Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

Thanks to rowed for the link.

Reposted from;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php#more

Last April, I received this nice letter from Mark Mathis.

Hello Mr. Myers,

My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion."

At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.

We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.

Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.

I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark Mathis
Rampant Films
4414 Woodman Ave. #203
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
www.rampantfilms.com

I looked up Rampant Films. Yes, they are doing a movie called Crossroads, and it has perfectly reasonable blurb.

So I said, sure, I'd be happy to talk with you, and as long as any travel expenses are covered, I'm willing to do it gratis (academic, you know�we aren't used to charging big fees to explain things to people). They came out to Morris, set up cameras and gear in my lab, and we did an interview for a few hours. I got paid (woo hoo!). They left. I figured that, as a fairly minor figure in this argument, I might well get cut out altogether — they talked about also interviewing Dawkins and Eugenie Scott and Pennock and various other people — and that was OK.

Now we've got this new ID creationist movie, Expelled, coming out, and there's a press release with this claim:

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn't just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.

What? I didn't do any interviews for pro-creation films, and I certainly haven't said that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry" aren't part of the university. There must be some mistake.

But then I noticed in the credits for the movie that a certain familiar name is the associate producer, or ass-prod, as I'll henceforth consider him.

assprod

Denyse O'Leary also ties Mathis of Rampant Films to this movie, and this page from Expelled uses the same graphic that Rampant Films used for Crossroads. The case is closed: Ben Stein's propaganda film for ID is the one I was interviewed for.

Well. I guess I didn't end up on the cutting room floor after all, although I'm sure a select set of my words did. Unless, that is, the whole movie is me sitting in my lab, talking. It's real. I'm going to be featured in a big-time movie with second-tier character actor and game-show host Ben Stein. I bet my whole family is going to go out to the moving-picture theatre to see me on the big screen � and since my family lives near Seattle and the Discovery Institute is so happy about it, they'll probably have the opportunity.

I do have a few questions, though.

I'm wondering why the Discovery Institute would be so enthused about this movie. It lays it's premise on the line: science is flawed because it excludes god and the supernatural. It's one big promo for religion — which means it's going to further undercut Intelligent Design creationism's claims to be a secular idea.

Randy Olson points out that this is clearly a well-funded movie. It's slick, they're paying Ben Stein, they had to have shelled out a good chunk of money for the rights for the "Bad to the Bone" theme. Randy's probably wondering why he couldn't get that kind of money for Flock of Dodos.

So who is funding the movie? Some people with deep pockets are throwing quite a bit of cash at this thing, and I can assure you that it didn't end up in my hands. I think I was paid something like $1200. I should have asked for much more!

Isn't it a little ironic that a fairly expensive production like this is billing itself as representing the ordinary people, and is pretending to be the "rebel"? There's a bit of the no-expenses-will-be-spared (except in the case of their evilutionist dupes!) glitz about it — it really doesn't look like the work of some brave independent film-maker living hand-to-mouth while making his artistic vision manifest.

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

I don't mind sharing my views with creationists, and do so all the time. By filming under false pretenses, much like the example of the case of Richard Dawkins' infamous "pause", they've undercut their own credibility � not that that will matter. I suspect their audience will not question whatever mangling of the video that they carry out, and the subterfuges used to make it will not be brought up.

Oh, well. I have two warnings for the creationists.

One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.

Two, next time I'm asked to be recorded for a creationist propaganda film, I will demand more money, and a flight and a limousine to the premiere. They can pay for my tuxedo rental, too. And my hotel room will have a jacuzzi and a bowl of M&Ms — green ones only.

Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 51 - 100 of 108 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #65446 by pissinintothewind on August 24, 2007 at 8:06 am

Plastictowel. Thanks for the reference LOL

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

52. Comment #65453 by Duff on August 24, 2007 at 9:00 am

From someone who has been in the film/television/advertising industry for thirty five years a word of advice. Never, ever trust anyone from the film/television/advertising industry. They will say, or do anything to get the shot.

Other Comments by Duff

53. Comment #65454 by Bertybob on August 24, 2007 at 9:03 am

I managed to get a comment accepted asking why PZ Myers had been interviewed under false pretences along with a link to the above article.

I think we should push for a film version of "The God Delusion". RD could go round and interview various religious people under false pretenses.

A bit like "Root of All Evil", but with more sex, violence and a jazzy theme tune.

Two can play at sexy websites for students so maybe someone with some artistic flare can do one for the secular atheist vote.

Other Comments by Bertybob

54. Comment #65497 by troodon on August 24, 2007 at 1:23 pm

After reading the comments on Ben Stein's blog I'm starting to feel some cautious optimism. This movie will cast the spotlight onto the ID movement like nothing since the Dover trial. This gives us a great opportunity to present science's side to the general public through TV interviews, articles and letters to the editor. The more publicity the movie gets, the more the media (except FOX of course) will want to balance it with real science.

Any bets on how long it will take Ben to shut down the forum or starting banning "dogmatic Darwinists"?

Now up to 419 posts.
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comments

Other Comments by troodon

55. Comment #65508 by jorgepolak on August 24, 2007 at 1:59 pm

pdiff is right - do not sue. Do not give these people free publicity, do not give ammunition to the "oppressed Christians" myth.

Other Comments by jorgepolak

56. Comment #65551 by ronfac on August 24, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Hey Ben,
Your proctologist called. They found your head.

Other Comments by ronfac

57. Comment #65556 by steveroot on August 24, 2007 at 8:03 pm

49. Comment #65411 by CJ22 on August 24, 2007 at 5:34 am
"a bowel full"?

He left out the semi-colon. :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

58. Comment #65569 by Graham on August 24, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Be careful not to be the pot that called the kettle black. Remember in the filming of the Root of all Evil? RD and crew weren't entirely upfront with Reverend Rent Boy...his name escapes me for now.

Other Comments by Graham

59. Comment #65588 by Darwin's badger on August 25, 2007 at 2:04 am

Graham, you're referring to Ted Haggard, I believe. However, my understanding was that Haggard moved the goalposts, not the other way around. I don't think that there was any tacit deception upon RD's or the C4 team's part.

I'm looking forward to seeing this film though; the fact that they're trying so hard, as with the creation museum, shows that they're on the ropes. With any luck, as I think Hitch said, this is the death-rattle of superstition.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

60. Comment #65609 by Kubenzi on August 25, 2007 at 5:42 am

"Has it struck anyone that Mathis and Durkin have similar modus operandi?"

borat too,but at least when borat does it,he is only pretending to be that simple

Other Comments by Kubenzi

61. Comment #65634 by Kamahuakala on August 25, 2007 at 8:07 am

I wonder if the producers of "What the Bleep Do We Know" used the same deceptive tactics to lure respected scientists into appearing in that ridiculous cinematic promotion of the religion of Post Modernism?

Other Comments by Kamahuakala

62. Comment #65654 by benjamin.mpls on August 25, 2007 at 11:20 am

Wow. The title of this film could not be more perfect: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

I will be shocked if this film gets 100 theaters nationwide. (US)

Other Comments by benjamin.mpls

63. Comment #65693 by vmatt on August 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Oh my deluded brethren, may you find Him though He is not far from every one of us.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Other Comments by vmatt

64. Comment #65701 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 25, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Ben Stein? A second tier actor? Absurd! I believe you're rating him a bit high PZ and in doing so being much more generous to him than he was to you. The only redeeming quality to the movie would be that most of the people, nay probably all of the people who will watch it will already agree with it. The very fact that the movie producers had to lie about their intentions in order to make a stronger case for their own position is an act of desperation. I remember the same thing happening with "What the Bleep do We Know?" Many of the scientists in that movie were outraged that their views and the evidence for their views was so shamefully distorted. I just find the whole situation absolutely ridiculous.

Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot

65. Comment #65763 by Stuart Paul Wood on August 26, 2007 at 11:19 am

I implore everybody on here to go and checkout the Expelled website. I thought it rather funny and - best of all - there's loads of atheists already there making mincemeat of the film on Ben Stein's blog page.

Looks like these guys shot themselves in the foot by allowing people to post their own comments on there! - brilliant.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

66. Comment #65767 by iota on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 am

This movie will play the mega-church screening room circuit and then go straight to DVD.

Here's an idea for the ID movement, though:

Instead of filling your ranks with lawyers, trying to get ID taught in the classroom, and producing movies and slick marketing campaigns, how about proposing an actual scientific experiment?

Other Comments by iota

67. Comment #65777 by Graham on August 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Badger,

Yep, that's the guy. I got the impression that maybe Haggard discovered who Dawkins is during the filming and that's why he got so aggressive at the end. This is all speculation of course.

It would be interesting to hear from Richard what their policy was on "undercover" filming, disclosure and permissions etc and compare that with this Mark Mathis character. Just being contrarian :o)

Other Comments by Graham

68. Comment #65803 by quicksilver on August 26, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Even in Jimmy Neutron, Ben Stein stinks.

Other Comments by quicksilver

69. Comment #65825 by jaydon64 on August 27, 2007 at 1:29 am

Why settle for $1200? bring on a law suit i say and while your at it get an injunction to prevent them from screening any footage of you.

Other Comments by jaydon64

70. Comment #66019 by Veronique on August 27, 2007 at 10:30 pm

69. Comment #65777 by Graham

I got the same feeling in The Enemies of Reason. I think that C4 and RD would have been absolutely straight about what they were filming and why. If these fundamentalists don't live in the real world they are not going to read real papers, news or much else. They exist in an incestuous, perpetually self-indocrinating society.

I suspect the people who actually 'understood' what was happening were those who weren't as caught up in their own self-importance as were Haggard and the Atlantis DNA woman and others.

RD was out to give it all a good shot and film exposure. He knew he couldn't argue with most of the health and/or religious fundamentalists. Hell, we all know that. He's a bit more polite than we tend to be. That 'draws out' more from the people being interviewed who are 'getting into' a doco.

Heady stuff for some. Not others (they are seasoned interviewees). I really think that's pretty much all there is to it.

Mathis and Durkin are another kettle of fish altogether. They are what is commonly known in most parts as 'scum'.:-)

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

71. Comment #66145 by sppach on August 29, 2007 at 3:24 am

You have to be careful with people like this,it seems that they,ll go to any lengths to prove their point, this will definitely end up on one of the god channels, probably presented by that nut from New Zealand, the tall skinny one with the beard and no moustache, in fact i'll be looking forward to it, these channels show some of the greatest comedy shows on the box

Other Comments by sppach

72. Comment #66386 by sent2null on August 29, 2007 at 10:39 pm

re: comment 65131

scooter,

that web site is a great resource! When I have discussions with people and don't have the time to give them the first hand treatment I just refer to one of the many proof pages. Quite a service the writer has done by organizing it that way.

Regards,

David

Other Comments by sent2null

73. Comment #73973 by Tumara Baap on September 27, 2007 at 1:01 am

I'm relieved The Times clearly did not pander to confusion-mischief as the U.S. press often has over Global Warming reporting. They plainly state what the actual scientific positions are and don't dilute those out of "fairness" to the other side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp

Hopefully the vocal outing of this sickening chicanery should put a dent in the film's credibility. It also appears the filmaker's are no longer tip-toeing around God. That I.D. only thrives in the service of religion is inescapable.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

74. Comment #87431 by Jab on November 12, 2007 at 5:31 am

It's unbelievable the dishonesty that emanates from the religious nuts.

I sometimes forget that people who fight with truth and honesty are liable to be taken advantage of, but it's the only way we can keep moving forwards.

I don't think suing is the right way to go,I think the general outrage, if it reaches a tipping point of coverage should be enough to shame the makers of this film

Other Comments by Jab

75. Comment #87437 by octopus on November 12, 2007 at 5:57 am

So who is funding the movie?

The big boss himself? :D

Other Comments by octopus

76. Comment #163710 by wiley16350 on April 18, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Did it ever occur to you that the movie name was changed at some point during production? Because really that is the only difference. The new title said nothing about ID and the real subject of the movie WAS how science and religion fit together. It just so happened that the people that lost their jobs lost them because of showing any kind of support for things that pertained to ID. Also the fact that you atheists can not understand the difference between ID and creationism shows how little you know about the two subjects. ID does not use a holy book or any religious writings to base their science on. They just claim that evolution can not adequately explain all aspects of life. Which by Mr. Dawkins own admission nobody can explain the origin of life. So unless they asked Dawkins one question in the movie and then cut the movie so that it was a different question then what was originally asked he has nothing to complain about. Besides Dawkins came off no different in the movie than he has in anything else, so it doesn't seem to me that he was misrepresented.

Other Comments by wiley16350

77. Comment #163713 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 9:00 pm

And hello to you, Wiley.

Would you please properly explain the difference between creationism and Intelligent Design?

I know you tried, by insisting that 'ID does not use a holy book or any religious writings to base their science on. They [sic] just claim that evolution can not adequately explain all aspects of life', but I am afraid this won't quite do.

You haven't said who or what is the Intelligent Designer behind Intelligent Design. Would you care to elaborate?

I must say that your first venture onto this site seems a trifle brusque. Would you not rather try some courtesy, together with some probingly incisive questions, to make your real mark here?

Well, never mind. It is entirely your choice. Should you find a substantive question in all of your apparent indignation, then you will find many people here ready to help you. Should you decide to stick, rather, with your sullen, pouting stance, then I fear that you will not benefit from being here beyond learning some fantastically colourful expletives.

In which latter case, I shall be more than willing to assist.

Go on, sit down, have a cup of tea and have a think about which option you would like to choose.

Don't mess it up, now, ok?

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

78. Comment #163734 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Comment #163726 by Radesq on April 18, 2008 at 10:10 pm

You may have retracted the claws for the moment, but it won't last.
Best,
Radesq

Oh, it had better be fucking believed.

I am sick and I am tired, and have been for a while, of arseholes.

But our new member above has at least been given a chance.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

79. Comment #163800 by wiley16350 on April 19, 2008 at 4:15 am

Intelligent Design does not tell you who the designer is. In fact at the end of the movie Dawkins was talking about how Aliens could have seeded earth with life, so in all reality Dawkins could be said to believe in intelligent design. As for me I believe in the christian God, but ID does not limit belief to any certain deity. In my last post I wasn't pouting, I just think there was another possible explanation for why the difference in the movie title. That was all I was pointing out and to call them liars and deceivers just because the title of the movie changed seems a little childish.

Other Comments by wiley16350

80. Comment #163802 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 4:31 am

As for me I believe in the christian God, but ID does not limit belief to any certain deity.

If you are going to put forward intelligent design as an explanation for anything, it would seem to me to be a good first step to at least come up with a suggestion about who or what the intelligence is, otherwise it is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

So, who do you think the intelligence is, and why?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

81. Comment #163805 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 4:36 am

I bet you think your position just as rational and reasonable if not more so than evolution...

1. Deliberate panspermia as design (the alien's-seeding-life-hypothesis) leads to an infinite regress if design is the only way complex life-forms can come about. Who designed the designer-aliens? Other designer-aliens? And them?

2. Postulating god as the element to stop the regress is ludicrous - ridiculously ineffective. God is a metaphysical being. Something metaphysical cannot interfere in the physical world - this would violate the conservation of energy and momentum, and thus in extension the second law of thermodynamics.

3. Intelligent design violates parsimony - so does theism per se.

4. Evolution explains the available data best - it is falsifiable, it makes predictions, it explains the data and it has withstood the tests. Also, it does not fall prey to thermodynamics, because the planets on which life evolves are not closed systems, they get huge amounts of energy from their sun - so locally, entropy decreases while globally it increases. Theism (in opposition to deism) is rendered impossible by conservation of energy and momentum (and the inherent contradictions in the descriptions of the supposed deities).

Other Comments by MPhil

82. Comment #163806 by Peacebeuponme on April 19, 2008 at 4:47 am

wiley16350

They just claim that evolution can not adequately explain all aspects of life. Which by Mr. Dawkins own admission nobody can explain the origin of life.

Goedel's incompleteness theorems cannot explain the eletromagnetic force. I think we should reject them.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

83. Comment #163877 by wiley16350 on April 19, 2008 at 8:35 am

"Deliberate panspermia as design (the alien's-seeding-life-hypothesis) leads to an infinite regress if design is the only way complex life-forms can come about. Who designed the designer-aliens? Other designer-aliens? And them?"

I would agree with this and to be clear this is not my position this is the position of Mr. Dawkins.

"Something metaphysical cannot interfere in the physical world - this would violate the conservation of energy and momentum, and thus in extension the second law of thermodynamics."

This is clearly not a scientific position. How would you test this because if you could it would mean that the metaphysical would absolutely be true. This is a statement of opinion and not fact.

"Intelligent design violates parsimony - so does theism per se."

parsimony is a rule and not a fact. Besides to state that an impossibility like abiogenesis is simpler than God is illogical.

"Evolution explains the available data best - it is falsifiable, it makes predictions, it explains the data and it has withstood the tests. Also, it does not fall prey to thermodynamics, because the planets on which life evolves are not closed systems, they get huge amounts of energy from their sun - so locally, entropy decreases while globally it increases. Theism (in opposition to deism) is rendered impossible by conservation of energy and momentum (and the inherent contradictions in the descriptions of the supposed deities)."

It is your opinion that evolution explains the evidence better, but that is not true to everyone. What tests has the big bang withstood? How would you even test the big bang? Abiogenesis has clearly failed all tests and is proven to be impossible. Macro-evolution likewise cannot be tested, I mean evolutionists consistently tell us that it takes much too long to observe this type of evolution and there is no actual evidence to support this type of evolution. Seems how evolution has happened on the Earth that suggests it has happened locally (universally speaking) and not globally so it would be subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything on earth is subject to this law and the only things that overcome it like life have a mechanism within it that provides the energy needed to overcome it. But at one time according to evolution non living chemicals overcame the tendency to decay and become less organized and became more complex without a mechanism that can overcome the 2nd law.

As for your contradictions in the description of God that is your based on your understanding of God and not what he truly is. Starting with omnipotence, you equate this to God being able to do anything at all and then show how he can't do the impossible. First of all the bible does not actually use the word omnipotence, that is a word that humans created to explain God. The bible says that God is the almighty and nothing is more powerful than him. He can do anything that is possible and that is his inherent character. With omniscience, which again is a word to explain God but never actually used in the bible, We know God knows everything there is to know about the past and present and the things in the future which he has decided to accomplish. What we don't know for sure is how much of the future he does know, he may know all of it which is explained by him being outside of time and space or he may only know certain things that he will accomplish. As for omnibenovolence, that is true. The problem with your understanding about God being omnibenovolent is you believe that he would end suffering and pain immediately. Which according to the bible is false, God has promised to end all suffering, pain and death at a time in the future but he has a plan and use for the things that we experience in this life. And just because you don't understand his plan doesn't mean that he can't exist.

Other Comments by wiley16350

84. Comment #163887 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #163877 by wiley16350

It is your opinion that evolution explains the evidence better, but that is not true to everyone. What tests has the big bang withstood? How would you even test the big bang?

The Big Bang is tested by observations. One of the most important is the ratio of light elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Deuterium), which comes out just as predicted from the period of nucleosynthesis specifc by Big Bang Theory.

Abiogenesis has clearly failed all tests and is proven to be impossible.

On the contrary, we have some very good ideas about how life could have got started. My personal favourite is the "Iron Sulphur" world idea.

Macro-evolution likewise cannot be tested, I mean evolutionists consistently tell us that it takes much too long to observe this type of evolution and there is no actual evidence to support this type of evolution.

We see "macro-evolution" (the formation of new species) in the wild. It does not take that long. Some mutations (polyploidy) can result in the formation of a new species in a single generation. We have seen this happen.

As for your contradictions in the description of God that is your based on your understanding of God and not what he truly is.

It is up to you to come up with convincing evidence for what God truly is. If you don't want to use the term "omnipotence", fine. Others do.

Specify your God in detail, and then we here can discuss your God Hypothesis.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

85. Comment #163930 by wiley16350 on April 19, 2008 at 9:57 am

"The Big Bang is tested by observations. One of the most important is the ratio of light elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Deuterium), which comes out just as predicted from the period of nucleosynthesis specifc by Big Bang Theory."

Yes there are observations that fit with the big bang theory, but there are also observations that don't fit with the theory. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method
But the point is you can't actually reproduce the event or observe it to happen so it is not completely scientific according to your scientific standards.

On the contrary, we have some very good ideas about how life could have got started. My personal favourite is the "Iron Sulphur" world idea.

Yes and they are all ideas without any hard proof. Here is a link that refutes all the ones on the talkorigins.com site including your idea.
http://www.creationwiki.org/index.php/First_cells_couldn't_come_together_by_chance_(Talk.Origins)

We see "macro-evolution" (the formation of new species) in the wild. It does not take that long. Some mutations (polyploidy) can result in the formation of a new species in a single generation. We have seen this happen.

We see speciation which is true. In the respect that there are breeds that no longer can mate with the original population. But we don't see new kinds of classes of animals coming from the current animal types. Here is a site to explain what I am talking about http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp

Other Comments by wiley16350

86. Comment #163938 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:10 am

Wiley

No one "believes" in the big bang "on faith". Our scientific picture is never complete. There is no "final word". It is constantly being updated in light of new data, that is why science is a robust way of knowing,--unlike dogmatic systems such as religion,--that is exactly its strength.

You only have a problem because you try to project your religious mindset on science and expect it to offer certainties like religion by fiat. You have it completely wrong, science is not a competing faith.

Science answers some questions, some with more certainty than others, some answers are tentative and speculative, some we don't even know how to begin to formulate the question.

But the bottomline is religion doesn't answer any question

When religion provides one honest answer instead of just using "God did it" as a one size fits all bogus "answer" to shorthand our ignorance, we can have an honest debate.

The failure of science to produce answers for some questions is its strength rather than weakness. Scientifically acceptable answers are difficult to come by because they have to meet very high standard. Anyone can make up a whole bunch of cheap answers as they go along like in religion.

Other Comments by Bonzai

87. Comment #163940 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 10:16 am

In addition to what Steve wrote:

This is clearly not a scientific position. How would you test this because if you could it would mean that the metaphysical would absolutely be true. This is a statement of opinion and not fact.

Bullshit. Conservation of energy and momentum are at the core of physical science - absolutely free from doubt. But this means that any event in spacetime either is completely random (quantum effects) or has a necessary and sufficient cause within spacetime. This makes interference from without spacetime (from anything metaphysical) impossible.

This is logic and science, not opinion.

And if I might:
Your linking of answersingenesis just about disqualifies you from participating in any rational debate.

Furthermore - you have absolutely no idea about what definition of omnipotence I stated was impossible. In fact this is true for any definition of "omnipotence" I have ever come across - and mind you that includes those of the most serious theologians and Christian philosophers.

You have no idea what definitions of omniscience and omnibenevolence I have investigated... with these two (and with omnipresence), it's quite the same...

I'm sorry, but from what you've written - the definitions thereof and the counterarguments I have encountered and defeated far surpass anything you can come up with. You're no William Craig, Richard Swinburne or Alvin Plantinga - they are rightly considered to be the best theistic philosophers.... and their arguments have been shot down time and again.

Do yourself a favour and instead of getting all your 'information' about biology from answersingenesis - read a real book about biology, or for the specific, scientific answers to the answersingenesis crap, consult the FAQ at

www.talkorigins.org

And I'm sorry - you gave me a good, hearty laugh with this:

I would agree with this and to be clear this is not my position this is the position of Mr. Dawkins.

Prof. Dawkins stated clearly that while it is possible that the first building blocks of life on earth may have come from space - that panspermia is not a solution for the reasons I stated above.

Other Comments by MPhil

88. Comment #163942 by MPhil on April 19, 2008 at 10:25 am

Furthermore, religions who posit a personal, interventionist god make classical category mistakes.
We cannot conceive a person that is not in some form an agent - and agency requires being subject to time because acting, or deliberating is a change in state-of-affairs, "change" only makes sense in time - therefore agency only makes sense in time, therefore if god is to be an agent, he cannot be completely metaphysical. This is why some theologians say he "becomes" physical when he brings about something in spacetime. But everything in spacetime is subject to the laws of nature, and therefore this is not a real option (aside from being obviously an attempt at reconciling a concept with known facts that is demonstrably incoherent with known fact ).

Oh, and of course we cannot conceive of personhood without the capability of thought - thought is processing of information, and I forward we cannot conceive of that without a substrate as well - because this needs mechanisms - actual things going through changes.

Other Comments by MPhil

89. Comment #163943 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #163930 by wiley16350

But the point is you can't actually reproduce the event or observe it to happen so it is not completely scientific according to your scientific standards.

We can reproduce just about all of if in the laboratory. That is why we are so confident of our models. Have you heard of CERN?

Yes and they are all ideas without any hard proof.

Of course they are without hard proof. We don't know how it happened yet!

Here is a link that refutes all the ones on the talkorigins.com site including your idea.

No links please, I want your explanation.

We see speciation which is true. In the respect that there are breeds that no longer can mate with the original population. But we don't see new kinds of classes of animals coming from the current animal types.

You are being very naughty here. First creationists say that there is no evolution. Then we show them. Then they say there is no "macroevolution" (formation of new species). Then we show them. Then they say there are no new types. What is a "type"? Simple: whatever we haven't seen happen yet. This is just garbage reasoning.

Time to hold you up to your own standards. I want to know how God made life, and made new species, and I want hard proof.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

90. Comment #163944 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:29 am

I don't even know why we bother to put up with this BS. All science is wrong because there may be small wrinkles here and there,--while they exist, most of what put forth are strawmen objections and ignorance in basic science,-- but the Broze age mythologies of the Genesis written by a bunch of smelly, ignorant, half crazed goat fuckers are right, even though they don't pass ONE single test.

I see no point in even debating these brain dead morons. The bible must have dropped on their fucking heads when they were babies.

Sorry for pulling a Styrer, can't help it.

Other Comments by Bonzai

91. Comment #163948 by wiley16350 on April 19, 2008 at 10:45 am

No one "believes" in the big bang "on faith". Our scientific picture is never complete. There is no "final word". It is constantly being updated in light of new data, that is why science is a robust way of knowing,--unlike dogmatic systems such as religion,--that is exactly its strength.

You only have a problem because you try to project your religious mindset on science and expect it to offer certainties like religion by fiat. You have it completely wrong, science is not a competing faith.

Science answers some questions, some with more certainty than others, some answers are tentative and speculative, some we don't even know how to begin to formulate the question.

This is the point evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact all the while they are updating the theory. That is the point. I don't care if evolution is taught and that evolutionists need to change the theory to make it fit with new evidence. Creationists do the same thing. But when something is claimed as fact and portrayed that it has no weaknesses and that anybody who goes against it is stupid and ignorant I have a problem with that. I just believe that the strengths and weaknesses of the theory should be discussed. I don't advocate the teaching of religious writings in schools I believe it is up to the parents to teach their children what they believe and why and let the child decide for themself.

You are being very naughty here. First creationists say that there is no evolution. Then we show them. Then they say there is no "macroevolution" (formation of new species). Then we show them. Then they say there are no new types. What is a "type"? Simple: whatever we haven't seen happen yet. This is just garbage reasoning.

macro-evolution is the increase of genetic information such that as needed to get from a one-celled organism to man. There is an intricate system within all living organisms that help develop it from seed (and egg) to becoming an adult. Each living thing has certain characteristics that are developed such as eyes, heart, lungs, hair, feathers, etc.... The information present in the genome is responsible for this development and as you can see each living organism has certain traits which may vary such as green eyes, brown eyes, long hair, short hair but they always have these traits unless a mutation is introduced that gets rid of the ability to develop that trait. This is what we see. What we don't see is new traits developing in organisms where the trait wasn't there before, such as dogs with wings or feathers. You see the first organism did not have any of these abilities so throughout time it must have developed these abilities. The problem is that we have no observational evidence that this is possible and it is actually the opposite of what we have observed. This is the type of evolution that creationists argue against. Speciation is not macro-evolution it is actually micro-evolution. We need proof of new classes of animals that come from existing species.

Other Comments by wiley16350

92. Comment #163949 by Diacanu on April 19, 2008 at 10:46 am

*Skims*

Ah, that explains it.

Whenever I see a dead thread suddenly rise from the ashes, and fill the top 20 new posts list, I can usually tell it's some creationist moron stirring the shit up.

Other Comments by Diacanu

93. Comment #163950 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

Creationists do the same thing.

No, they don't. "Updating" is a systematic process in science. It has to fit with data, other pieces of science and it has to be a coherent, logical extension of existing theory. New predictions would have to be made, new tests performed.

It is not making up ad hoc stories as you go along like in creationism.

Other Comments by Bonzai

94. Comment #163952 by Diacanu on April 19, 2008 at 10:56 am

wiley16350-

Creationism is a big corn filled baby-alligator-sized turd that has nothing going for it as science at all.

And sorry to say, if you suckle onto that turd like a leech, you are ignorant.
Sorry, that's just the way it is.

People who think the earth is flat are ignorant, people who believe in astrology are ignorant, and people who practice alchemy are ignorant.

Creationism is the same brand of bullshit.

It's all bullshit, and treating it like it's real is harmful.

If you can't get that, well, then as Teddy Roosevelt would say, your brain is running on 3 guinea pig power.

Other Comments by Diacanu

95. Comment #163956 by Diacanu on April 19, 2008 at 11:05 am

wiley16350-

I believe it is up to the parents to teach their children what they believe and why and let the child decide for themself.

The truth isn't democratic.
You can't have a vote on what color the sky is.
We'd never get anything done that way.
Well, you COULD have that election, but all the people who vote "pink", would just be fucking wrong, and that'd be tough fucking shit for them.
I'm sorry if you don't like that, but again, tough.
If that offends your pseudo-politically-correct sensibilities, well, life gets a lot fucking harder than that, suck it up, little buckaroo.

Other Comments by Diacanu

96. Comment #163958 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 11:11 am

Comment #163948 by wiley16350

We need proof of new classes of animals that come from existing species.

97. Comment #163967 by wiley16350 on April 19, 2008 at 11:34 am

We have it, in the evolutionary record and in the genomes of living organisms. We have all the intermediate species any reasonable rational person could require. Quite why people like you want to believe otherwise is beyond me.

Anyway, I am still waiting for answers:

I want to know how God made life, and made new species, and I want hard proof.

Oh all those itermediate species that prove evolution like the horse. Which look like a bunch of different horses with some variation. Here is a link about transistional fossils

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking

you may not like links but I am not going to sit and type all of the problems with the so-called transisitonal fossils.

I don't know how god made life, I know the bible says that he made many different kinds of animals and told them to reproduce after their own kind. The bible does say that he made man from the dust of the earth and then breathed the breath of life within him. I don't have hard proof but neither do you about how evolution created life. Again that is the point.

Other Comments by wiley16350

98. Comment #163975 by Peacebeuponme on April 19, 2008 at 11:45 am

I don't know how god made life

You are a silly sod aren't you?

You don't know how god made life, but you know that he did?

I generally do one of two things when I don't know something: research the issue and try to find or work out the answer, or defer to those who are experts in the field. You might be wise to do the same.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

99. Comment #163979 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 11:49 am

Again that is the point.

No, it isn't.

Evolutionary theory is an explanation, and provides testable mechanisms. "The bible does say that he made man from the dust of the earth and then breathed the breath of life within him" is not an explanation and is not testable.

If you want to procide an alternative to evolutionary theory, you had better come up with something better than that. Because, if you don't, I can just as easily claim that Thor did it on one of his days off, he "hit" life into things with his hammer. It makes just as much sense as your "explanation".

So, you have to provide a mechanism. I am still waiting. If not, you are being a hypocrite, and not applying to your own ideas the standard you require of others.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

100. Comment #163987 by wiley16350 on April 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm

If you want to procide an alternative to evolutionary theory, you had better come up with something better than that. Because, if you don't, I can just as easily claim that Thor did it on one of his days off, he "hit" life into things with his hammer. It makes just as much sense as your "explanation".

So, you have to provide a mechanism. I am still waiting. If not, you are being a hypocrite, and not applying to your own ideas the standard you require of others.

I am not trying to come up with an alternate theory. I just want it to be shown that evolution is not fact and not the only possiblity. I have said that before. My objective is to defend God and my beliefs and it is not to try to come up with an alternate theory to evolution. I was requiring that standard to evolution because I keep getting told that it is a fact and basically the only option on the origins of life. Here is reasons why I believe in God over evolution:

1. Complexity and cohesiveness of life suggests a creator.
2. Intelligence suggests a creator. DNA, Language, logic and reason.
3. The universe is known to have a beginning and everything that has a beginning needs a cause.
4. We have no true knowledge of how life can be created from non living chemicals, suggesting a creator.
5. Jesus Christ is known to be an actual historical figure.
6. Nobody from that time period refuted his resurrection from the dead.

With that I am done because I have other things to do. Best wishes to you all.

Other Comments by wiley16350

Reload Comments | Back to Top