatinionists…try logic 101 wow!
you quote mined from the link I gave you! too funny!!
I have no doubts you are a produkt of publik edukashun!!
you can say that, but you provide no proof, AGAIN, and its a lie, as are most of the things you say.
uh you just said ID is a religion, it can’t be a science and a religion, so which is it? you are VERY confused.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM
you might find some of these links interesting:
Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cp-ttf032008.php
this disproves evolution…all that micro evolution, no macro evolution.
If only Darwinists could come up with a body of convincing scientific evidence to support Darwin’s theory: after 150 years of assuring us, such evidence surely must exist. As recently as May of this year, the best that a Darwinist as prominent as Professor Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine could come up with as examples of evolution in action was: (1) bacterial resistance to antibiotics; (2) insect resistance to pesticides; and (3) the evolution of fur coloring of desert rodents. (Ayala, “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (May 2007).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/how_dare_we_demand_that_darwin.html
the fossil record does not show evolution:
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
when tested, evolution fails:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/pnas;101/43/15376
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I believe that my eye was inherited.
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Only your dishonest tactics.
That is because you selectively use only part of the cited source and ignored the rest that did not support your claims. That is quote mining.
You are still ignorant of history. Roman leaders were not thought of as gods. And again, what gods inspired what laws? What pantheon or combination. You keep crowing “laughable” but have yet to list anything to support your claims.
Again, I see not link to support out claims that law originate form religion in regards for the Greeks and Roman. You can keep making the hollow claims, but that is all they are.
Relly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#The_Twelve_Tables
Again form the link and source you refuse to read.
Again, you can claim I am lying all you like or call me a cultist, but you still ignore the links I posted and fail to read the information.
And again, where is your source for this claim? Where is it documented what Roman god or pantheon the laws were based upon? You can keep up the personal insults, but one you resorted to them, you have already lost your argument.
Really? No capitalization. Lacking proper punctuation. And after you made claims about my education.
And again, you can ignore history all you like. You fail to address the fact that God was on every Nazi Belt buckle. Then ther are the claims of doing god’s work. So why would and evolutionist who evidently did not beleiv in god place it on the Nazi uniform?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521823714/freethinkers
I never said it never had an effect. You claimed that their laws originated from their religion and have yet to back up that claim.
Only if you ignore or dismiss the links I have posted and refuse to read what I have psoted or the linked sources.
Speaking of rejecting my sources:
So again I have to ask, is John Stossel not a valid source? Is a report he files not valid? That was the youtube link.
And you are still in error. I linked to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables
So if all you have are more evasions, uninformed opinion or more claims with nothing to back them up, then the debate is over since you cannot rise tot eh challenge.
If you actually went to college or were ever and academic student in high school, you would have learned the ruled of a debate and would have acted accordingly. Once you resort to personal insults and such, you have lost.
I know you think evolution is wrong and all, but your hollow claim and protest amount to naught.
In the end, the results of science and scientific research like evolution will be taught as the science it is in schools. You are free to pull your children out and teach them mythology and superstition, but in the end, your children will be limited in the choices for career not to mention harmed by those limitations.
But I do have to thank you for providing more than enough of an example of why ID and CS are not only not science, but why those who support it actually want religion back in the school or worse yet in control of the nation.
Night R4L.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Watcher. Do you believe you evolved from ape-like ancestors?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Yes, I do… and I have the hairy back to prove it.
Back to my question… roughly how old do you believe the Earth is?
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I haven’t tried to engage you in any evolutionary theory questions. I simply asked how you square your statement that Neanderthals are humans with DNA evidence that they are not.
It’s clear now you believe it’s a hoax.
I’d be interested in any evidence you might have for this versus just a belief that it’s all falsified.
As to your question, I answered it yesterday the first time you asked me (albeit in a different guise).
Again, I haven’t tried to engage you in an evolution debate because you made your position quite clear when you said you were a Young Earth Creationist. I assure you I have no interest in talking you out of that position, I am simply trying to understand what that entails.
Also, I think it’s fair to judge your arguments in light of other beliefs you have such as this issue around Neanderthals.
Quite frankly I find your positions fanciful at best but that doesn’t mean I am not interested in drawing out your thoughts on the subject.
