Expelled

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Avatar4321, Dec 23, 2007.

  1. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

    I was debating what forum to put this under. I considered the movie section, the religion and ethics section, the science section. But in the end, I think the most appropriate section is this one.

    Ben Stein's movie is focused on a very important topic. Not the creation/evolution debate, although it does center itself on that. But a far more important subject for this nation: Freedom to question.

    Being a student of history, I think one of the major lessons I've learned is that when people are free to question, they are allowed to grow. I have no desire to return to the dark ages. If we allow anyone in any field to shut down discussion on any topic then we risk losing the very freedom we love and treasure.

    If I can afford it, I will go see this. Not because I really care how we are created, but because I care that we are free to question it.
     
  2. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49
    Of course you're free to question whatever you want...that's the beauty of America. The problem that I have with this debate is when it is attempted to be labeled as a science and placed into the classroom. When enough evidence is gathered and a theory as comprehensive as Darwin's is presented, then we'll call it science. And I highly doubt that these creation scientists do not have the resources to conduct their research...there are many people in America, including a presidential candidate, who have deep reservations about evolution.

    However, I must ask: are you really questioning or are you simply trying to find evidence that supports an answer in which you already believe?
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I have the same problem when a theory, backed by no more real evidence being presented in a classroom as any more valid than the theory of Creation.

    Let's be so kind as to define "evolution" for the purposes of this argument. Evolution as in everything that is not evolving is dead vs that creationist fairy tale Darwin concocted where Man evolved from apes. I have no problem with the former definition. The latter stinks.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Doesn't science class also teach the "theory" of how life supposedly sprang forth from rocks on this planet? Which if they think about it is nearly the same as how God is supposed to have created Adam, after all he used Dirt to do it, dirt comes from rocks.

    Neither can be proven, both require some kind of belief in happenstance. One requires us to believe that by some cosmic lucky roll of the dice ( roll after roll really) Life magically appeared on earth. The other requires us to believe that a God did it.

    And what I love is the "example" used to justify man's supposed evolution from an "ape like creature". They use the Horse. Now research that a bit and you will find that , yes indeed there is a long proven history of evolution with the horse.... BUT it was always a HORSE.

    It always looked like a horse, it always acted like a horse.

    Provide us with an example of one species evolving into 2 different species, and do not mean guessing, I mean a hard and fast tree of evidence clearly linking the 2 species to the previous different species.

    And if you trot out single cell or simple cell creatures I am going to demand you provide said evidence with a complex creature.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    My favorite is the Big Bang. From absolute nothing, "something" came. Defies a basic law of science -- you cannot get something from nothing.

    How many species have evolved from another and the original still exist? Man supposedly evolved from apes; yet, apes still exist.

    I accept science for the most part. It's Man's way of micromanaging his own environment within the limit of Man's intellect. I don't accept science where it attempts to disprove Creation by going into the religion business itself.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    No No, the latest theory is that an " ape like" creature was the father to modern apes and man.

    Using the science that claims that we are all evolved from mice anyway.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    The only ignorance here is claiming that science has established something it clearly has not. Evolution inside a species, I believe is proven. Evolution where one species magically springs forth a new species is NOT proven.
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    When you clear away the smoke and mirrors, what you call "empirical evidence" amounts to NO actual evidence. It's theory -- conjecture. Nothing more.

    However, I do not contend that Creationism is science. Rather, I claim that science insofar as creation is concerned becomes religion.

    Mendelian genetics factually prove nothing.

    Harnessing the genetic code is irrelevent. That's Man playing Frankenstein with Man. It's within Man's intellect and based on fact and evidence and explained by science, Man's manifestation of intellect insofar as the topic is concerned.
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Darwin's theory of evolution has been proven to be factual by no real evidence. You can't seem to get past that part. Again, when you get rid of the smoke and mirrors of your argument, there is no more evidence for that than there is Creation. Everything you call "proof" and/or "empirical evidence" boils down to guesswork.

    Creation is overwhelmingly accepted by the Judeo/Christian community. So?
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You can verify hybridization by hybridization in plants and animals. The fact that Man can arbitrarily alter genes and create an artificial evolution in no way proves a natural evolution based on Darwin's theory.

    There is no evidence that proves Darwin's theory. Why it's called a "theory," and why this argument exists and has existed.

    I'd say rather his is the sanctuary of an open mind while you present a willfully blind argument.
     

Share This Page