Conquer Club

Just watched Expelled, with Ben Stein..... he tries to find answers to why scientists who support ID instead of Evolution lose their jobs, are denied tenure, don't get grants etc. Uncovering the bias in the scientific community. Enlightening film for both sides of the argument.

Bias toward what has been proven true through thousands of peer-reviewed experiments using the scientific method (read: observations of the natural world) and against that which has been proven true through zero peer-reviewed experiments using the scientific method (read: observations of the natural world).

That is your explanation. Do you feel enlightened?

GreecePwns wrote:Bias toward what has been proven true through thousands of peer-reviewed experiments using the scientific method (read: observations of the natural world) and against that which has been proven true through zero peer-reviewed experiments using the scientific method (read: observations of the natural world).

That is your explanation. Do you feel enlightened?

Ok maybe you would need to stick your finger in a light socket to get enlightened.

Nope. Having worked with my dad (an electrician) for a summer to what you Americans like to call "learn the value of a drachma" I know to turn switch the appropriate circuit breaker to "OFF" or in my house "KLEISTO" before doing so.

jay_a2j wrote:Just watched Expelled, with Ben Stein..... he tries to find answers to why scientists who support ID instead of Evolution lose their jobs, are denied tenure, don't get grants etc. Uncovering the bias in the scientific community. Enlightening film for both sides of the argument.

Bias means IGNORING evidence.

If someone were to come up with the theory that one half the earth's population were really green aliens from the planet x21, a few people would give it enough credance to just verify that there is nothing to the idea. In the case of young earth ideas, these folks have had over 40 years to publish, prove what they are saying is true. They have, on ALL accounts utterly failed. Even the "gold standard" of the IRC, which perports to collect and make available ALL young earth research cannot do better than to put out articles claiming that a 4 year investigation in Australia "found nothing" and so obviously evolutionists are just wrong in their ideas of echnidea descent.. or because a Ceolacanth is "just a fish", it cannot possibly represent anything meaningful in the transition to land species... (not to mention the fact that exists at all is supposed to prove transitions just don't happen) or other absurd claims about vestigial parts, etc, etc, etc.

But hey, Creationism is so much simpler to understand. Evolution actually requires THOUGHT !

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Just watched Expelled, with Ben Stein..... he tries to find answers to why scientists who support ID instead of Evolution lose their jobs, are denied tenure, don't get grants etc. Uncovering the bias in the scientific community. Enlightening film for both sides of the argument.

Bias means IGNORING evidence.

If someone were to come up with the theory that one half the earth's population were really green aliens from the planet x21, a few people would give it enough credance to just verify that there is nothing to the idea. In the case of young earth ideas, these folks have had over 40 years to publish, prove what they are saying is true. They have, on ALL accounts utterly failed. Even the "gold standard" of the IRC, which perports to collect and make available ALL young earth research cannot do better than to put out articles claiming that a 4 year investigation in Australia "found nothing" and so obviously evolutionists are just wrong in their ideas of echnidea descent.. or because a Ceolacanth is "just a fish", it cannot possibly represent anything meaningful in the transition to land species... (not to mention the fact that exists at all is supposed to prove transitions just don't happen) or other absurd claims about vestigial parts, etc, etc, etc.

But hey, Creationism is so much simpler to understand. Evolution actually requires THOUGHT !

WATCH the movie, THEN get back to me. The probability that all life came from a single living thing is so minute you might as well call it ZERO. Just open your mind and watch the movie.

jay_a2j wrote:Just watched Expelled, with Ben Stein..... he tries to find answers to why scientists who support ID instead of Evolution lose their jobs, are denied tenure, don't get grants etc. Uncovering the bias in the scientific community. Enlightening film for both sides of the argument.

Surely because there's no evidence for creationism, and it's simply not possible to test it. It'd be great to just cruise by in the sciences by publishing papers saying "This is kind of weird- God did it", then sitting back and crying foul when someone asks to examine your data, sounds cushy, especially if you get to whine about how nobody pays attention to you afterwards.

I'm personally shocked that my snake oil isn't acknowledged as proper medicine by the medical community. I can't even get my articles about it covered in the Lancet. When I applied for tenure at Harvard, they denied me! What a shock.

Still, I know you'll buy some snake oil. Ben Stein is making a documentary about it.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Just watched Expelled, with Ben Stein..... he tries to find answers to why scientists who support ID instead of Evolution lose their jobs, are denied tenure, don't get grants etc. Uncovering the bias in the scientific community. Enlightening film for both sides of the argument.

Bias means IGNORING evidence.

If someone were to come up with the theory that one half the earth's population were really green aliens from the planet x21, a few people would give it enough credance to just verify that there is nothing to the idea. In the case of young earth ideas, these folks have had over 40 years to publish, prove what they are saying is true. They have, on ALL accounts utterly failed. Even the "gold standard" of the IRC, which perports to collect and make available ALL young earth research cannot do better than to put out articles claiming that a 4 year investigation in Australia "found nothing" and so obviously evolutionists are just wrong in their ideas of echnidea descent.. or because a Ceolacanth is "just a fish", it cannot possibly represent anything meaningful in the transition to land species... (not to mention the fact that exists at all is supposed to prove transitions just don't happen) or other absurd claims about vestigial parts, etc, etc, etc.

But hey, Creationism is so much simpler to understand. Evolution actually requires THOUGHT !

WATCH the movie, THEN get back to me. The probability that all life came from a single living thing is so minute you might as well call it ZERO. Just open your mind and watch the movie.

Jay.. why do you assume you know something I do not? I have repeatedly asked you and others to put forward your ideas, but the thing is, you cannot just say "I wish this were true, becuase it would make more sense to me". You have to look at the real evidence.

Expelled is fully of distortions and inaccuracies. If you wish to debate it, then bring up specific points and we can deal with them. The trouble with saying "prove this entire movie false" (which is sort of what you are asking) is that so much of what is said is opinion and/or takes a very small bit of truth and then twists it into something else.

Again, narrow down points you believe to be true.. and then we can go from there.

what came first? matter or space? if space was 1st to exist where did the matter come from? or if matter came 1st where did the space come from? and then there is time when did that start? before or after the space or matter? tricky question. or did they all start at the same time but from what and how?

warmonger1981 wrote:what came first? matter or space?

It is easier to understand a closed universe. One can argue that the mathamatics of the infinity produces the same result but infinite reasoning generally requires a new mindset. Under the closed Hawkings model of the universe, the universe, space and time simply is. Nothing "came first" as the whole model is closed. All of spacetime simply exists, along with all the energy/matter within the spacetime.

Then again, my four years of college level physics and everything I've learned I've never quite grasped the concept of "space" (and thus the concept of time) because I have a feeling that being a part of it, my perceptions of it are somewhat warped by it. Under general relativity, space can be considered "curved" but other ways of looking at GR could imply that space itself (whatever this means) might actually "move" towards mass. (Thus one doesn't fall towards gravity rather than the space around you falls towards gravity.) And if that is true of space then is it true of time.

warmonger1981 wrote:what came first? matter or space? if space was 1st to exist where did the matter come from? or if matter came 1st where did the space come from? and then there is time when did that start? before or after the space or matter? tricky question. or did they all start at the same time but from what and how?

Where did time come from? Questions of first or starting are framed in time.