Drew on May 2, 2008 at 9:45 PM
And your courses do not back up your claims. You also made claim with no sources to back them up. You like telling me to go look it up, but that is not my job.
You can call me all the names you like, but I have backed up my claims. Still waiting for one that backs up the claim that all laws originated form religion.
Even your own definition states religions. And you afaing ignore the fact that Rome was a melting pot of several polytheistic pantheons. So which gods were used to found what laws?
And again, you ignore my posts. The claims of religion that affect the natural world or claims of the natural world can be tested and have. Those claim failed.
Try basic reasoning and rational thought. You cannot even separate the religion form the claim that can be tested.
I posted a full paragraph. Your quotes were incomplete and ignored the rest of the article. If you are going to lie to support your claim, do a better job.
I have no doubts you are a produkt of publik edukashun!!
And gain, even if you were an academic student, you would have learned the rule of debate.
Considering you again have to resort to more insults rather than made a rational posts illustrates how you are simply too emotional to rational debate. You appears to fly into hatred so easily against those you disagree with. From what I see on this forum, it appears to be a common xian trait.
Oh I have proof, but you would have to go to a site you have already rejected as a source.
Right. No simplistic mindset or hatred in that comment of yours. I’m sorry you are backing a dishonest charlatan, but the fact support my claims.
You can ignore these links all you like. Perhaps other will find them of use:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background
So since Hovind uses youtube, are his videos and claims no longer valid?
I have addressed that in detail and you have ignored it. It is not my fault your closed mind limits your understanding.
Considering you dismiss or ignore anything you cannot face, that mean little from you.
And again, whatever complaining you do mean nothing. ID and CS are totally disproven and evolution will be taught until replaced by another valid theory. Religion or it’s derivative is not applicable. No mythology is.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 9:51 PM
SinceIf God is here, or there or everywhere or hiding some place, there are only two choices, apacalyps. Somebody made God, or God made himself/herself/itself. So you see, you haven’t solved a thing.That doesn’t do a thing for me, but if it floats your boat, have at it.
If He wants to give me the word, He knows where to find me. I don’t listen to any of His self appointed middlemen.
MB4 on May 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM
There is any conflict between science and the Bible…. these people, they are so deluded.
Agnostic (ie, I don’t know) is the Greek word for “Ignoramus”.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM
For all of the loving xians like right4life and apacalyps, here is a link about how Ben Stein played fast and loose with the truth and facts. I’m sure the source is not valid since an atheist like myself is listing them.
http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm
And here is a bit of very funny hypocrisy form Stein himself.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1223/225_print.html
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I cannot agree with those who rank humility among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one’s self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one’s own powers.
Holmes on May 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM
(emphasis added)
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM
What does that mean?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Apparently not.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Oh. That must have been more xian love rebuking.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:05 PM
its called projection…oh well trying to be nice to an atheist is casting pearls before swine.
thats just what you did.
smirk…this is gettin better all the time!! too funny!! you really are clueless..
Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.
On his death, Julius Caesar was officially recognised as a god, the Divine (’Divus’) Julius, by the Roman state. And in 29 BC Caesar’s adopted son, the first Roman emperor Augustus, allowed the culturally Greek cities of Asia Minor to set up temples to him. This was really the first manifestation of Roman emperor-worship
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/roman_religion_gallery_06.shtml
tell me, what other ‘facts’ do you have to amuse me with??
I don’t see any links of yours to support your claim that religion had nothing to do with their laws. now are you going to be honest enough to admit you were wrong about emporer worship, and since you were wrong about that, you are wrong about this too!
its gotten to the point where I can only say DUHHHH I gave you that link….with this quote you refuse to read..
It has been suggested that the ancient roots of the Roman Law derive directly from the Etruscan religion, which puts great emphasis on the rituality and is rather formality-centred concerning its nature. [3]
you are a liar, I’m the one who gave you that link…again duhhhhhhhh…..pathetic.
you give me a book by a revisionist historian who no doubt hates christianity…laughable!!
oh for about the 10th time I posted this…
The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=
A flat out lie, I linked to that article first, and then you stole it, because you are unable to do your own research. do you darwiniacs EVER tell the truth??
but I sure did manage to make you look foolish. and it wasn’t hard.
yeah but you haven’t explained why ID is a religion, after you claim it was falsified…you can’t falsify a relgion….logic isn’t your strong suit, OBVIOUSLY.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I’ve noticed your ‘job’ is just to parrot darwiniac talking points. evolution doesn’t happen. there is no evolution in the fossil record, and when put to the test it fails.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/pnas;101/43/15376
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
it can’t be reproduced in the lab…its not science, just an atheistic faith.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:13 PM
LOL. That is correct right4life. Gene keeps posting the same thing over and over and posts these big long messages (that say nothing – but look sophisticated) then he replies to people like you that everything you say is quote mining… lol… This is not logical, of course. Gene, I don’t care who posts what from whom here as long as it’s accurate and truthful. Why don’t stay on topic and answer the questions. Do you believe everything alive today came from a rock?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:18 PM
you haven’t backed up anything, in fact you have to lie about the sources you steal from me!! again you prove the ‘little god’ hypothesis (look up the word) whatever you say is ‘true’ even though its a lie.
since the emporer was a god, whatever he wanted…kind of like you atheists think!!
huh? what are you talking about? what claims? you’re babbling now.
you posted the NEXT paragraph, and then claimed you supplied the link!! tell me are you a used car salesman or a politician?
truth hurts, you’re a proven liar.
if they were religion they couldn’t be disproven. do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself?
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM
All you have is insults. You have already lost the debate due to this alone.
You may be an adult, but you do not behave like one.
Perhaps when you can act like one and back up your claims with something other than hatred, emotional outburst and insults, you can try again.
A quant term used by one of my children appears applicable to you: Later hater.
But again, follow that mythology of yours and teach your children to believe every word. That will make for lees competition when my children compete for college and for jobs involving science.
If you have any more insults, please post as many as you can. I can use all the ones you and apacalyps have as examples of how not to debate and why ID and CS are simply creation mythology.
You do know what a podcast is don’t you?
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Gene likes using Wikedpedia as his source of information.
WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG.COM
Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as fact. It uses mostly unidentified people to submit ideas on any topic of their choosing, and rather than utilize professional fact checking, Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters.
Wikipedia Co-Founder Seeks to Start Over
“It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing . . . and has little chance of improving”
Is Wikipedia Reliable?
“There are now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools. … This is made worse by the fact that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for other on-line sources”
False Wikipedia Biography:
“This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.”
College: Wikipedia Not a Valid Source
“It [Wikipedia] can’t be cited as an authoritative source by students.”
Faculty disagree on use of Wikipedia
Since the authors of Wikipedia articles are anonymous, they cannot be cited as authorities.
Oh Noes!
“Prince Rainier III of Monaco married porn star American actress Pamela Anderson.” WHAT?
Wikipedia admin caught lying, posting anonymous attacks, making coverup
“A good expose’ of how corrupt Wikipedia really is.”
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:23 PM
he’s really laughable….have you noticed he says ID and creationism have been disproven, but then turns around and calls them a ‘religion’ but of course a religion cannot be proven or disproven.
then he tries to claim links I supplied as his own…and then backs nothing he says up….amazing…
these evolutionists just prove the truth of the bible in Romans 1 its really funny in a way, but rather sad and frightening in another….
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:23 PM
So you do believe man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Um, I see. What happened to our tails? How come they evolved away? I kinda think a tail would be handy while driving and opening doors when I have a handful of groceries.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM
it is you who have lost the debate, as well as all sense of shame, obviously
but you claim they have been falsified…but mythology cannot be falsified…and you don’t have the guts to admit the truth.
you have no idea how foolish you are. its given me a lot of laughs though!
still think the emporers in Rome were not worshipped??? hmmmm??? (smirk) go ahead tell me some more ‘facts’ this should be good….
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM
evolutionists assume that macro changes can add up from micro changes, but they have never been seen, and as the tuatara shows, micro doesn’t add up to macro.
there goes their precious ‘theory’
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM
so explain to me why Columbia, Yale, Brown, Duke, U of Chicago, Carnegie melon, Northwestern, etc are all so interested in my son?
your kids will be ironing my kid’s shirt!!
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:34 PM
I have no problem with providing evidence to you of a young earth, and showing you that there is zero evidence for the evolution, however, I doubt you have any genuine interest in knowing the truth, as I’ve posted several well put together posts already with respect to this (ie, Polnium Halos, Irreducible Complexity, petrified trees running through several layers of rock, clear evidence of a flood, ape to man hoaxes) to name only a few, and you haven’t commented on one of them. You sound like a nice guy, but y’know… if I were an evolutionist and saw these things it would make me take a second look.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:37 PM
evolutionists never let facts get in the way of their faith.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 10:41 PM
You were right to capitalize the Lord’s name MB4. Let me pose a question. Suppose you found out today that there really is a Creator God, and that He made the Universe, and that He has rules for life (Things like don’t lie, don’t lust after others, etc.). Would that change how you live?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Gene Splicer, is somebody paying you to post here?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Where did I lie? You do know what a lie is do you not?
And again, do you actually know how to read? The claims of religion can be tested. Like the claim the bible makes that the Earth was flat. Tested and proven to be wrong. One notable person was burned as the stake for supporting that fact.
And you are a dishonest theist. I have stated over and over the claims of religion that affect the natural world can be tested and have and have been found lacking.
Considering to had to and still have to resort to insults, I guess it doesn’t take much to amuse you.
Like the fact that you think that if something happened once in the history of Rome or for a period of time, it was a staple throughout it’s existence? No wonder you like Hovind. You are just as bereft of intellectual honest as he is.
Well, every college needs janitors. :)
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:48 PM
First you want to know how long I have been registered to post on WordPress, then claim I need to be locked up and now you ask question worthy of a 9/11 truther?
Yes, the international evolutionists’ cartel paid me to post on HotAir.
Too funny.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Very sad indeed.
“Because … when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man%?m o birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things (evolution). Wherefore God …gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,.. God gave them up unto vile affections…” Romans 1:20-27
That’s be a horrible thing if God gave up on you.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:56 PM
The above got scrambled.
“And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things (evolution). Wherefore God …gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,.. God gave them up unto vile affections…” Romans 1:20-27
That’s be a horrible thing if God gave up on you.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Not more a horrible thing than if Zues, Diana, or Dagda gave up on me.
Like I said, your faith is yours, but in our secular society, it stays yours. No one bows down to your claims of religion who does not choose to.
And as it has been argued, you are and atheist when it comes to other religions. I am just an atheist for one more religion than you.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:00 PM
No doubt.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Here’s a fun idea. Would either of you be willing to debate ID and CS on a science or physics forum? This forum has actually scientists on it so you could make your argument directly to them and prove evolution erroneous.
Or you could prove that ID and CS are valid theories.
Care to? I mean if you don’t have the conviction of your claims you pretend to, I’m sure you will find a way out of that invitation.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Apes don’t have tails, monkeys do.
And I will ask you now for the third time… roughly how old do you believe the Earth is?
Watcher on May 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM
the funniest one was when you claimed to supply a link I supplied. every time I see your posts I see lies, illogic, lunacy.
another ‘fact’ this is laughable!! post the verse that shows the earth is flat!! go ahead, this should be good!! thats another of many lies
who? name names!!
just once huh? why do you think the christians were killed hmmmmm?? because they would not say Kaisar Kurios (look it up)
you must be a democRAT!! your spinning is amusing to say the least, too bad you don’t have the integrity to admit what you said. but you’re an evolutionist, so no surprise!
too bad neither you or your kids have the intellect to be janitors.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:07 PM
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:09 PM
there are going to be a lot of people that find out to their utter horror that the Bible is true.
they have no idea….
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Speaking of which, Charlie Darwin said, “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… .”
That’s correct Charlie.
We should have countless transitional species or animals, far more than you have of the final product. In fact, we should see them walking around living amongst us right now. Where are they?
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 11:14 PM
they’re assumed…here’s the evolutionist’s version of science
1) assume evolution
2) observe a fact
3) tell a just-so story that fits the fact into evolution
if all else fails…
4) wave the magic wand of time.
they have been unable to evolve anything in the lab, and the fossil record does not show evolution. Why don’t they just take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-celled creature, using mutations? because they can’t. this would prove evolution, but they are unable to do it, and then complain they ‘need more time’ its really funny….they have FAITH, that evolution works, though they cannot see it, or duplicate it.
right4life on May 2, 2008 at 11:18 PM
What a silly analogy. Listen, Gene, you keep avoiding a fundamental question. You say you believe the theory of evolution. You’ve been here defending it. I did some reading and and want to know if you believe about 4.6 billions of year ago, the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust. What are you embarrased about. This isn’t a trick question.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 11:22 PM
The Creation is proof of the Creator so we are without excuse! God says he has shown us stuff about creation and it is ‘clearly seen’.
“For the invisible things of him (GOD) from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things THAT ARE MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (meaning people) are WITHOUT EXCUSE:” Romans 1:20
They will have no excuse when they stand before God. Can’t use the excuse I was misled by evolution. Just like an Arab thinks he will go to heaven and get 72 wives if he blows up some Israelis, he has been misled. Okay. Well, you’ve been misled.
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Do not be deceived into believing the lie of evolution. This is just one of Satan’s tricks to get us away from God.
¸¸.•*´¨`*•.¸¸¸.•*´¨`*•.¸¸¸.•*The Watchmaker
apacalyps on May 2, 2008 at 11:33 PM
C’mon, apacalyps! I’ve been reading this for an hour. Will you answer Drew’s question? How old do you think the earth is?
MikeZero on May 2, 2008 at 11:47 PM
So in other words you have no example where I lied. Since lying is a person intentional stating what he or she know not to be true, your claim, even if factual, would mean I have posted errors in your eyes.
All you have to do is show me where you cited the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law#The_Twelve_Tables link first. You only used a limited quote from the main article.
So you are not familiar with your own bible?
Now, why would the bible use the term circle instead of ball?
Wow. You do not even know the history of your relgion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Giordano Bruno supported the heliocentric model of the universe that was in direct conflict with the geocentri model that the church claimed was the fact of the bible.
Bruno was burned at the steak for this and many other crimes.
Can you read this much of an article or is the source not to your liking?
And again, this occurred at the foundation of the Roman empire around 510 BCE? No. IT was established later in the Roman empire.
And again, in context, the laws set forth as the foundation of the Roman empire were, according to you, based upon religion. Which gods inspired which laws?
Ah yes. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically your enemy or one of those you classify as one.
I have already stated that I prefer a libertarian state. I guess you missed that.
LOL. They sure have better grasp of diction and proper punctuation than you, so yes, their intellect is not low enough to be janitors.
So you don’t have the conviction of your claims and did find a way out of the invitation.
So if you are unable to prove your claims to a group of scientists, then exactly how do you plan on getting ID and CS in schools? After all, it has been ruled as religion and by a conservative judge or one seen as such by Bush.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Not silly at all. Quite the fact actually. You do not believe in their gods do you? So that makes you atheistic in regards to their religion.
Like which one?
You did demand earlier that I answer what abiogenesis was right? Did you ever “answer” that as you claimed you would. I may have missed it.
Oh, and after your 9/11 truther question, I think you have illustrated just how intellectual dishonest you are and what level s of accusations you will stoop to.
Then there is the claim I have “issues” and need to be locked up.
But I am sure that is simply more xian love…somehow.
Gene Splicer on May 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM
And a book created by mankind says so therefore it must be fact. So why is your mythology and book more important or more factually than others?
Gene Splicer on May 3, 2008 at 12:01 AM
He answered it yesterday in a very timely and straight forward way.
What he hasn’t answered directly is how he squares his statement that,
Based on his responses I believe he thinks the DNA testing showing Neanderthals and humans are two separate species is a hoax.
Of course, if he’d like to correct that impression without changing the subject I am all ears.
Drew on May 3, 2008 at 12:02 AM
So what does science have to teach us about how we got to be who we are or why the world is the way it is? It’s in The Bible so there’s no need to explore or understand, right?
I’ll give you this apacalyps, you are honest and open about what you believe.
You honestly think the Earth is 6,000 years old, that humans used to live to be 900 years old, and scientific claims about the differences between Neanderthals and humans are simply hoaxes (which must logically imply a conspiracy of enormous proportions).
You like to point to things you claim are hoaxes. Well Piltdown Man was a hoax and when that was proven researchers accepted that, reevaluated old findings in light of new evidence and moved on.
That’s something that can never happen with a faith based approach. You aren’t open to any evidence that might contradict your rather esoteric view of the world.
As I’ve said many times I don’t begrudge people their faith but I do take issue with people who use their faith to bludgeon people who are trying to do science.
Yes, I recognize that you don’t see evolution as science but that’s your problem not mine.
Personally, when it comes to matters of science, I’ll take a scientific approach over a faith based one everyday.
Drew on May 3, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Wow. That is Hovind simply parroted.
Gene Splicer on May 3, 2008 at 12:05 AM
So let me see if I understand the proper science we should have if what is claimed in ID and CS is true.
Genetics is suspect or limited if it disagrees with scripture.
Geology is wrong or suspect if it disagrees with scripture.
Astronomy if it doesn’t support the claims of divine creation.
Medicine if it seeks to use materials that are forbidden in scripture.
How far would it go?
What type of world would be allowed under scripture?
Like Drew stated, personal faith is one thing. Pushing in onto others is another especially at the expense of legitimate research.
And what about theist that accept evolution and have no problem balancing personal faith with science? Are they wrong, misled or part of the conspiracy?
Gene Splicer on May 3, 2008 at 12:23 AM
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ BLAST FROM THE PAST ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
Well, let’s go to a school textbook for the answer:
“How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that almost 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang.” Prentice Hall General Science 1992 p 61
There you have it. It says all the matter in the universe squished into a dot the size of a period at the end of this sentence. That’s one crowded dot for sure! Heavy too!
apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Where we going?
I hope you have learned this world was created.
YES, I believe the universe was created in six literal, 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago, as descfribed in the Holy Bible. See Mathew 19:4; Exodus 20:11; Genesis 1 & 5 etc……) The earth is not billions of years old.
apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Thanks. Missed it the first time.
MikeZero on May 3, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Gene, Wikedpedia is not a valid source at all. It lets anonymous users add encyclopedia entries (people like you):
Is Wikipedia Reliable?
“There are now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools. … This is made worse by the fact that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for other on-line sources”
Wikipedia Co-Founder Seeks to Start Over
“It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing . . . and has little chance of improving”
College: Wikipedia Not a Valid Source
“It [Wikipedia] can’t be cited as an authoritative source by students.”
apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 12:35 AM
This is just so funny. The reason that Wiki article was sued was due to R4L listing the main article to begin with. So he has stated that your source, YouTube, is not valid and now you state his source, wiki, is not valid.
And what if I found the same information elsewhere? Still invalid?
People like me versus people like you? OH, I guess that is where conservapedia comes into play.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
And yes, dismiss source rather than amount a rational argument.
And where did you answer the last question I answered for you? You know, the abiogenesis one? Did you forget?
Gene Splicer on May 3, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Oh, I almost forgot. You claim wiki is not valid, but a book written by mankind and altered over time is?
While it is more than valid for personal faith and belief, it is not valid as a document of fact in regards to our history or existence.
Gene Splicer on May 3, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Yes, you provided your definition of abiogenesis, but you never answered my follow-up which was “do you believe about 4.6 billions of year ago, the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust?” I was waiting for an answer. You said before “Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis”. For those reading, abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-living matter. But, I understand why you avoid answering if you believe the earth cooled down from a hot fiery mass and developed a hard rocky crust, because evolution teaches from these rocks a cosmic soup of some kind came alive, and the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat (pretty good trick) and slowly evolved into everything we see today (ie, ABIOGENESIS — life evolving from non-living matter).
The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding’.
apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Oh, Pah-leeeee-ze…..
apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Hi Drew. I hope you are doing well. The Neanderthal man was human in every respect, it was an old man with arthritis. Great great great great grandpa was not a monkey swinging from a tree. Drew, I want to give you some more evidence for creation. The Bible tells us in Romans 2:15, that God’s law is written in every one of our hearts. It says, “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.”
That means God’s is law written in our hearts and our conscience bears witness to this by indicating to us what’s right and wrong.
Please watch.
apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Just correcting a spelling mistake above:
That means God’s
islaw is written in our hearts and our conscience bears witness to this by indicating to us what’s right and wrong.apacalyps on May 3, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »