or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 11

post #401 of 424
If 'god' did not create Evolution, then 'gods' laws of thermodynamics would have rapidly made all life extinct.

haha! Game over!
post #402 of 424
Study Suggests Life On Earth Sprang From Borax Minerals

Quote:
Researchers at the University of Florida say they have shown that minerals were key to some of the initial processes that formed life on Earth. Specifically, a borax-containing mineral known as colemanite helps convert organic molecules found in interstellar dust clouds into a sugar, known as ribose, central to the genetic material called RNA. This announcement provides a key step toward solving the 3-billion-year-old mystery of how life on Earth began. The findings will appear in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Steven Benner, Alonso Ricardo, Matthew Carrigan and Alison Olcott built on a famous experiment done 50 years earlier by Stanley Miller that is found in many textbooks. In 1953, Miller showed that electric sparks in a primitive atmosphere made amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

Artificial Life? Old News

Quote:
Yesterday the news broke, and it broke big: genome pioneer Craig Venter and his team of scientists at his eponymous institute had created a microbes genome from scratch. ... He has gone beyond merely sequencing a genome and has designed and built one. In other words, he may have created life, the article intoned. The Economist promised that when Venter is done, he will have erased one of the last mythic distinctions in science--that between living and non-living matter.

But what does it really signify to do this? What does it teach us about life that we didnt know before? There was indeed a time when scientists believed there was something fundamentally different about living matter and non-living matter.

Its called the Middle Ages.

The scientific revolution helped open our eyes to the fact that living things are made of the same stuff as non-living things. By the early 1800s, it was possible for scientists to synthesize an organic molecule (urea). In the twentieth century, quantum physicists wondered if life defied the laws of physics that governed the rest of the universe. But molecular biology made clear that it didnt.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #403 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

MarcUK: I hear you -- but think about that univocal vs. equivocal take on what happened at Siani. We have to have something anthropological to explain the the Passover, etc., -- but when we reduce it to the phenomenal word, but still want the voice of God, that's a little screwy.




**Alert**


This is the best thing I've seen on the Evo/ID debate -- the fairest thing I've seen yet.

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...ligent-design/


http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/sh...n-mind-closed/

Well, I managed to get through the first one.

If you actually cannot perceive what an utter pile of disingenuous, illogical, fatuous, glib and simply wrong nonsense that thing is, then I have to conclude that you can't think, very well.

Simple as that. There are basic logical frameworks that we're all obliged to at least pretend to adhere to, if we expect to be able to have a discussion beyond grunting excitedly. If that bit of sophistry strikes you as compelling, we might as well start banging pots and pans and call that debate.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #404 of 424
Thread Starter 
Instead of just dismissing that stupid shit out of hand, let me just illustrate one instance in which that unfunny douchebag presenter is either too goddam stupid to understand an argument or too much of an asshole to acknowledge it.

About 1:10 into the "Darwin's Intelligent Design" video Captain Asshat brings up Dawkins saying that life on earth could have been seeded from space.

Dickbag Magee immediately confuses two distinct issues: (1) the origin of life in general and (2) the origin of life on this planet. Anyone capable of reading and picturing the universe in even a simple way should see the problem here. Our planet is just one of trillions of celestial bodies in the universe. All of these things are in constant motion and they collide with each other all the time.

It is possible that simple organic compounds could have formed in a different part of our solar system and then crash landed on earth to survive and thrive on the earth. An analogy to make is a certain type of insect struggling along in one ecosystem, but when it is transplanted into a new one it comes to dominate.

Mr. Denim Shirt further confuses himself by leaving the perfectly reasonable statement "no one knows the origin of life" open to an interpretation that god could fit somewhere in that ignorance, and demeaning Dawkins by falsely accusing his childhood Christian fellows of being abusive (about 1:44 into the video - a common statement that I think is quite amusing in that you have Christians openly admitting how abusive they are).

What he fails to mention in trying to leave that god hole open is that Dawkins rejects the idea of god because he states, quite fucking explicitly. Let me just quote Dawkins himself from pages 113 and 114 of The God Delusion:

Quote:
The creationist misappropriation of the argument from improbability always takes the same general form, and it doesn't make any difference if the creationist chooses to masquerade in the politically expedient fancy dress of 'intelligent design' (ID). Some observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its more complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable. Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a measure of improbability or 'surprise value'. Or the argument may invoke the economist's hackneyed motto: there's no such thing as a free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of trying to get something for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes from. It turns out to be the God Hypothesis that tries to get something for nothing. God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

Where did the information of god come from?

The guy's an idiot and a douchebag. It's that simple.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #405 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, I managed to get through the first one.

If you actually cannot perceive what an utter pile of disingenuous, illogical, fatuous, glib and simply wrong nonsense that thing is...

addabox, I think it's time for you and your inner dogmatist to have a chat.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #406 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Instead of just dismissing that stupid shit out of hand, let me just illustrate one instance in which that unfunny douchebag....

**bzzzt** ....that's as far as I got.

More cursing, please!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #407 of 424
douchebag is cursing?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #408 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

douchebag is cursing?

Let me ask my kids.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #409 of 424
Thread Starter 
The point still stands: God doesn't provide an answer to origins because god requires an origin. God is the ultimate 747.

To quote Dawkins...
Quote:
The creationist misappropriation of the argument from improbability always takes the same general form, and it doesn't make any difference if the creationist chooses to masquerade in the politically expedient fancy dress of 'intelligent design' (ID). Some observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its more complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable. Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a measure of improbability or 'surprise value'. Or the argument may invoke the economist's hackneyed motto: there's no such thing as a free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of trying to get something for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes from. It turns out to be the God Hypothesis that tries to get something for nothing. God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

(Watch, no cusswords and you still won't address it, you'll find a new excuse, and perhaps you'll even lie again.)
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #410 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The point still stands: God doesn't provide an answer to origins because god requires an origin. God is the ultimate 747.

To quote Dawkins...


(Watch, no cusswords and you still won't address it, you'll find a new excuse, and perhaps you'll even lie again.)

A couple of things. There is no way I'm going to argue the existence for a Creator; I don't particularly want to trick anyone out of their unbelief with philosophical argument. If you believe, that's great, if not, that's your choice.

Also, ID is not a viable theory in a lot of ways, there are some philosophical things that aren't handled -- or rather it's just not a holistic theory of life, morality, whatever. The observations of the information theory people, for example, are sound, because that represents a new informational context, as if we discovered FORTRAN in the wild -- something that needs exploring.

However, the problem is that Darwinism is being used as a one-stop shop; that it is being dogmatically protected, outside the Scientific Method. More importantly, when you guys conflate the information with the mechanism -- you are dabbling Spinoza's pantheism, whether you like it or not. Also, if Kuhn is right, the next scientific breakthrough -- not the next refinement -- will come from the freaks, or by accident; something outside the establishment. So, putting the "oh, darwinism did it" together with something as dramatic as digital code in the genome, complete with error correction, storage, transfer, and retrival systems -- I'm sorry, that sort of dogmatic provincialism screams Dark Ages! to me.

Not letting the DI people some space is a mistake, and could be knifing the baby. That's my problem, not my trying to convert you by stealth.

On Dawkins, his "who created God" argument is an embarrassment -- it's not to be taken seriously. I would suspect that is more for the unsuspecting public's consumption, and for selling books. I've been reading some philosophy, been over a iTunesU -- he'd be better off just coping to his determinism/materialism and not trying to project those notions onto other philosophies, with entirely different presuppositions. If not acknowledging any other POV is his goal, he's done it in spades.

And strictly speaking, when Dawkins pops off like that, he's blowing off people like Newton, Kant, Pascal, and Kierkegaard. He needs to put a lid on it, and show some humility. But then there's not a lot of money, power, or mammon to be had, there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #411 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

addabox, I think it's time for you and your inner dogmatist to have a chat.

If by "inner dogmatist" you mean "that part of my brain that is capable of detecting egregious logical fallacy bordering on gibberish", we keep pretty good company, thanks.

Look, this happens a lot in these discussions: we are instructed to attend to an argument that is terrible on the face of it-- not by "Darwinist" standards but by human adult standards. Normative "how one persuades" standards. Plain simple logical standards.

And when we find that argument wanting, we get accused of being blinded by dogmatic adherence to "materialism" or "Darwinism" or whatever.

But the problem starts with the very structure of the argument, long before we get to any ostensible content.

Now, if you want to claim that "logic" is an artifact of "materialism", fine, but then what are you appealing to? What's the alternative thought structure outside of rudimentary logic that you can proffer? E-enlightenment? Some kind of cabalistic arrangement of words that induces direct experience of the divine in the reader? A secret system of non sequiturs which are magic?

We've had this discussion before, but I don't think you can make wild claims for the bankruptcy of the kind of systematic thought that undergirds "science" (wherein, apparently, things like "logic" are part of a "faith" no less than religion), and then make appeals (or at least something resembling appeals) to same to prove that bankruptcy.

You could stick with Zen koans, I guess (hmmm, maybe that accounts for some of the head scratchers), or lead a quiet life of sterling example, but you really can't "argue" what you're arguing without sawing off the branch you're sitting on.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #412 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If by "inner dogmatist" you mean "that part of my brain that is capable of detecting egregious logical fallacy bordering on gibberish", we keep pretty good company, thanks.

Oh, stop it -- there was nothing wrong with the video -- he was spot on. If you aren't trying to keep the camel's nose out, those were exactly the sort of questions about 60% of the country is asking. Well, don't mind them.

That kind of derision poured out on a video, that made every attempt at some tough love, isn't believable. (Except from some Jesuitesque firebase position.) If I had seen reasoned argument -- that might have been one thing -- but the "asshat/stupid shit/douchebag/you're-barely-an-adult-if-you-believe-this" line of argument? Come on.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #413 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If by "inner dogmatist" you mean "that part of my brain that is capable of detecting egregious logical fallacy bordering on gibberish", we keep pretty good company, thanks.

Technically, the inner dogmatist is that part of the brain that accepts Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #414 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

The observations of the information theory people, for example, are sound, because that represents a new informational context, as if we discovered FORTRAN in the wild -- something that needs exploring.

Seriously, I didn't know that.

And here I am an expert Fortran programmer with more than 30 years of coding experience under my belt in Fortran and I never knew where it came from. Didn't have a clue!

And all this time I've been told that Fortran was a creation of HAL;

[CENTER]
Quote:
Originally developed by HAL in the 1950s for scientific and engineering applications, Fortran came to dominate this area of programming early on and has been in continual use for over half a century in computationally intensive areas such as climate modeling, numerical weather prediction, finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, computational physics, and computational chemistry. It is one of the most popular languages in the area of High-performance computing and programs to benchmark and rank the worlds fastest supercomputers are written in Fortran

[/CENTER]

Fortran

dmz, you're losing really badly now, it's time to pack up your ID baggage and go prey to HAL.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #415 of 424
Thread Starter 
dmz:

Quote:
However, the problem is that Darwinism is being used as a one-stop shop; that it is being dogmatically protected, outside the Scientific Method.

What does this even mean? Can you give a specific, concrete example of what you are talking about?

Quote:
More importantly, when you guys conflate the information with the mechanism -- you are dabbling Spinoza's pantheism, whether you like it or not.

The fact is that information cannot exist without its mechanism of storage and/or transmission. This doesn't require pantheism or any other kind of *theism.

Quote:
Also, if Kuhn is right, the next scientific breakthrough -- not the next refinement -- will come from the freaks, or by accident; something outside the establishment. So, putting the "oh, darwinism did it" together with something as dramatic as digital code in the genome, complete with error correction, storage, transfer, and retrival systems -- I'm sorry, that sort of dogmatic provincialism screams Dark Ages! to me.

Anyone who says "Darwinism did it" is a stupid statement because "Darwinism" is a non-specific term used by those who don't understand biological evolution via natural selection.

And I already gave you an example of exactly how it could happen (RNA world) and you're ignoring that because you have no response to it, so you pretend I haven't even said it. Your style is pathetic and dishonest.

Quote:
Not letting the DI people some space is a mistake, and could be knifing the baby. That's my problem, not my trying to convert you by stealth.

What space do they need that they do not currently have? They are free to talk all they like and publish all the books they like. No one has advocated restricting them in any way insofar as they are not putting their non-science in science classrooms.

Quote:
On Dawkins, his "who created God" argument is an embarrassment -- it's not to be taken seriously. I would suspect that is more for the unsuspecting public's consumption, and for selling books.

Yet again you insult people's intelligence... the sheer nerve of it is fascinating. You cannot address his argument (rather, his counter-argument) so you just throw a blanket insult out there.

Quote:
I've been reading some philosophy, been over a iTunesU...

Lying again, like when you claimed you were involved in information theory discussions at Pharyngula? It's like watching the test animal run across the electrified part of the maze again.

Quote:
And strictly speaking, when Dawkins pops off like that, he's blowing off people like Newton, Kant, Pascal, and Kierkegaard. He needs to put a lid on it, and show some humility.

Humility? Do you think any of those men felt humility towards one another? You are in no position to talk to anyone like a reprimanding schoolteacher, considering your well-displayed ignorance and complete dishonesty.

Quote:
Oh, stop it -- there was nothing wrong with the video -- he was spot on.

The video is a pile of shit. I've already pointed out just one example of its thorough dishonesty (probably why you identify with it, eh?), and instead of talking about it you whine about naughty words and insult the intelligence of people obviously far more intelligent than yourself.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #416 of 424
Critique of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at WikipediA

This should be required reading for everyone. A day doesn't go by without this particular critique becoming stronger and stronger.

It's almost like survival of the fittest, in this case, the movie will be retitled;

Expelled: No Survival Allowed

Since it will go extinct in the not too distant future at movie theaters (you know like forty days is my guess for some odd reason ).

It will then be resurrected again as a DVD, will go through several evolutionary revisions, you know, kind of like Loose Change.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #417 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Oh, stop it -- there was nothing wrong with the video -- he was spot on. If you aren't trying to keep the camel's nose out, those were exactly the sort of questions about 60% of the country is asking. Well, don't mind them.

That kind of derision poured out on a video, that made every attempt at some tough love, isn't believable. (Except from some Jesuitesque firebase position.) If I had seen reasoned argument -- that might have been one thing -- but the "asshat/stupid shit/douchebag/you're-barely-an-adult-if-you-believe-this" line of argument? Come on.

We have had this discussion before, two or three times, at least.

In fact, I've used the exact same tactic, as I've always used, I've avoided the "philosophy" argument you continuously present. I've avoided the "dogmatic" argument you continuously present, and I've avoided the "ideological" argument you continuously present.

Do I need to resurrect the Mr. Peabody and Sherman graphic one more time?

Where you then can call me a "rank" intellectual anarchist?

Seriously? \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #418 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Technically, the inner dogmatist is that part of the brain that accepts Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum."

Ha! I'm not so sure, it's looking like some sort of filter that renders the other guy as the devil incarnate -- or at least some sort of intellectual earmuffs.

for the rest of you guys:

**scans the page**

Quote:
...lies, pathetic and dishonest, blanket insults, piles of shit, egregious logical fallacies bordering on gibberish...

When a garden variety polemic like Expelled can't be seen in any postive light, that it doesn't raise any valid points, that it's all "lies," "shit," etc. Uh.... guys? Really?

There's a great big world out there, with a long history, both of which are full of really smart people who have a variety of ideas on Being, Existence, etc. Even a guy who once wrote both theology and the Principia -- lots of possibilities. It's not all "lies, asshats, and shit."

Also, it's not all cursing -- but not being able to go without the diminutives should raise warning flags; the combativeness and sour demeanors limit the the level of discussion, and the sort of people willing to associate/argue with you. Lighten up, suspend some disbelief sometime, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Think it through. If I can read Heidegger and Kierkegaard, you should be able to see some point in a polemic like Expelled. At least tell the truth about the movie. If they don't say so-and-so worked somewhere, don't say otherwise; if they didn't say this or that caused something, don't put words in their mouths.

But it doesn't look like we are there yet -- or are we? What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

Ciao.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #419 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Let me ask my kids.

That was one of my sister and I's favorite phrases growing up. Frankly it never gets old.


Since you haven't answered the question, I'll ask it again.

Do you think the theory of evolution denies god?

A simple yes or no will be sufficient.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #420 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

However, the problem is that Darwinism is being used as a one-stop shop; that it is being dogmatically protected, outside the Scientific Method. More importantly, when you guys conflate the information with the mechanism -- you are dabbling Spinoza's pantheism, whether you like it or not. Also, if Kuhn is right, the next scientific breakthrough -- not the next refinement -- will come from the freaks, or by accident; something outside the establishment. So, putting the "oh, darwinism did it" together with something as dramatic as digital code in the genome, complete with error correction, storage, transfer, and retrival systems -- I'm sorry, that sort of dogmatic provincialism screams Dark Ages! to me.

Not letting the DI people some space is a mistake, and could be knifing the baby. That's my problem, not my trying to convert you by stealth.

DI should have boatloads of their own money to do their own ID pseudoscience, instead the only thing they spend their money on is political persuasion, of the worst kind.

I think this propaganda film will actually do more damage to the IDiots, then anything the scientists could have ever accomplished.

It's now been in release for 17 days, and less than a million people total have seen it to date, in other words it won't survive at the theater for much longer.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Originally, Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer, "said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, the best launch ever for a documentary."

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #421 of 424
Thread Starter 
dmz:

Dont cry about insults. You throw them around yourself. The real inequality is in that you tell outright lies in addition to piling on stupid argument after stupid argument.

I can very easily go without diminutives; you cannot. The nanosecond this discussion gets on track you turn right around and start with the exact same "know your place

Quote:
Also, it's not all cursing -- but not being able to go without the diminutives should raise warning flags; the combativeness and sour demeanors limit the the level of discussion, and the sort of people willing to associate/argue with you.

You lie. How nice should someone be to someone whose method of argumentation includes lies?

Quote:
What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

I am at peace with the fact that you are dishonest.
I love that I am not.
I understand that this is probably the only way you can behave in a thread about biological evolution.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #422 of 424
Thread Starter 
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #423 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Ha! I'm not so sure, it's looking like some sort of filter that renders the other guy as the devil incarnate -- or at least some sort of intellectual earmuffs.

for the rest of you guys:

**scans the page**



When a garden variety polemic like Expelled can't be seen in any postive light, that it doesn't raise any valid points, that it's all "lies," "shit," etc. Uh.... guys? Really?

There's a great big world out there, with a long history, both of which are full of really smart people who have a variety of ideas on Being, Existence, etc. Even a guy who once wrote both theology and the Principia -- lots of possibilities. It's not all "lies, asshats, and shit."

Also, it's not all cursing -- but not being able to go without the diminutives should raise warning flags; the combativeness and sour demeanors limit the the level of discussion, and the sort of people willing to associate/argue with you. Lighten up, suspend some disbelief sometime, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Think it through. If I can read Heidegger and Kierkegaard, you should be able to see some point in a polemic like Expelled. At least tell the truth about the movie. If they don't say so-and-so worked somewhere, don't say otherwise; if they didn't say this or that caused something, don't put words in their mouths.

But it doesn't look like we are there yet -- or are we? What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

Ciao.

Polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.

The scientific method is beyond reproach, but it is definitely not beyond revision, in fact I'd say it's in an ever continuous state of convolution.

If one of the underlying functions is forever unknown, scientific inquiry stops. \

And since the scientific method doesn't fit the above definition, this propaganda film clearly goes beyond "polemics" and right straight into bold faced lies. \

In fact your attempt at apologia is noted, however your dodgy and obtuse style, has also been a determinate. and detriment, to an honest discussion of the subject matter in this thread.

You reap what you sow.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #424 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.

The scientific method is beyond reproach, but it is definitely not beyond revision, in fact I'd say it's in an ever continuous state of convolution.

If one of the underlying functions is forever unknown, scientific inquiry stops. \

And since the scientific method doesn't fit the above definition, this propaganda film clearly goes beyond "polemics" and right straight into bold faced lies. \

In fact your attempt at apologia is noted, however your dodgy and obtuse style, has also been a determinate. and detriment, to an honest discussion of the subject matter in this thread.

You reap what you sow.

Ooh, good points.

dmz?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie