Ben Stein: Win His Career
jspa...@linuxquestions.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
where more "evolved" people might live.
According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
and unsophisticated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
J. Spaceman
coaster
It's true, no one is going to take him seriously after this.
Ken Denny
> Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
> on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
> one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
> like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
> where more "evolved" people might live.
>
> According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
> theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
> Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
> so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
> the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
> South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
> and unsophisticated.
Wow.
"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just
a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It's not very
exciting. But it does show that Stein, who's carved out a career
selling eye drops in commercials and amusing us on sitcoms, is either
completely nuts or so avaricious that he's abandoned all good sense to
make a buck.
Never expected to read that on Fox News.
Glend
> Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
> on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
> one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
> like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
> where more "evolved" people might live.
>
> According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
> theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
> Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
> so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
> the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
> South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
> and unsophisticated.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> J. Spaceman
We hit this giant turd with science and history arguments. That's our
role.
Friedman, though, does his movie critic's review role right, mainly
pointing out that it's a colossal freak show feeding off of the
ignorant. Unfunny, unconvincing, and something that can't make its
"point" without resorting to ad hominems. And while Fox is neither as
bad as most critics make it out to be (if I wouldn't be likely to give
it kudos), nor are its movie reviews beholden to its right-wing slant,
the fact that it is from Fox is going to hurt Expelled more than will
the bad reviews from the other news networks.
Friedman. Sounds Jewish. Why do I care? Because it always seemed
that Jews in particular should be offended by misusing the memory of
the Holocaust (and Gulag) victims in this tacky way to promote the
Xian theocratic drive for power. We all should be, but Jews have
cultural and historic reasons for this.
Frankly, these yokels are babes out in the woods, shaking their fists
at the rain, deer, wolves, and rabbits alike. Are they really stupid
enough to think that having Stein, a Jew, narrate, and then to bring
in a couple other Jews (Schroeder and Berlinski), would save them from
being criticized for trying to re-write the Holocaust and Communist
oppression? Bye-bye, Stein's career, and any lingering hopes for
respect that Schroeder and Berlinski had.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Glend
>
> - Show quoted text -
"We all should be, but Jews have
cultural and historic reasons for this."
I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
historic reasons for this."
Mark Isaak
> On Apr 9, 9:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
>> on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
>> one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
>> like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
>> where more "evolved" people might live.
>>
>> According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
>> theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
>> Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
>> so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
>> the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
>> South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
>> and unsophisticated.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> It's true, no one is going to take him seriously after this.
And no one is going to take him comedically, either.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Frank J
> On Apr 9, 10:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> > PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
> > on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
> > one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
> > like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
> > where more "evolved" people might live.
>
> > According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
> > theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
> > Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
> > so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
> > the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
> > South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
> > and unsophisticated.
>
> > Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
>
> > J. Spaceman
>
> Wow.
>
> "Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just
> a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It's not very
> exciting. But it does show that Stein, who's carved out a career
> selling eye drops in commercials and amusing us on sitcoms, is either
> completely nuts or so avaricious that he's abandoned all good sense to
> make a buck.
>
> Never expected to read that on Fox News.
I did. While I can't rule out that the writer is a token liberal,
conservatives often defend evolution. A quick scan of Fox's evolution-
related articles looked about the same as those of the liberal media -
the usual sensationalist fluff, caricaturizing evolution even when
trying to defend it, sometimes even giving the anti-evolutionists the
last word. Of course I missed the reports from Bill O' Reilly, who was
whining about us "fascists" long before Stein and his Darwinism ->
Nazism nonsense.
If "Expelled" does turn out to be a media embarrassment - and I'm not
yet convinced that it will - O'Reilly will likely be instructed by Fox
to stick to subjects that he actually knows something about.
Rupert Morrish
That's not going to fill an hour. Maybe he can just read from the Paris
Business Review?
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Suzanne
"Glend" <interelect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
>> > PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
>> > on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
>> > one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
>> > like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
>> > where more "evolved" people might live.
>>
>> > According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
>> > theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
>> > Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
>> > so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
>> > the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
>> > South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
>> > and unsophisticated.
actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
well. Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
though a single cell is so simple.
>
Suzanne
Mark VandeWettering
Well, no.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film
> Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
> structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone.
You might be interested in the copyright issues surrounding this
animation....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_controversy_of_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
> It goes without
> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
> though a single cell is so simple.
Scientists understand perfectly well that complex things exist. In fact,
it's likely that scientists are the only ones who truly appreciate just
how complex things are, since others lack understanding of complex systems.
Mark
> Suzanne
Ritsjoena
> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > "We all should be, but Jews have
> > cultural and historic reasons for this."
>
> > I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
> > historic reasons for this."
>
> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
Most are basing their opinion on the "free" information available.
I.e. trailers, ben steins interviews, reviews etc. This combined with
knowledge of the subject leads to the comments they make. Of course
the movie could surprise us, but we would expect to see that in the
reviews.
Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
better perspective.
> own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
See the controversy about that. Dawkins approved of a film of a
different kind.
> well. Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
> structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
> though a single cell is so simple.
The cell being complex is not enough reason for me that a creator must
exist. I see no reason why such a thing could not arise by natural
means. The cell might be complex, its origins (or the processes by
which is becomes so) does not have to be complex (can be complex of
course).
>
> Suzanne
Rupert Morrish
Of course cells are complicated. They are the current product of almost
4 billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.
Since all we see now is cellular life, it's easy to fall into the trap
of thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. Today, that's
true. Any free-floating autocatalytic chemicals will quickly get eaten
by the cellular organisms that exist almost everywhere on the planet.
But without such competition, non-cellular life could have existed.
> The
> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian.
Most Christians are not creationists.
Do you believe (as Ray appears to be moving towards) that *every* cell
is created by a Creator, or is cell division a natural process?
> But for
> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
> though a single cell is so simple.
No-one thinks this, as explained above.
> Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ritsjoena" <bramv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
not see it.
>
> Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
> The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
> better perspective.
>
movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
and you have to realize that. People will not hold
that against him. Our country is made up of many
kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
would feel the same for someone that believes in
evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
being taught.
>
We used to have evolution taught in schools and
at the same time, biblical things as well. There
was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>
>> own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
>> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
>> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
>> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
>> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
>> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
>> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
>
> See the controversy about that. Dawkins approved of a film of a
> different kind.
>
>
>> well. Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
>> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
>> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
>> structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>> though a single cell is so simple.
>
> The cell being complex is not enough reason for me that a creator must
> exist. I see no reason why such a thing could not arise by natural
> means. The cell might be complex, its origins (or the processes by
> which is becomes so) does not have to be complex (can be complex of
> course).
>
information to say how an original cell started. That part
surely is still a theory. I just think that people are surprised
to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>
Suzanne
Rupert Morrish
I don't think anyone has advocated censoring the film, although the
producers' failure to properly licence the music they used may have that
effect.
> I
> would feel the same for someone that believes in
> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
> being taught.
What would be the appropriate balance between mainstream history and
holocaust denial to be taught in history class?
> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
Biblical things are still taught in schools, in comparative religion
classes. Science is taught in science class. If creationists have some
science that they'd like taught, why do they want to "teach the
controversy", instead? See any RonO post for further details.
Several current hypotheses are summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> That part
> surely is still a theory.
No, none of them yet have survived sufficient attempts at falsification
to be called a theory.
> I just think that people are surprised
> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
Stuart
> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > "We all should be, but Jews have
> >> > cultural and historic reasons for this."
>
> >> > I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
> >> > historic reasons for this."
>
> >> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
> >> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>
> > Most are basing their opinion on the "free" information available.
> > I.e. trailers, ben steins interviews, reviews etc. This combined with
> > knowledge of the subject leads to the comments they make. Of course
> > the movie could surprise us, but we would expect to see that in the
> > reviews.
>
> Thank you for saying this. It sounded like you did
> not see it.
>
> > Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
> > The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
> > better perspective.
>
> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
> that against him.
I hold it against him, and if you can't tell from my last name I am
Jewish (and an ardent Zionist to boot).
Stein's ignorance offends me; it offends me greatly. The 6 million are
rolling
over in their graves. To claim that TOE played any role in the Shoa is
a stupidity on
par with Holocaust denial itself. The fundies love this cuz it takes
the focus off of
centuries of Xtian inspired antisemitism as a major contributing
factor. It is as vain an
attempt at deflection as I've seen. It is utterly imbecilic and
virtually every Jewish organization
has taken Stein to task for it.
Yes the fundies love this, it shovels dirt on science that contradicts
their narrow
literalistic beliefs and at the same time obscures the root causes of
the Shoah.
In order for somebody with his background to allow himself to be used
in this manner
is simply unfathomable. The man is not only stupid, he is crassly
stupid.
Stuart Weinstein
Shane
[...]
> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
> that against him. Our country is made up of many
> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
> would feel the same for someone that believes in
> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
> being taught.
>>
> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
But that is not a balance, that is a bias against all the
other possibilities--satanism, the great dreamtime snake,
the flying spaghetti monster etc., don't they and their
myriad counterparts merit a mention as well in order to
maintain *balance*? If so, when are you suggesting it be
taught? If not, why not? what about your particular belief
set means it automatically deserves special
treatment--bypassing both the evidentiary requirements of
science and the sensibilities of those who don't think
exactly like you do?
Would you support, in the interests of balance, the teaching
of the benefits of the homosexual lifestyle in schools?
What about the merits of slavery, anarchy, vandalism etc. Do
your think that this balance should only be limited to
schools, or should it apply to other situations, such as
churches, government departments etc. Just how far are you
prepared to go to support balance? or is *balance* just
another way of getting your particular belief set an
unmerited free pass in a forum it just plain does not apply
to?
ISTM, that implicit in the push to get creationism taught in
schools are two rather embarrassing admissions.
1. That the example of the creationist/biblical lifestyle
set at home/church is so weak it cannot counteract the few
hours of teaching of evolution a child receives at school in
any give week.
2. That the power of Jesus to work in a person--about which
you have strong opinions--is somehow negated by a few
hours/years of receiving instruction about evolution.
Why are the religious fundamentalists and creationists so
afraid of evolution? It shows a remarkable lack of faith in
the ability of their god to rule this earth. Surely a
paraphrase of the advice of Gamaliel applies here? If
evolution is true, you should not be opposing the teaching
of it, and if it is false it will fail all by itself, as
have many ideas, scientific and otherwise, throughout the
course of history?
Ritsjoena
> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > "We all should be, but Jews have
> >> > cultural and historic reasons for this."
>
> >> > I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
> >> > historic reasons for this."
>
> >> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
> >> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>
> > Most are basing their opinion on the "free" information available.
> > I.e. trailers, ben steins interviews, reviews etc. This combined with
> > knowledge of the subject leads to the comments they make. Of course
> > the movie could surprise us, but we would expect to see that in the
> > reviews.
>
> Thank you for saying this. It sounded like you did
> not see it.
>
> > Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
> > The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
> > better perspective.
>
> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
> that against him. Our country is made up of many
> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
He is allowed to speak. His movie is not forbidden and as far as I
know nobody tried to make it so. (Except for some copyright issues,
but that could be settled)
> would feel the same for someone that believes in
> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
> being taught.
True, but knowing a little bit more about the subject makes me fear
that most people (all sides) do not realize where the balance lies.
There is a lot of misinformation (especially about evolution) going
around. And there is a lot of politics influencing people.
>
> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
So was I educated here in Holland. But evolution was taught as science
and biblical things as religion, as it should be. (I'm not sure about
the current balance here, but I doubt there is much change) But I
understand that the situation is a bit different in the US and the
pressures are felt here too.
As far as I can tell the balance (at least as people see it) is mostly
disturbed by the politics of creationists to get creationism
(including ID) treated as science (which it is not) and to remove
evolution from the class room. I've heard a few sounds from non-
religious people to remove religion from the class-room but these were
a lot weaker and mostly in reaction to the politics of the
creationists.
Furthermore on public schools in the US it is unconstitutional to
favor one religion over another. This has an unbalancing power of its
own.
As far as I know a lot is known, but still a lot needs to be learned.
As far as I know it is not conclusive yet, but there is enough reason
to still think that we can figure it out and that it is natural.
>
> Suzanne
Ritsjoena
To criticize my own comment. This balance was based only on the
christian (mostly protestant) religion. I think that is no longer
enough (might never have been). Nowadays other religions deserve time
too. But during religion class, not during science classes (and not at
the expense of it). For practical reasons this could be limited to (an
overview of) mainstream (or otherwise important) religions. But with
the note that there are more. This is an important factor in the
balance too. A changing world changes the balance too.
Susan S
[snip]
>If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
>movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
>felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
>and you have to realize that. People will not hold
>that against him. Our country is made up of many
>kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
>should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
>would feel the same for someone that believes in
>evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
>hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
>being taught.
>>
Nope. Jews will and do hold it against him. There is nothing Jewish
about Expelled and using the Holocaust to "illustrate" it is bonkers. I
don't care if Stein has ruined his life or enhanced his career choices,
but promoting that dreck on the dead bodies of my relatives is almost
beyond belief.
[snip]
Susan Silberstein
Frank J
> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> >> > PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
> >> > on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
> >> > one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
> >> > like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
> >> > where more "evolved" people might live.
>
> >> > According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
> >> > theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
> >> > Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
> >> > so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
> >> > the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
> >> > South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
> >> > and unsophisticated.
>
> >> > Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
>
> >> > J. Spaceman
>
> >> We hit this giant turd with science and history arguments. That's our
> >> role.
>
> >> Friedman, though, does his movie critic's review role right, mainly
> >> pointing out that it's a colossal freak show feeding off of the
> >> ignorant. Unfunny, unconvincing, and something that can't make its
> >> "point" without resorting to ad hominems. And while Fox is neither as
> >> bad as most critics make it out to be (if I wouldn't be likely to give
> >> it kudos), nor are its movie reviews beholden to its right-wing slant,
> >> the fact that it is from Fox is going to hurt Expelled more than will
> >> the bad reviews from the other news networks.
>
> >> Friedman. Sounds Jewish. Why do I care? Because it always seemed
> >> that Jews in particular should be offended by misusing the memory of
> >> the Holocaust (and Gulag) victims in this tacky way to promote the
> >> Xian theocratic drive for power. We all should be, but Jews have
> >> cultural and historic reasons for this.
>
> >> Frankly, these yokels are babes out in the woods, shaking their fists
> >> at the rain, deer, wolves, and rabbits alike. Are they really stupid
> >> enough to think that having Stein, a Jew, narrate, and then to bring
> >> in a couple other Jews (Schroeder and Berlinski), would save them from
> >> being criticized for trying to re-write the Holocaust and Communist
> >> oppression? Bye-bye, Stein's career, and any lingering hopes for
> >> respect that Schroeder and Berlinski had.
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > "We all should be, but Jews have
> > cultural and historic reasons for this."
>
> > I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
> > historic reasons for this."
>
> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
> own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
> well. Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
> structure, far more so than people formerly believed.
Yes, but real scientists, including devout Christians, unlike Stein,
will not misrepresent science and pretend that a mere argument from
incredulity qualifies as an alternate explanation. They will tell you
what we know, what we don't know, and who is actually working at
obtaining more information. And they won't bait-and-switch evolution
with abiogenesis. Surely you must have noticed that if you saw the
film.
I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
share common ancestors?
>The
> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
> though a single cell is so simple.
Who is implying that? I just opened the first biology book I could
find, and saw nothing of the sort. Plus I added my own knowledge of
atoms and molecules and visualized a system far more complex than can
be reprsented in a schematic.
Dawkins and Myers may not believe that God designed the first cell and
conducted subsequent evolution, but that's only their opinion. Aren't
you a bit suspicious why they deliberately avoided interviewing
Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
>
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> >> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> >> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> >> >> > PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open
> >> >> > wide
> >> >> > on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got
> >> >> > just
> >> >> > one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
> >> >> > like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
> >> >> > where more "evolved" people might live.
>
> >> >> > According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
> >> >> > theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
> >> >> > Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont.
> >> >> > And
> >> >> > so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
> >> >> > the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
> >> >> > South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this
> >> >> > gullible
> >> >> > and unsophisticated.
>
> >> >> > Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
>
> >> >> > J. Spaceman
>
> >> >> We hit this giant turd with science and history arguments. That's our
> >> >> role.
>
> >> >> Friedman, though, does his movie critic's review role right, mainly
> >> >> pointing out that it's a colossal freak show feeding off of the
> >> >> ignorant. Unfunny, unconvincing, and something that can't make its
> >> >> "point" without resorting to ad hominems. And while Fox is neither as
> >> >> bad as most critics make it out to be (if I wouldn't be likely to give
> >> >> it kudos), nor are its movie reviews beholden to its right-wing slant,
> >> >> the fact that it is from Fox is going to hurt Expelled more than will
> >> >> the bad reviews from the other news networks.
>
> >> >> Friedman. Sounds Jewish. Why do I care? Because it always seemed
> >> >> that Jews in particular should be offended by misusing the memory of
> >> >> the Holocaust (and Gulag) victims in this tacky way to promote the
> >> >> Xian theocratic drive for power. We all should be, but Jews have
> >> >> cultural and historic reasons for this.
>
> >> >> Frankly, these yokels are babes out in the woods, shaking their fists
> >> >> at the rain, deer, wolves, and rabbits alike. Are they really stupid
> >> >> enough to think that having Stein, a Jew, narrate, and then to bring
> >> >> in a couple other Jews (Schroeder and Berlinski), would save them from
> >> >> being criticized for trying to re-write the Holocaust and Communist
> >> >> oppression? Bye-bye, Stein's career, and any lingering hopes for
> >> >> respect that Schroeder and Berlinski had.
>
Did I miss the part where they were banned from learning unscientific
alternatives on their own time?
>
> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
What "biblical things"? Did you critically analyse the mutual
contradictions between YE and OE interpretations? Did you have any
debates between anti-evolutionists who thought that the Bible
qualified as evidence and anti-evolutionists who thought that it did
not?
Please don't use the misleading "only a theory" language. In fact
there is no theory yet for abiogenesis, only several competing
hypotheses regarding the "how." The "when" however, is well
established.
>
> Suzanne
Suzanne
"Rupert Morrish" <rup...@morrish.org> wrote in message
news:482cb3a8$0$13061$8d2e...@news.newsgroup-binaries.com...
we have evidence that early plants and animals were
huge by comparison with today's. For example, there
used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan of two feet.
Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting
with mastadon, then mammoth, to modern elephant.
Same with sabre-toothed tiger, to modern tiger. (A
mastadon is really a member of a different species,
Mammutidae, while elephants are of the Elephantidae,
but they are similar. But a Mammoth is an elephant.)
> Since all we see now is cellular life, it's easy to fall into the trap of
> thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. Today, that's true.
> Any free-floating autocatalytic chemicals will quickly get eaten by the
> cellular organisms that exist almost everywhere on the planet. But without
> such competition, non-cellular life could have existed.
>
>> The
>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian.
>
> Most Christians are not creationists.
>
Most Christians are Catholics. It's difficult to say of they
are creationists. If they read and believe the Bible, as a
rule someone is a creationist. However, the term creationist
usually applies to YEC, which are "young earth creationists."
They believe the world is not as old as billions of years, and
that they have found what they believe is evidence about that.
>
The next to the largest group in the USA at least are
Southern Baptists, and I am one of those. Most of those
do believe in creation. I'm sure that some don't believe
in creation, but most probably do. An overwhelming
amount of the unchurched people do believe the Bible is
the truth. I've lived all over the USA and everyone I met
usually has a belief in the Bible, to my surprise even if
they don't read it.
>
> Do you believe (as Ray appears to be moving towards) that *every* cell is
> created by a Creator, or is cell division a natural process?
>
Every cell? I never thought about that before.
I can guess, based on scriptures, that God is
involved with everything that is alive and with
all of what he created. But, I suppose you are
wondering did I think he just created things to
unfold in their various descending forms from
his creating life and then setting it in motion,
or does he actually create with what he's made
each cell and/or life. I don't know the answer to
that, but from what he says to Jeremiah, he did
form him in the womb. I presume that would
mean that with what genetic material he did
program into Jeremiah's ancestors, he chose
which color of hair, eyes, skin, physical
characteristics, nature, and whatever gets
created about someone. The Bible also says that
when John the Baptist was being formed, his
mother was not to touch any alcohol. Somehow
that would have interfered with his life. Whether
that was because alcohol can put markers in the
brain, or not, I don't know. In fact, we don't know
yet a genetic problem with mother's imbibing,
except that a baby can be born an addict because
of the mother's drinking in excess, or maybe at
all. But does God get involved with the cell of a
celery plant when it is being formed? I can think
of a verse that may go along with God's being
involved in the creation of every cell and that is
Colossians 1:17:
"And he is before all things, and by him all things
consist."
...so I suppose that's possible that he is in the
process by which things are formed.
>
In the case of a child being born out of wedlock, a
child is not evil. Once the process is started by
which a baby is born, I believe that God is invovled
with that life that is forming, and that he forms it
as surely as he did Jeremiah in his mother's womb.
>
Conceivably, the Lord could be involved with the
cells of a tomato since it will give nourishment to
someone, even if that someone is a rabbit that
invades your garden.
>
>> But for
>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>> though a single cell is so simple.
>
> No-one thinks this, as explained above.
>
Thank you for your explanation.
>
Suzanne
Ernest Major
<shi...@flash.net> writes
>> Of course cells are complicated. They are the current product of almost 4
>> billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.
>>
>I don't think earlier cells are less complicated because we have
>evidence that early plants and animals were huge by comparison with
>today's. For example, there used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan
>of two feet. Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting with
>mastadon, then mammoth, to modern elephant. Same with sabre-toothed
>tiger, to modern tiger. (A mastadon is really a member of a different
>species, Mammutidae, while elephants are of the Elephantidae, but they
>are similar. But a Mammoth is an elephant.)
You've got a non-sequitur in there. The size of organisms is not
evidence for the complexity of their cells. (Does a Shetland Pony have
less complex cells that a Clydesdale?)
You've also got an error of fact in there. There is not a secular trend
from larger to smaller animals. The largest known animal is an animal
living today - the blue whale. For that matter I don't know of any
fossil plants which are bigger than living redwoods.
Generally, if the size of the largest member of a clade fluctuates over
time then for most clades you will find the largest member lived at some
time in the past, and by cherry picking species you can show an illusory
trend. Your dragonflies lived at a very different time to your
elephants.
Generally, again, the evidence is that lineages *tend* to increase in
size over time (Cope's Law), and that early plants and animals were
small in comparison to todays'.
And finally you've got a red herring in there. The relative complexity
of cells over the less few hundred million years is not germane to the
question of the relative complexity of cells a few billion years old.
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
> "Rupert Morrish" <rup...@morrish.org> wrote in message
>
> news:482cb3a8$0$13061$8d2e...@news.newsgroup-binaries.com...
>
>
>
> > Suzanne wrote:
> >>news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >>>>> Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> >>>>> PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open wide
> >>>>> on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
> >>>>> one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
> >>>>> like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
> >>>>> where more "evolved" people might live.
> >>>>> According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
> >>>>> theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
> >>>>> Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont. And
> >>>>> so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
> >>>>> the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
> >>>>> South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
> >>>>> and unsophisticated.
> >>>>> Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
> >>>>> J. Spaceman
> >>>> We hit this giant turd with science and history arguments. That's our
> >>>> role.
>
> >>>> Friedman, though, does his movie critic's review role right, mainly
> >>>> pointing out that it's a colossal freak show feeding off of the
> >>>> ignorant. Unfunny, unconvincing, and something that can't make its
> >>>> "point" without resorting to ad hominems. And while Fox is neither as
> >>>> bad as most critics make it out to be (if I wouldn't be likely to give
> >>>> it kudos), nor are its movie reviews beholden to its right-wing slant,
> >>>> the fact that it is from Fox is going to hurt Expelled more than will
> >>>> the bad reviews from the other news networks.
>
> >>>> Friedman. Sounds Jewish. Why do I care? Because it always seemed
> >>>> that Jews in particular should be offended by misusing the memory of
> >>>> the Holocaust (and Gulag) victims in this tacky way to promote the
> >>>> Xian theocratic drive for power. We all should be, but Jews have
> >>>> cultural and historic reasons for this.
>
> >>>> Frankly, these yokels are babes out in the woods, shaking their fists
> >>>> at the rain, deer, wolves, and rabbits alike. Are they really stupid
> >>>> enough to think that having Stein, a Jew, narrate, and then to bring
> >>>> in a couple other Jews (Schroeder and Berlinski), would save them from
> >>>> being criticized for trying to re-write the Holocaust and Communist
> >>>> oppression? Bye-bye, Stein's career, and any lingering hopes for
> >>>> respect that Schroeder and Berlinski had.
>
Ernest beat me to addressing your confusion about size and complexity.
You have been corrected on many misunderstandings of biology but I
haven't seen any replies other than attempts to cherry pick what you
want to support your incredulity. Nor have I seen answers to my simple
questions regarding your alternate "theory."
I personally think that God is involved in every step, but that's not
a testable statement What is testable, and supported by evidence is
that He has been doing His work in-vivo - IOW you're related to that
celery that you just ate - for billions of years. Even anti-
evolutionist Michael Behe agrees with that, as do most major religions
- indeed nearly all science-literate Christians. Every other candidate
explanation is easily falsified. So if you favor one of them, please
state it so we can critically analyze it for you.
Behe also says that the designer that he claims to have caught red
handed might not be God and might not even exist anyomer (a dead
alien, perhaps?)
Dysdiadochokinesia
"Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:mXrXj.3706$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Holy shit. I would not have thought someone with this little education and
understanding of the world around them would be capable of operating a
computer. Clearly it has become too easy to access the internet these days.
loua...@yahoo.com
> The next to the largest group in the USA at least are
> Southern Baptists, and I am one of those. Most of those
> do believe in creation. I'm sure that some don't believe
> in creation, but most probably do. An overwhelming
> amount of the unchurched people do believe the Bible is
> the truth. I've lived all over the USA and everyone I met
> usually has a belief in the Bible, to my surprise even if
> they don't read it.
Belief in the Bible? Heck, I've SEEN one.
But don't underestimate the power of social conformity. If you drag
the Bible into a conversation, the vast majority of 'the unchurched'
are going to mumble something favorable. Because a, there are quite a
few nice things that can be said even if only as a cultural document.
And b, anyone who drags the Bible into a a conversation will give them
no peace ever again in their lives if they say "what a bunch of
crap."
There's an enormous gap between general compliments and the sort of
belief that goes "It says X in the Bible, therefore I must believe and
do X even if it sounds insane on its own merits."
Suzanne
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY0g+cCL...@meden.invalid...
> In message <mXrXj.3706$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne
> <shi...@flash.net> writes
>>> Of course cells are complicated. They are the current product of almost
>>> 4
>>> billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.
>>>
>>I don't think earlier cells are less complicated because we have evidence
>>that early plants and animals were huge by comparison with today's. For
>>example, there used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan of two feet.
>>Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting with mastadon, then
>>mammoth, to modern elephant. Same with sabre-toothed tiger, to modern
>>tiger. (A mastadon is really a member of a different species, Mammutidae,
>>while elephants are of the Elephantidae, but they are similar. But a
>>Mammoth is an elephant.)
>
> You've got a non-sequitur in there. The size of organisms is not evidence
> for the complexity of their cells. (Does a Shetland Pony have less complex
> cells that a Clydesdale?)
>
modern elephants descended from their earlier
relatives. It does not appear that the earlier
ancestors were any the less complicated than
the modern elephants. And the ones that you
list are not descendants of one another, that
we know of.
>
> You've also got an error of fact in there. There is not a secular trend
> from larger to smaller animals. The largest known animal is an animal
> living today - the blue whale. For that matter I don't know of any fossil
> plants which are bigger than living redwoods.
>
living redwoods. But since they still exist, do you
think there are any redwoods that exist that are
descended from these? Do you know of earlier
redwoods that the giant redwood would be descended
from? If so, are the parent plants' cells' less complicated?
>
> Generally, if the size of the largest member of a clade fluctuates over
> time then for most clades you will find the largest member lived at some
> time in the past, and by cherry picking species you can show an illusory
> trend. Your dragonflies lived at a very different time to your elephants.
>
>
> Generally, again, the evidence is that lineages *tend* to increase in size
> over time (Cope's Law), and that early plants and animals were small in
> comparison to todays'.
>
>
> And finally you've got a red herring in there. The relative complexity of
> cells over the less few hundred million years is not germane to the
> question of the relative complexity of cells a few billion years old.
>
for example, can you explain how complicated the cells
were in the graphite microparticles found in beds in the
supracrystal belt of SW Greenland? These, for example
are at least 3 billion years old it is said.
>
How can you say for certain that earlier lifeforms had
less complicated cells?
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6802e6ce-e890-413c...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
statement "you have been corrected," is not exactly
a friendly statement. And I don't know about having
discussed anything about an alternate theory. Some of
you react like you have been repeatedly attacked. Maybe
you have been.
>
> I personally think that God is involved in every step, but that's not
> a testable statement What is testable, and supported by evidence is
> that He has been doing His work in-vivo - IOW you're related to that
> celery that you just ate - for billions of years. Even anti-
> evolutionist Michael Behe agrees with that, as do most major religions
> - indeed nearly all science-literate Christians. Every other candidate
> explanation is easily falsified. So if you favor one of them, please
> state it so we can critically analyze it for you.
>
possibility since I have red hair. My major religion
does not agree with what you are saying. I'm not going
by people's theories, I'm acting on my own.
>
> Behe also says that the designer that he claims to have caught red
> handed might not be God and might not even exist anyomer (a dead
> alien, perhaps?)
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Dysdiadochokinesia" <squishyb...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:PPOdnZQ_oMZ8kLLV...@giganews.com...
>
Suzanne
>
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
It may be unintentional, but you're doing it anyway.
> Your
> statement "you have been corrected," is not exactly
> a friendly statement.
You want a friendly statement? Here's one: "I'll pray for you."
I didn't get many friendly statements from my teachers, but decades
later, I acknowledge and respect that they tried to help me.
> And I don't know about having
> discussed anything about an alternate theory. Some of
> you react like you have been repeatedly attacked. Maybe
> you have been.
Well if you doubt evolution, you must have a "second best candidate"
in mind. And I noticed that you still have not answered my simple
questions as to what that might be. Try again. Best guesses will do. I
promise not to ridicule any answer, be it flat-earthism, "Last
Thursdayism" etc. I respect honesty, not evasion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I personally think that
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Suzanne
to collect all that it said. It was very intensely
laden with information.
>
> I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
> most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
> billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
> But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
> information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
> when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
> scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
> share common ancestors?
>
3.5 billion years old. Yet I know that is what
is taught.
>
>>The
>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>> though a single cell is so simple.
>
> Who is implying that? I just opened the first biology book I could
> find, and saw nothing of the sort. Plus I added my own knowledge of
> atoms and molecules and visualized a system far more complex than can
> be reprsented in a schematic.
>
>
> Dawkins and Myers may not believe that God designed the first cell and
> conducted subsequent evolution, but that's only their opinion. Aren't
> you a bit suspicious why they deliberately avoided interviewing
> Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
>
was not interviewed? Sounds interesting.
>
Suzanne
Frank J
(snip)
>
Sorry, I did not see the following in my last reply:
> I'm not related to any celery, but a carrot could be a
> possibility since I have red hair.
Great start. Assuming that you're not kidding, you have proposed that
humans and carrots share common ancestors, but not with celery. As far
as I can tell, that's a new one - and testable - so you have lots to
talk about with creationists and IDers, as most of their ideas are as
far from yours as evolution is.
> My major religion
> does not agree with what you are saying. I'm not going
> by people's theories, I'm acting on my own.
>
> > Behe also says that the designer that he claims to have caught red
> > handed might not be God and might not even exist anyomer (a dead
> > alien, perhaps?)
>
> I don't agree with him, then.
Good. Do you plan to challenge him on that too?
>
> Suzanne
Dysdiadochokinesia
How would you recognize intelligence, Suzanne?
I have a PhD in cell biology so I don't expect you to know as much as me,
but I literally know 4th graders who have more scientific knowledge than you
do.
Ernest Major
<shi...@flash.net> writes
>> I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
>> most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
>> billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
>> But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
>> information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
>> when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
>> scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
>> share common ancestors?
>>
>I don't trust the information that the earth is
>3.5 billion years old. Yet I know that is what
>is taught.
Either American education is worse than we think, or you know wrong. The
Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Note that the figure 3.5 to 4
billion years given above is for the origin of life on Earth, not for
the origin of the Earth.
As a Christian shouldn't you trust the work of God (the world around
you) above the words of man (the Bible).
--
alias Ernest Major
Ritsjoena
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Allow me to answer that. They did not interview them because that
would show that that there are all kinds of Grey in their black and
white picture of creation versus evolution. They think the audience
can not handle this added complexity. According to Ben Stein, it would
confuse the audience.
Now, can you tell me what the influence is that this choice has on the
way people will be influenced by the documentary?
> Suzanne
Frank J
>
> I'm afraid that I will need to see it several times
> to collect all that it said. It was very intensely
> laden with information.
You can also do as I did and read dozens each of positive and negative
reviews. The bait-and-switch is hard to miss. The movie may even have
slipped in a quick disclaimer admitting that they're 2 different
things, but they managed to feed the misconception anyway, as
evidenced from the positive reviews. Same with the "Darwinism" doesn't
"necessarily" lead to Nazism. They knew that their target audience
would mostly tune out the disclaimer.
>
> > I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
> > most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
> > billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
> > But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
> > information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
> > when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
> > scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
> > share common ancestors?
>
> I don't trust the information that the earth is
> 3.5 billion years old. Yet I know that is what
> is taught.
What is it with anti-evolutionists and reading comprehention? Nearly
every time I ask about the age of *life* they answer with the age of
the *Earth.*
What is taught is that the Earth is *4.55* billion years old. That
information is overwhelmingly supported by multiple lines of evidence
*independent* of evolutionary biology.
*Life* originated ~3.8 billion years ago and that too is independent
of EB. Notice that the age of life is not as accurately known as the
age of the Earth, but is still clearly in the billions. A conclusion
of "6 billion years" for either is just as wrong as "6 thousand years"
or "6 minutes."
In both cases the evidence is, in the words Pope John Paul II used to
defend evolution, "neither sought nor fabricated."
If you don't trust either number, what number do you trust better? At
least answer for "life" - Earth age optional. And try to support your
answer on its own merits, not on your perceived weakness in current
answers.
>
> >>The
> >> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
> >> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
> >> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
> >> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
> >> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
> >> though a single cell is so simple.
>
> > Who is implying that? I just opened the first biology book I could
> > find, and saw nothing of the sort. Plus I added my own knowledge of
> > atoms and molecules and visualized a system far more complex than can
> > be reprsented in a schematic.
>
> Some have said this, not necessarily in this newsgroup.
Then they have probably been corrected. When science makes mistakes
(or commits fraud) science corrects it. When *pseudoscience* does
that, they *never* correct it, and often cover it up. That's why ID
and creationism are *pseudoscience*. Sadly, the rank and file (like
you?) are just misled, but the leaders routinely bear false witness.
>
> > Dawkins and Myers may not believe that God designed the first cell and
> > conducted subsequent evolution, but that's only their opinion. Aren't
> > you a bit suspicious why they deliberately avoided interviewing
> > Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
>
> No, but what is your opinion as to why Miller or Collins
> was not interviewed? Sounds interesting.
Both are devout Christians. Neither was "expelled" for professing his
belief in an intelligent designer. The writer chose not to interview
them because (his words) it would "complicate" the film's message. Of
course, it would *undermine* it.
They deliberately selected people like Dawkins, who can be easily made
to say the wrong things - especially with the luxury of selective
editing.
If you do have an open mind, you will read the critiques of ID/
creationism by Miller, Collins, and John Haught (Christian
Theologian), who, like Miller, testified at the Dover trial.
>
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:eY0g+cCL...@meden.invalid...
>> In message <mXrXj.3706$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne
>> <shi...@flash.net> writes
>>>> Of course cells are complicated. They are the current product of almost
>>>> 4
>>>> billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.
>>>>
>>>I don't think earlier cells are less complicated because we have evidence
>>>that early plants and animals were huge by comparison with today's. For
>>>example, there used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan of two feet.
>>>Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting with mastadon, then
>>>mammoth, to modern elephant. Same with sabre-toothed tiger, to modern
>>>tiger. (A mastadon is really a member of a different species, Mammutidae,
>>>while elephants are of the Elephantidae, but they are similar. But a
>>>Mammoth is an elephant.)
>>
>> You've got a non-sequitur in there. The size of organisms is not evidence
>> for the complexity of their cells. (Does a Shetland Pony have less complex
>> cells that a Clydesdale?)
>>
>Most textbooks in schools take the stand that
>modern elephants descended from their earlier
>relatives.
Of course, that is true of all life on Earth.
>It does not appear that the earlier
>ancestors were any the less complicated than
>the modern elephants.
How far back do you want to go?
>And the ones that you
>list are not descendants of one another, that
>we know of.
>>
>> You've also got an error of fact in there. There is not a secular trend
>> from larger to smaller animals. The largest known animal is an animal
>> living today - the blue whale. For that matter I don't know of any fossil
>> plants which are bigger than living redwoods.
>>
>You are very smart to come up with this about the
>living redwoods. But since they still exist, do you
>think there are any redwoods that exist that are
>descended from these? Do you know of earlier
>redwoods that the giant redwood would be descended
>from? If so, are the parent plants' cells' less complicated?
Yes.
>>
>> Generally, if the size of the largest member of a clade fluctuates over
>> time then for most clades you will find the largest member lived at some
>> time in the past, and by cherry picking species you can show an illusory
>> trend. Your dragonflies lived at a very different time to your elephants.
>>
>The larger dragonfly lived when dinosaurs lived.
Nope. Many millions of years earlier. You are thinking about creatures
such as Meganeura which lived 300 million years ago in the
Carboniferous period (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura).
>>
>> Generally, again, the evidence is that lineages *tend* to increase in size
>> over time (Cope's Law), and that early plants and animals were small in
>> comparison to todays'.
>>
>This sounds like a theory, and not a fact.
It is evidence.
>>
>> And finally you've got a red herring in there. The relative complexity of
>> cells over the less few hundred million years is not germane to the
>> question of the relative complexity of cells a few billion years old.
>>
>And did you come up with this from....the fossil record?
>for example, can you explain how complicated the cells
>were in the graphite microparticles found in beds in the
>supracrystal belt of SW Greenland? These, for example
>are at least 3 billion years old it is said.
>>
>How can you say for certain that earlier lifeforms had
>less complicated cells?
Examination of the evidence.
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:6802e6ce-e890-413c...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 16, 11:04 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>> "Rupert Morrish" <rup...@morrish.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:482cb3a8$0$13061$8d2e...@news.newsgroup-binaries.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Suzanne wrote:
>>> >> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >>news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> >>> On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Ernest beat me to addressing your confusion about size and complexity.
>> You have been corrected on many misunderstandings of biology but I
>> haven't seen any replies other than attempts to cherry pick what you
>> want to support your incredulity. Nor have I seen answers to my simple
>> questions regarding your alternate "theory."
>>
>I am not intending to "cherry pick," as you say. Your
>statement "you have been corrected," is not exactly
>a friendly statement.
But it is a fact.
>And I don't know about having
>discussed anything about an alternate theory. Some of
>you react like you have been repeatedly attacked. Maybe
>you have been.
>>
>> I personally think that God is involved in every step, but that's not
>> a testable statement What is testable, and supported by evidence is
>> that He has been doing His work in-vivo - IOW you're related to that
>> celery that you just ate - for billions of years. Even anti-
>> evolutionist Michael Behe agrees with that, as do most major religions
>> - indeed nearly all science-literate Christians. Every other candidate
>> explanation is easily falsified. So if you favor one of them, please
>> state it so we can critically analyze it for you.
>>
>I'm not related to any celery,
Yes you are. All life on Earth is related.
> but a carrot could be a
>possibility since I have red hair. My major religion
>does not agree with what you are saying. I'm not going
>by people's theories, I'm acting on my own.
>>
>> Behe also says that the designer that he claims to have caught red
>> handed might not be God and might not even exist anyomer (a dead
>> alien, perhaps?)
>>
>I don't agree with him, then.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ab2a6474-2b83-4a0d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 12, 12:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>> Yes, but real scientists, including devout Christians, unlike Stein,
>> will not misrepresent science and pretend that a mere argument from
>> incredulity qualifies as an alternate explanation. They will tell you
>> what we know, what we don't know, and who is actually working at
>> obtaining more information. And they won't bait-and-switch evolution
>> with abiogenesis. Surely you must have noticed that if you saw the
>> film.
>>
>I'm afraid that I will need to see it several times
>to collect all that it said. It was very intensely
>laden with information.
You are kidding, right?
>>
>> I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
>> most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
>> billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
>> But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
>> information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
>> when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
>> scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
>> share common ancestors?
>>
>I don't trust the information that the earth is
>3.5 billion years old. Yet I know that is what
>is taught.
Wrong. The Earth is about 4.7 billion years old. By 3.8 billion years
ago we know life had evolved.
>>
>>>The
>>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>>> though a single cell is so simple.
>>
>> Who is implying that? I just opened the first biology book I could
>> find, and saw nothing of the sort. Plus I added my own knowledge of
>> atoms and molecules and visualized a system far more complex than can
>> be reprsented in a schematic.
>>
>Some have said this, not necessarily in this newsgroup.
Most modern cells are fairly complex. That does not mean the first
cell was anywhere near as complex, and of course life predates the
first cell by a long way.
>>
>> Dawkins and Myers may not believe that God designed the first cell and
>> conducted subsequent evolution, but that's only their opinion. Aren't
>> you a bit suspicious why they deliberately avoided interviewing
>> Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
>>
>No, but what is your opinion as to why Miller or Collins
>was not interviewed? Sounds interesting.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
TomS
<b27034l4qb5mpr27u...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
>
>On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>I'm not related to any celery,
>
>Yes you are. All life on Earth is related.
There is no question about that.
Celery is edible. If our food weren't related to us,
then it wouldn't be nourishing.
Even creationists should agree to that, with the only
dispute being the details of the relationship.
A creationist could believe that an intelligent designer
deliberately designed different forms of life to be
related. Or that the intelligent designer were somehow
constrained by the properties of matter and the laws of
nature that there was only one way that life could be
designed. I've read some creationist writings which say
that the great similarities of living things are the mark
of a common designer.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
gregwrld
>
> news:ab2a6474-2b83-4a0d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May 12, 12:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> >> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>
> >> >> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> >> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >
>
> >> >> > Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
>
> >> >> > J. Spaceman
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, but real scientists, including devout Christians, unlike Stein,
> > will not misrepresent science and pretend that a mere argument from
> > incredulity qualifies as an alternate explanation. They will tell you
> > what we know, what we don't know, and who is actually working at
> > obtaining more information. And they won't bait-and-switch evolution
> > with abiogenesis. Surely you must have noticed that if you saw the
> > film.
>
> I'm afraid that I will need to see it several times
> to collect all that it said. It was very intensely
> laden with information.
>
> > I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
> > most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
> > billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
> > But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
> > information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
> > when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
> > scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
> > share common ancestors?
>
> I don't trust the information that the earth is
> 3.5 billion years old. Yet I know that is what
> is taught.
In my experience the only people
who doubt scientific estimates
are people who know very little
about geology, like you.
>
> >>The
> >> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
> >> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
> >> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
> >> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
> >> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
> >> though a single cell is so simple.
>
> > Who is implying that? I just opened the first biology book I could
> > find, and saw nothing of the sort. Plus I added my own knowledge of
> > atoms and molecules and visualized a system far more complex than can
> > be reprsented in a schematic.
>
> Some have said this, not necessarily in this newsgroup.
The only people I have heard
say it are people who don't
know much about biology,
like you.
>
> > Dawkins and Myers may not believe that God designed the first cell and
> > conducted subsequent evolution, but that's only their opinion. Aren't
> > you a bit suspicious why they deliberately avoided interviewing
> > Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
>
> No, but what is your opinion as to why Miller or Collins
> was not interviewed? Sounds interesting.
Because it contradicts the
notion that people who
accept evolution as the
best explanation for life's
diversity are all atheists.
gregwrld
Je crois que je vais
cracher une boule de poils
>
> Suzanne
Frank J
> "On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
>
> >On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> >enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >>I'm not related to any celery,
>
> >Yes you are. All life on Earth is related.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> There is no question about that.
>
> Celery is edible. If our food weren't related to us,
> then it wouldn't be nourishing.
Why not? One can at least conceive that the ultimate ancestors of
plants and animals arose independently using similar nonliving raw
material (e.g nucleotides, amino acids). Once broken down by
digestion, the materials would be mutually nutritious.
Sure, such an independent origin hypothesis is an extraordinary claim
with no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise. How to account for the
many other cellular similarities, starting with the common genetic
code, would be a huge obstacle.
But that's precisely why I keep asking anti-evolutionists such
questions. So they can show that they either haven't thought it
through, or did and deliberately evade the inconveneint question. If
they really thought that the evidence favored an independent origins
scenario they'd have no problem stating, at lest as a hypothesis,
exactly which "kinds" originated independently, and *when*. And they'd
support it on its own merits, not on their perceived weaknesses on
evolution. The fact that they single out evolution as weak, and just
brush off competing anti-evolution positions after implying that they
are at least as weak, suggets that they are either clueless, or
scamming those who are.
>
> Even creationists should agree to that, with the only
> dispute being the details of the relationship.
>
> A creationist could believe that an intelligent designer
> deliberately designed different forms of life to be
> related. Or that the intelligent designer were somehow
> constrained by the properties of matter and the laws of
> nature that there was only one way that life could be
> designed. I've read some creationist writings which say
> that the great similarities of living things are the mark
> of a common designer.
Sure, but many "evolutionists" say that too; they just don't pretend
that it's a scientific claim. The scientifically relevant questions,
which IDers and an increasing % of classic creationists routinely
evade, are when and how those designs were actuated in biological
systems.
Free Lunch
>
>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ab2a6474-2b83-4a0d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
...
>> Yes, but real scientists, including devout Christians, unlike Stein,
>> will not misrepresent science and pretend that a mere argument from
>> incredulity qualifies as an alternate explanation. They will tell you
>> what we know, what we don't know, and who is actually working at
>> obtaining more information. And they won't bait-and-switch evolution
>> with abiogenesis. Surely you must have noticed that if you saw the
>> film.
>>
>I'm afraid that I will need to see it several times
>to collect all that it said. It was very intensely
>laden with information.
Filled with lies, out of context claims, half-truths, and misleading
generalities would be a better description.
>> I suppose that by now Stein will admit, as Michael Behe has, that life
>> most likely originated only once, or at most a few times, 3.5 - 4
>> billion years ago, and that all subsequent life is descended from it.
>> But don't expect him to volunteer such politically incorrect
>> information often. So, do you agree with at least that basic "what and
>> when" or do you have other evidence that might support a different
>> scenario? Such as perhaps one in which humans and other apes do not
>> share common ancestors?
>>
>I don't trust the information that the earth is
>3.5 billion years old. Yet I know that is what
>is taught.
The earth is about 4.55 billion years old. It is life that has been
around on earth for about 3.5 billion or more.
I have no idea why you would distrust these discoveries. Are you trained
to understand what has been discovered? If not, how are you in the
position to critique it?
>>>The
>>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>>> though a single cell is so simple.
Was that the animation that they are being sued for because they ripped
it off from some scientists without paying for it? At least now they
have a copy rather than the original, but honesty is something that was
expelled from this movie.
>> Who is implying that? I just opened the first biology book I could
>> find, and saw nothing of the sort. Plus I added my own knowledge of
>> atoms and molecules and visualized a system far more complex than can
>> be reprsented in a schematic.
>>
>Some have said this, not necessarily in this newsgroup.
>>
>> Dawkins and Myers may not believe that God designed the first cell and
>> conducted subsequent evolution, but that's only their opinion. Aren't
>> you a bit suspicious why they deliberately avoided interviewing
>> Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
>>
>No, but what is your opinion as to why Miller or Collins
>was not interviewed? Sounds interesting.
Because it undermines the claim that believers do not accept evolution.
The reality is that the vast majority of Christians belong to
denominations that have no complaints about science in general or
evolution in particular. Anti-science creationism is a lie held by a
small group of heterodox believers. They are not remotely informed by
science in their claims.
TomS
<dd35d0f5-a2cd-4c52...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On May 18, 9:34 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
>> <b27034l4qb5mpr27usdbs8tc7u3jpqa...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
>>
>> >On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
>> >enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>> >>I'm not related to any celery,
>>
>> >Yes you are. All life on Earth is related.
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> There is no question about that.
>>
>> Celery is edible. If our food weren't related to us,
>> then it wouldn't be nourishing.
>
>Why not? One can at least conceive that the ultimate ancestors of
>plants and animals arose independently using similar nonliving raw
>material (e.g nucleotides, amino acids). Once broken down by
>digestion, the materials would be mutually nutritious.
Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean to restrict that to
"related by having ancestors in common". There are many
different possible organic compounds, and only a small
fraction of them are used in any living thing. How did
they come about to be so closely related that they can
serve as food? Common ancestry is just one way, but one
doesn't have to accept common ancestry to recognize that
there is some kind of relationship.
Suzanne
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:slrng2okki.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
> On 2008-05-12, Suzanne <shi...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Glend" <interelect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
>>>> > PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open
>>>> > wide
>>>> > on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got just
>>>> > one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in places
>>>> > like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban neighborhoods
>>>> > where more "evolved" people might live.
>>>>
>>>> > According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping 45
>>>> > theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35 in
>>>> > Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont.
>>>> > And
>>>> > so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas taking
>>>> > the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
>>>> > South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible
>>>> > and unsophisticated.
>>>> role.
>>>>
>>>> Friedman, though, does his movie critic's review role right, mainly
>>>> pointing out that it's a colossal freak show feeding off of the
>>>> ignorant. Unfunny, unconvincing, and something that can't make its
>>>> "point" without resorting to ad hominems. And while Fox is neither as
>>>> bad as most critics make it out to be (if I wouldn't be likely to give
>>>> it kudos), nor are its movie reviews beholden to its right-wing slant,
>>>> the fact that it is from Fox is going to hurt Expelled more than will
>>>> the bad reviews from the other news networks.
>>>>
>>>> Friedman. Sounds Jewish. Why do I care? Because it always seemed
>>>> that Jews in particular should be offended by misusing the memory of
>>>> the Holocaust (and Gulag) victims in this tacky way to promote the
>>>> Xian theocratic drive for power. We all should be, but Jews have
>>>> cultural and historic reasons for this.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, these yokels are babes out in the woods, shaking their fists
>>>> at the rain, deer, wolves, and rabbits alike. Are they really stupid
>>>> enough to think that having Stein, a Jew, narrate, and then to bring
>>>> in a couple other Jews (Schroeder and Berlinski), would save them from
>>>> being criticized for trying to re-write the Holocaust and Communist
>>>> oppression? Bye-bye, Stein's career, and any lingering hopes for
>>>> respect that Schroeder and Berlinski had.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> cultural and historic reasons for this."
>>>
>>> I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
>>> historic reasons for this."
>>>
>> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
>> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>> own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
>> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
>> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
>> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
>> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
>> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
>> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
>> well.
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film
>
It says in the end of this article that Ben said he
did not mislead anyone and that the name of the
film was changed to Expelled and that was not
the original title of it. So were they misled? It
doesn't sound like it.
>
>> Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
>> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
>> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone.
>
> animation....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_controversy_of_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>
I read what this says but one of the things it says
is that the fair use doctrine says that you can
cite usage of 25 seconds of the song. The melody
and instrumental part of the song and John's
voice are beautiful, but what the words say is like
what they showed while those 25 seconds were
playing. If John Lennon's wife and children feel
that they need to sue the film owners, then they
should do what they think is right. The words are
cold to me. It sounds like the film owners thought
all this through because according to what this says,
they laid money aside in case there were law suits.
That doesn't mean that they had knowledge that they
did something wrong, it means that they had to have
a supply of money set aside to fight any court case.
They probably had legal advice before the film was
released.
>
>> It goes without
>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>> though a single cell is so simple.
>
> it's likely that scientists are the only ones who truly appreciate just
> how complex things are, since others lack understanding of complex
> systems.
>
No, this is not about how complicated cells are now. It's
about cells always being complicated even in what would
be beginning types of life.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
>> "Ritsjoena" <bramv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> "We all should be, but Jews have
>>>>> cultural and historic reasons for this."
>>>>> I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
>>>>> historic reasons for this."
>>>> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
>>>> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>>> I.e. trailers, ben steins interviews, reviews etc. This combined with
>>> knowledge of the subject leads to the comments they make. Of course
>>> the movie could surprise us, but we would expect to see that in the
>>> reviews.
>>>
>> Thank you for saying this. It sounded like you did
>> not see it.
>>> Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
>>> The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
>>> better perspective.
>>>
>> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
>> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
>> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
>> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
>> that against him. Our country is made up of many
>> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
>> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film.
>
> producers' failure to properly licence the music they used may have that
> effect.
>
According to the websites posted, the people who
own this film believed that they could play a song
that ran for 26 seconds only and have that be
legitimate to do so. So it remains to be seen if they
needed to get permission to do that. Since they
did stick to 26 seconds they say (I didn't time it!),
that sounds like they did not fail to do what they
should do.
>
>> I
>> would feel the same for someone that believes in
>> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
>> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
>> being taught.
>
> holocaust denial to be taught in history class?
>
It would be wrong to teach that there was no
Holocaust. People living still were there, and I
was alive when this was going on and can testify
that it did happen. Not only that but a little girl
I knew that went to our school was a victim of
a concentration camp. She died about a month
after I met her because of the damage they did
to that child's body. We all knew it was real.
>
>> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
>> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
>> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>
> classes. Science is taught in science class. If creationists have some
> science that they'd like taught, why do they want to "teach the
> controversy", instead? See any RonO post for further details.
>
No, idiots have tampered with people reading the
Bible in school or any reference to any kind of
religion. So it's not really the same as it was when
I was a child. That's what my comment above was
all about. It never was disallowed to teach evolution
theory. What this is about now, is not that they want
the right to teach evolution, that never was not taught.
But the Bible has been attacked and the people do not
want that.
>
>>>> own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
>>>> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
>>>> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
>>>> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
>>>> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
>>>> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
>>>> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
>>> different kind.
>>>
>> Thank you, I shall.
>>>> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
>>>> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
>>>> structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
>>>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>>>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>>>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>>>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>>>> though a single cell is so simple.
>>> exist. I see no reason why such a thing could not arise by natural
>>> means. The cell might be complex, its origins (or the processes by
>>> which is becomes so) does not have to be complex (can be complex of
>>> course).
>>>
>> That's very interesting. I don't know that we have enough
>> information to say how an original cell started.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>
I have previously read this, thank you. It is very
interesting, truly. It does not tell the complications
of a single cell though, and that is what there is
no evidence of...a simple single cell that started
life and managed to produce all that we have that
is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
What amazes me is this idea said in this article
that even allows that alien forms of life could
be what started life on the earth. This shows that
no one knows how life began on this planet.
>
> > That part
> > surely is still a theory.
>
> be called a theory.
>
I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
life began on the earth.
>
>> I just think that people are surprised
>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>
>
I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
made new wine at the wedding in Cana, and he made it
so that it would have the flavor of aged wine. The
servants, Mary and Jesus alone knew this. The maitre d'
did not and he tasted the wine and exclaimed that he
thought the host had saved the best wine for the last.
It was the custom that you served the best wine first
then, so that when people were slightly tipsy, they
may not notice the flavor of the later distributed wine.
When they ran out of wine, Jesus still made the best.
It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
vintage earth and universe.
>
Suzanne
>
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Well, he would say that.
> and that the name of the
>film was changed to Expelled and that was not
>the original title of it. So were they misled? It
>doesn't sound like it.
Yes, they were misled - wholesale.
>>
>>> Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
>>> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
>>> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
>>> structure, far more so than people formerly believed. The
>>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone.
>>
>> You might be interested in the copyright issues surrounding this
>> animation....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_controversy_of_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>>
>I read what this says but one of the things it says
>is that the fair use doctrine says that you can
>cite usage of 25 seconds of the song.
For criticism or scholarly review, sure.
> The melody
>and instrumental part of the song and John's
>voice are beautiful, but what the words say is like
>what they showed while those 25 seconds were
>playing. If John Lennon's wife and children feel
>that they need to sue the film owners, then they
>should do what they think is right. The words are
>cold to me. It sounds like the film owners thought
>all this through because according to what this says,
>they laid money aside in case there were law suits.
>That doesn't mean that they had knowledge that they
>did something wrong, it means that they had to have
>a supply of money set aside to fight any court case.
>They probably had legal advice before the film was
>released.
If they did then I bet they ignored it.
>>
>>> It goes without
>>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian. But for
>>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>>> though a single cell is so simple.
>>
>> Scientists understand perfectly well that complex things exist. In fact,
>> it's likely that scientists are the only ones who truly appreciate just
>> how complex things are, since others lack understanding of complex
>> systems.
>>
>No, this is not about how complicated cells are now. It's
>about cells always being complicated even in what would
>be beginning types of life.
The cell was not the first form of life.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
TomS
<pdd3341tmi360gqtd...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
>
>On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:06:28 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>news:slrng2okki.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
>>> You might be interested in the copyright issues surrounding this
>>> animation....
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_controversy_of_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>>>
>>I read what this says but one of the things it says
>>is that the fair use doctrine says that you can
>>cite usage of 25 seconds of the song.
>
>For criticism or scholarly review, sure.
No.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the copyright
law is that there is no fixed number of seconds of music
(or number of words of text) that constitutes "fair use".
The Wikipedia entry does *not* say this. What Wikipedia
does say is this:
"The film producers released a statement in response on April
23, 2008, stating that they believed they could use the music
without permission under the fair use doctrine citing usage
of 25 seconds of the song."
The producers, according to Wikipedia, are claiming "fair
use", *not* on the basis of some rule about 25 seconds.
They are saying that the movie used 25 seconds, and they
are saying that, in this particular instance, that was
fair use.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
They did not pay to use the music in a commercial manner.
Your use of English makes it very hard to work out what you are
saying. "It never was disallowed to teach evolution theory." is a very
badly put statement that is also wrong.
The bible has no place in school - other than in a comparative
religion class. It certainly has no place in a science class.
It wouldn't. It is talking about a point far earlier in the
development of life.
> and that is what there is
>no evidence of...a simple single cell that started
>life
The cell came long after the start of life.
>and managed to produce all that we have that
>is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
>What amazes me is this idea said in this article
>that even allows that alien forms of life could
>be what started life on the earth. This shows that
>no one knows how life began on this planet.
Of course there is a possibility that life started off-planet, but not
a high probability. Certainly many of the building blocks of life came
from space where they are quite common.
>>
>> > That part
>> > surely is still a theory.
>>
>> No, none of them yet have survived sufficient attempts at falsification to
>> be called a theory.
>>
>I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
>life began on the earth.
No, it is not yet a theory.
>>
>>> I just think that people are surprised
>>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>>
>> Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
>>
>I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
>had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
>taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
>made new wine at the wedding in Cana,
No he didn't.
> and he made it
>so that it would have the flavor of aged wine. The
>servants, Mary and Jesus alone knew this. The maitre d'
>did not and he tasted the wine and exclaimed that he
>thought the host had saved the best wine for the last.
>It was the custom that you served the best wine first
>then, so that when people were slightly tipsy, they
>may not notice the flavor of the later distributed wine.
>When they ran out of wine, Jesus still made the best.
Fairy story.
>It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
>vintage earth and universe.
Why?
>>
>Suzanne
>>
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On May 16, 4:39 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > "We all should be, but Jews have
>> >> > cultural and historic reasons for this."
>>
>> >> > I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
>> >> > historic reasons for this."
>>
>> >> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
>> >> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>>
>> > Most are basing their opinion on the "free" information available.
>> > I.e. trailers, ben steins interviews, reviews etc. This combined with
>> > knowledge of the subject leads to the comments they make. Of course
>> > the movie could surprise us, but we would expect to see that in the
>> > reviews.
>>
>> Thank you for saying this. It sounded like you did
>> not see it.
>>
>> > Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
>> > The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
>> > better perspective.
>>
>> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
>> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
>> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
>> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
>> that against him. Our country is made up of many
>> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
>> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
>
> know nobody tried to make it so. (Except for some copyright issues,
> but that could be settled)
>
>> would feel the same for someone that believes in
>> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
>> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
>> being taught.
>
> that most people (all sides) do not realize where the balance lies.
> There is a lot of misinformation (especially about evolution) going
> around. And there is a lot of politics influencing people.
>
>>
>> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
>> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
>> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>
> and biblical things as religion, as it should be. (I'm not sure about
> the current balance here, but I doubt there is much change) But I
> understand that the situation is a bit different in the US and the
> pressures are felt here too.
>
What is going on here is a violation of the very
foundations of the USA. We were supposed to
have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM
religion. It is Christianity that is being attacked
here. People standing up for our rights as are
advanced by the early government that founded
this country, are being branded as trouble makers,
which is not true. If one can find politicians that
will make a difference and support moral things,
then those politicians are the ones to likely
support in an election. That's not always an easy
thing to do.
>
> As far as I can tell the balance (at least as people see it) is mostly
> disturbed by the politics of creationists to get creationism
> (including ID) treated as science (which it is not) and to remove
> evolution from the class room. I've heard a few sounds from non-
> religious people to remove religion from the class-room but these were
> a lot weaker and mostly in reaction to the politics of the
> creationists.
>
I took a very valuable class about ethics in biomedicine
one time. There are scientific things going on that are
very immoral and there are things going on that are moral.
I'll give you an example. You've surely heard of Christians
being against the study of stem cell research? You will hear
hype against Pres. Bush concerning this. It's misinformation.
He is the only president who is for stem cell research. Here
is what was going on. This is sickening, and I got our myself
and researched this, not just in a library, but on foot going
to clinics and doctors offices. (I can't believe I actually did
that, but I did!) I found out that they had taken aborted
babies, kept them alive and experimented on them. They
were not even human about it. The babies all eventually
died in a short time. But this is not all...
--
Scientists determined that stem cells do not have to come
from aborted babies. They began using a person's own
stem cells and now they know that they can do that, and
not have to use aborted babies' cells. People have testified
in congress about this. There is no need in using aborted
babies, ever. Unscrupulous politicians use these kinds
of things to win votes. There are plenty of people that
will bend on their every word, too.
>
There are a lot of other things to think about in a nation
besides these issues, so I respect someone's right to vote
as they see fit. They see issues that touch them that I don't
see and I see issues that touch my loved ones and myself
that they may not see. So that's democracy in action. But
the ones making claims against Christians look like
people that are trying to take advantage of things that are
controversial for personal gain.
>
> Furthermore on public schools in the US it is unconstitutional to
> favor one religion over another. This has an unbalancing power of its
> own.
>
This nation is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles.
It's not out of balance for there to be more Christians
than non-Christians if that is what you are meaning.
The balance of power never extended to religious vs.
non-religious.
>> surely is still a theory. I just think that people are surprised
>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>
> As far as I know it is not conclusive yet, but there is enough reason
> to still think that we can figure it out and that it is natural.
>
It's settled in my mind because I believe the creation account.
Thank you for a nice post. : )
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:pd6034t33n13j0280...@4ax.com...
evidence from most of the lifeforms and you
do not have that just because you find a few here
and there.
>
>>> And finally you've got a red herring in there. The relative complexity
>>> of
>>> cells over the less few hundred million years is not germane to the
>>> question of the relative complexity of cells a few billion years old.
>>>
>>And did you come up with this from....the fossil record?
>>for example, can you explain how complicated the cells
>>were in the graphite microparticles found in beds in the
>>supracrystal belt of SW Greenland? These, for example
>>are at least 3 billion years old it is said.
>>>
>>How can you say for certain that earlier lifeforms had
>>less complicated cells?
>
> Examination of the evidence.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On May 15, 10:39 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>> >> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
>> >> >> > PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open
>> >> >> > wide
>> >> >> > on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in
>> >> >> > places
>> >> >> > like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban
>> >> >> > neighborhoods
>> >> >> > where more "evolved" people might live.
>>
>> >> >> > According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping
>> >> >> > 45
>> >> >> > theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in
>> >> >> > Vermont.
>> >> >> > And
>> >> >> > so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas
>> >> >> > taking
>> >> >> > the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the
>> >> >> > Deep
>> >> >> > South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this
>> >> >> > gullible
>> >> >> > and unsophisticated.
>> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
>> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
>> being taught.
>
> alternatives on their own time?
>
Your idea of what is unscientific may not be
everyone else's idea.
>
>>
>> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
>> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
>> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>
> contradictions between YE and OE interpretations? Did you have any
> debates between anti-evolutionists who thought that the Bible
> qualified as evidence and anti-evolutionists who thought that it did
> not?
>
What biblical things? Creation for one. That there
is a God, that we have a creator, that we can pray,
that he hears our prayers. And yes I have analyzed
the YE and OE interpretations. Yes I have had
experience with debates on both sides of the issues.
And yes the Bible does qualify for evidence.
> there is no theory yet for abiogenesis, only several competing
> hypotheses regarding the "how." The "when" however, is well
> established.
>
The when is not well established.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:221219671.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
say that it remains to be seen if this was a violation.
The controversy centers around Ben Stein's right to
free speech, as well, it is said.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
literary form of protest against someone saying
that something never was allowed. This is a form of
editorial writing. It's not wrong, it's considered to be
very colorful.
>
> The bible has no place in school - other than in a comparative
> religion class. It certainly has no place in a science class.
>
>
>>and managed to produce all that we have that
>>is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
>>What amazes me is this idea said in this article
>>that even allows that alien forms of life could
>>be what started life on the earth. This shows that
>>no one knows how life began on this planet.
>
> Of course there is a possibility that life started off-planet, but not
> a high probability. Certainly many of the building blocks of life came
> from space where they are quite common.
>
supposed alien source? And what alien
source are you considering?
>
>>> > That part
>>> > surely is still a theory.
>>>
>>> No, none of them yet have survived sufficient attempts at falsification
>>> to
>>> be called a theory.
>>>
>>I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
>>life began on the earth.
>
> No, it is not yet a theory.
>
one considers what the Bible says.
>
>>>> I just think that people are surprised
>>>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>>>
>>> Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
>>>
>>I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
>>had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
>>taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
>>made new wine at the wedding in Cana,
>
> No he didn't.
>
>
>> and he made it
>>so that it would have the flavor of aged wine. The
>>servants, Mary and Jesus alone knew this. The maitre d'
>>did not and he tasted the wine and exclaimed that he
>>thought the host had saved the best wine for the last.
>>It was the custom that you served the best wine first
>>then, so that when people were slightly tipsy, they
>>may not notice the flavor of the later distributed wine.
>>When they ran out of wine, Jesus still made the best.
>
> Fairy story.
>
>
>>It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
>>vintage earth and universe.
>
> Why?
>
>
Suzanne
John Harshman
You are not very knowledgeable about the founding fathers, then. The
constitution is set up specifically to give us freedom from religion as
well as freedom of religion. Several of the signers had no particular
sympathy for religion; Jefferson, in particular, considered Christianity
a mass of nonsense. Further, you don't understand the point of a secular
state. You are free to practice your religion all you like, and the
government may not hinder you in doing so. But the government is not
allowed to endorse or impose any religion, no matter how broadly
encompassing that religion may be. You have no right, for example, to
have your favorite creation myths taught in science classses. There
being an enormous number of such myths, to teach yours would be
establishing your religion.
> It is Christianity that is being attacked
> here.
No it isn't. What's being attacked is the right of fundamentalist
Christians to impose their religious beliefs on others.
> People standing up for our rights as are
> advanced by the early government that founded
> this country, are being branded as trouble makers,
> which is not true. If one can find politicians that
> will make a difference and support moral things,
> then those politicians are the ones to likely
> support in an election. That's not always an easy
> thing to do.
And that wasn't an easy paragraph to make sense of. What rights, in
particular, are you speaking of?
>> As far as I can tell the balance (at least as people see it) is mostly
>> disturbed by the politics of creationists to get creationism
>> (including ID) treated as science (which it is not) and to remove
>> evolution from the class room. I've heard a few sounds from non-
>> religious people to remove religion from the class-room but these were
>> a lot weaker and mostly in reaction to the politics of the
>> creationists.
>>
> I took a very valuable class about ethics in biomedicine
> one time. There are scientific things going on that are
> very immoral and there are things going on that are moral.
> I'll give you an example. You've surely heard of Christians
> being against the study of stem cell research? You will hear
> hype against Pres. Bush concerning this. It's misinformation.
> He is the only president who is for stem cell research.
In the sense that he's the only president we currently have, that's true.
[snip further off-topic misinformation]
>> Furthermore on public schools in the US it is unconstitutional to
>> favor one religion over another. This has an unbalancing power of its
>> own.
>>
> This nation is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles.
> It's not out of balance for there to be more Christians
> than non-Christians if that is what you are meaning.
> The balance of power never extended to religious vs.
> non-religious.
You are wrong. This nation is founded upon secular principles. And
though atheists are indeed subject to a rather mild form of public
persecution in this country (they are tacitly ineligible for public
office, for example), the constitution explicitly forbids any
discrimination by the federal government on the basis of religion, which
was extended to the states by the 14th amendment.
You are free to believe what you like. It's only when you insist that
your belief is science and deserves to be taught in schools as science
that we come into conflict.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
You seem to using a definition of "religious freedom" that I have seen
before but which seems exactly backwards to me, i.e. religious freedom
means the freedom of the majority to shove their religion down
everyone else's throat, using tax money and public school time.
Likewise "attacking Christianity" has a special meaning, i.e. saying
that Christianity should be treated the same as other religions and
not promoted by government institutions.
Completely false, unless you are referring to general moral principles
that are pretty much the same everywhere (i.e. don't kill, lie, cheat,
steal etc.). The primary authors of the Declaration of Independence
(Thomas Jefferson) and the Constitution (James Madison) were both non-
Christians.
Ritsjoena
What I see is that creationists are trying to overstretch. They not
only try to get their believes around (which they have some right to
do, even though I might not like it), but they also try to replace
science and other knowledge (of other groups) by their own. If they
let science be science and religion be religion the conflict would be
completely different. It would be at the level of "normal" inter-
religion conflicts. But now they try to replace science by their own
tales as if it was science. No wonder people try to fight back.
Furthermore they clearly play the underdog. They play as if they are
the ones attacked. So I advice you to be careful while interpreting
their claims.
>
> > As far as I can tell the balance (at least as people see it) is mostly
> > disturbed by the politics of creationists to get creationism
> > (including ID) treated as science (which it is not) and to remove
> > evolution from the class room. I've heard a few sounds from non-
> > religious people to remove religion from the class-room but these were
> > a lot weaker and mostly in reaction to the politics of the
> > creationists.
>
> I took a very valuable class about ethics in biomedicine
> one time. There are scientific things going on that are
> very immoral and there are things going on that are moral.
Remember that although the extremes of moral seem to be universal, the
exact boundary does not seem to be. There is a range of things that
some people think are acceptable, while others don't.
> I'll give you an example. You've surely heard of Christians
> being against the study of stem cell research? You will hear
> hype against Pres. Bush concerning this. It's misinformation.
> He is the only president who is for stem cell research. Here
Then why did he vote against it?
> is what was going on. This is sickening, and I got our myself
> and researched this, not just in a library, but on foot going
> to clinics and doctors offices. (I can't believe I actually did
> that, but I did!) I found out that they had taken aborted
> babies, kept them alive and experimented on them. They
> were not even human about it. The babies all eventually
> died in a short time. But this is not all...
There is a lot of discussion about when an embryo becomes a human.
Some people believe it is when (or even before) the egg is fertilized,
others think that it at birth and still others think it is when the
child gets baptized (or even later). It is an example of how the
boundary of moral can differ.
> --
> Scientists determined that stem cells do not have to come
> from aborted babies. They began using a person's own
> stem cells and now they know that they can do that, and
> not have to use aborted babies' cells. People have testified
> in congress about this. There is no need in using aborted
> babies, ever. Unscrupulous politicians use these kinds
> of things to win votes. There are plenty of people that
> will bend on their every word, too.
I did not hear that before. But even if that's true, they could only
learn that after studying aborted babies' cells. Politicians will use
anything they think they can use.
>
> There are a lot of other things to think about in a nation
> besides these issues, so I respect someone's right to vote
> as they see fit. They see issues that touch them that I don't
> see and I see issues that touch my loved ones and myself
> that they may not see. So that's democracy in action. But
> the ones making claims against Christians look like
> people that are trying to take advantage of things that are
> controversial for personal gain.
Not necessarily personal gain, just the things they think is right.
Stem cell research is promising and will most likely save many lives
in the future. Maybe even your loved ones. The dilemma is: these
unborn babies or many others. A tough one.
>
> > Furthermore on public schools in the US it is unconstitutional to
> > favor one religion over another. This has an unbalancing power of its
> > own.
>
> This nation is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles.
As I understand it it is disputable. I don't know enough about it to
discuss it or claim whether it is false or true. I do think that these
principles played an important role, but so did the ideas of
enlightenment.
> It's not out of balance for there to be more Christians
> than non-Christians if that is what you are meaning.
> The balance of power never extended to religious vs.
> non-religious.
What I actually meant is that it can lead to a dead-lock during
discussions, debates and (governmental) choices.
Furthermore all religions need to get the same chances, time etc. No
matter how much followers there are. According to the law if
christianity gets time in school classes, satanism deserves the same
time, as does the Taliban version of the islam. Even from a practical
point of view this does not work.
Well if your mind is settled, than no discussion is possible. Then you
miss the freedom to interpret your opponent remarks with an open mind
and it will be hard to understand him.
> Thank you for a nice post. : )
you too
>
> Suzanne
Suzanne
"Stuart" <bigd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6955c4ac-e9bb-4c0b...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 4:39 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > "We all should be, but Jews have
>> >> > cultural and historic reasons for this."
>>
>> >> > I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
>> >> > historic reasons for this."
>>
>> >> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
>> >> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>>
>> > Most are basing their opinion on the "free" information available.
>> > I.e. trailers, ben steins interviews, reviews etc. This combined with
>> > knowledge of the subject leads to the comments they make. Of course
>> > the movie could surprise us, but we would expect to see that in the
>> > reviews.
>>
>> Thank you for saying this. It sounded like you did
>> not see it.
>>
>> > Not perfect of course, but still enough to make worthwhile comments.
>> > The additional knowledge from the reviews etc put the movie into a
>> > better perspective.
>>
>> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
>> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
>> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
>> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
>> that against him.
>
> Jewish (and an ardent Zionist to boot).
>
> Stein's ignorance offends me; it offends me greatly. The 6 million are
> rolling
> over in their graves. To claim that TOE played any role in the Shoa is
> a stupidity on
> par with Holocaust denial itself. The fundies love this cuz it takes
> the focus off of
> centuries of Xtian inspired antisemitism as a major contributing
> factor. It is as vain an
> attempt at deflection as I've seen. It is utterly imbecilic and
> virtually every Jewish organization
> has taken Stein to task for it.
>
You have a warped idea of Christians.
I don't feel like you are describing and no one
in my church is antisemitic. I'm certainly not.
>
> Yes the fundies love this, it shovels dirt on science that contradicts
> their narrow
> literalistic beliefs and at the same time obscures the root causes of
> the Shoah.
>
Many people that are Christians ARE scientists.
>
> In order for somebody with his background to allow himself to be used
> in this manner
> is simply unfathomable. The man is not only stupid, he is crassly
> stupid.
>
Stuart, are you not aware of the fact that there are those
claiming that there was no holocaust? No one likes to
see what happened to the Jews during WW2 that was so
very tragic. But the Jews, themselves want holocaust
museums so that no one will ever forget what happened.
There are children growing up that know nothing about
this, and they need to know. Go to your browser and type
in both of these statements:
Was there really a holocaust?
and then this one:
"holocaust denial"
You will get pages full of people that want to know
if there really was one.
>
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum
>
Israel Holocaust Museum:
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/yadvashemholocaustisraelnew88480313.html
>
"New Holocaust Museum preserves fading memories" - in Israel:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p07s01-wome.html
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Shane" <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:s8lhf7y7m6fm$.1ls317cpm83q9.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:39:55 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
>> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
>> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
>> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
>> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
>> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
>> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
>> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
>> being taught.
>>>
>> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
>> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>
> other possibilities--satanism, the great dreamtime snake,
> the flying spaghetti monster etc., don't they and their
> myriad counterparts merit a mention as well in order to
> maintain *balance*? If so, when are you suggesting it be
> taught? If not, why not? what about your particular belief
> set means it automatically deserves special
> treatment--bypassing both the evidentiary requirements of
> science and the sensibilities of those who don't think
> exactly like you do?
>
> Would you support, in the interests of balance, the teaching
> of the benefits of the homosexual lifestyle in schools?
>
> What about the merits of slavery, anarchy, vandalism etc. Do
> your think that this balance should only be limited to
> schools, or should it apply to other situations, such as
> churches, government departments etc. Just how far are you
> prepared to go to support balance? or is *balance* just
> another way of getting your particular belief set an
> unmerited free pass in a forum it just plain does not apply
> to?
>
Shane, we were talking about evolution and
the creation being taught, not all these other
things that you are adding that have nothing
to do with what we have been discussing.
>
> ISTM, that implicit in the push to get creationism taught in
> schools are two rather embarrassing admissions.
> 1. That the example of the creationist/biblical lifestyle
> set at home/church is so weak it cannot counteract the few
> hours of teaching of evolution a child receives at school in
> any give week.
> 2. That the power of Jesus to work in a person--about which
> you have strong opinions--is somehow negated by a few
> hours/years of receiving instruction about evolution.
>
They are not!
>
> Why are the religious fundamentalists and creationists so
> afraid of evolution? It shows a remarkable lack of faith in
> the ability of their god to rule this earth. Surely a
> paraphrase of the advice of Gamaliel applies here? If
> evolution is true, you should not be opposing the teaching
> of it, and if it is false it will fail all by itself, as
> have many ideas, scientific and otherwise, throughout the
> course of history?
>
I have not opposed the teaching of evolution.
I have objected to God being taken out of the
classroom. In a time you do not know anything
about, we could leave the house unlocked and
whole families would go for a walk in the
neighborhoods as late as 10:00 at night where
I grew up in San Antonio, Texas just to see the
millions of stars that are visible in that area.
No one bothered to break into homes. The
Ten Commandments were visible in the schools.
The day was begun at school with a prayer over
the loudspeaker to God. Students did not come
into the schools and hold people hostage while
they shot everyone. Taking God away from
children was a BAD idea.
>
Suzanne
Greg G.
> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > So was I educated here in Holland. But evolution was taught as science
> > and biblical things as religion, as it should be. (I'm not sure about
> > the current balance here, but I doubt there is much change) But I
> > understand that the situation is a bit different in the US and the
> > pressures are felt here too.
>
> What is going on here is a violation of the very
> foundations of the USA. We were supposed to
> have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM
> religion. It is Christianity that is being attacked
> here. People standing up for our rights as are
> advanced by the early government that founded
> this country, are being branded as trouble makers,
> which is not true. If one can find politicians that
> will make a difference and support moral things,
> then those politicians are the ones to likely
> support in an election. That's not always an easy
> thing to do.
Christianity is not being attacked. The only fight against
Christianity is defensive. Nobody is trying to stop you from
worshipping in your home or church. People are only trying to keep you
from imposing on religion on them through government and the schools.
Why make such a distinction between "freedom of religion" and "freedom
from religion". The early Christian who came here for "freedom of
religion" were seeking "freedom from religion" in the form of other
Christian sects.
>
> > As far as I can tell the balance (at least as people see it) is mostly
> > disturbed by the politics of creationists to get creationism
> > (including ID) treated as science (which it is not) and to remove
> > evolution from the class room. I've heard a few sounds from non-
> > religious people to remove religion from the class-room but these were
> > a lot weaker and mostly in reaction to the politics of the
> > creationists.
>
> I took a very valuable class about ethics in biomedicine
> one time. There are scientific things going on that are
> very immoral and there are things going on that are moral.
> I'll give you an example. You've surely heard of Christians
> being against the study of stem cell research? You will hear
> hype against Pres. Bush concerning this. It's misinformation.
> He is the only president who is for stem cell research. Here
> is what was going on. This is sickening, and I got our myself
> and researched this, not just in a library, but on foot going
> to clinics and doctors offices. (I can't believe I actually did
> that, but I did!) I found out that they had taken aborted
> babies, kept them alive and experimented on them. They
> were not even human about it. The babies all eventually
> died in a short time. But this is not all...
When you say "babies" are you really talking about a fetus with no
brain that could sense anything? When the doctors do a biopsy, they
don't kill the cells at the time but they do die later.
> --
> Scientists determined that stem cells do not have to come
> from aborted babies. They began using a person's own
> stem cells and now they know that they can do that, and
> not have to use aborted babies' cells. People have testified
> in congress about this. There is no need in using aborted
> babies, ever. Unscrupulous politicians use these kinds
> of things to win votes. There are plenty of people that
> will bend on their every word, too.
Adult stem cells could not be used the same way that undifferentiated
stem cells could. There was a tremendous difference.
Nowadays, the scientists from countries where stem cell research was
not restricted, were able to work out how to use adult stem cells, but
only by studying fetal stem cells. Many people will benefit from this
discovery. OTOH, many people will have suffered a few extra years
because of the restrictions.
>
> There are a lot of other things to think about in a nation
> besides these issues, so I respect someone's right to vote
> as they see fit. They see issues that touch them that I don't
> see and I see issues that touch my loved ones and myself
> that they may not see. So that's democracy in action. But
> the ones making claims against Christians look like
> people that are trying to take advantage of things that are
> controversial for personal gain.
>
> > Furthermore on public schools in the US it is unconstitutional to
> > favor one religion over another. This has an unbalancing power of its
> > own.
>
> This nation is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles.
This nation is founded upon Greek and Roman principles with some
French philosophy. The Judeo-Christian principles have been influenced
by those as well.
> It's not out of balance for there to be more Christians
> than non-Christians if that is what you are meaning.
> The balance of power never extended to religious vs.
> non-religious.
There is a balance between the rights of an individual vs. the tyranny
of the masses.
If the Christian community develops a "big tent" to take control of
the government, it would be a battle for supremacy between the Fundys
and the Evangelicals. The Evangelicals would most likely win. The
Fundys would emigrate for "freedom from religion" to Mexico and kick
out all the Mexicans.
--
Greg G.
I'm not a real sinner, but I play one on Earth.
Suzanne
> "On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
> <b27034l4qb5mpr27u...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
>>
>>On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>>I'm not related to any celery,
>>
>>Yes you are. All life on Earth is related.
> [...snip...]
>
> There is no question about that.
>
> Celery is edible. If our food weren't related to us,
> then it wouldn't be nourishing.
>
> Even creationists should agree to that, with the only
> dispute being the details of the relationship.
>
> A creationist could believe that an intelligent designer
> deliberately designed different forms of life to be
> related. Or that the intelligent designer were somehow
> constrained by the properties of matter and the laws of
> nature that there was only one way that life could be
> designed. I've read some creationist writings which say
> that the great similarities of living things are the mark
> of a common designer.
>
intelligent designer is God. It says that he created
"Kinds" a category of taxa that is on the Genus or
Family levels and probably not the Species levels.
There are verses that say that man was created from
a earth, but certain animals are created from their
own kind of earth (Psalm 104:29-30 "their dust").
We are not descended from one another. Man was the
last thing created (and woman). Man came from the
earth, and he was not descended from celery.
>
Suzanne
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Suzanne wrote:
> > "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8e4b6222-a545-4ffc...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 16, 4:39 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> >>> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:583e337f-a9fd-489c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
> >>>>>>>> PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open
> >>>>>>>> wide
> >>>>>>>> on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>> one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in
> >>>>>>>> places
> >>>>>>>> like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban
> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods
> >>>>>>>> where more "evolved" people might live.
> >>>>>>>> According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping
> >>>>>>>> 45
> >>>>>>>> theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in
> >>>>>>>> Vermont.
> >>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>> so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas
> >>>>>>>> taking
> >>>>>>>> the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the
> >>>>>>>> Deep
> >>>>>>>> South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this
> >>>>>>>> gullible
> >>>>>>>> and unsophisticated.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John: your commentaries here are noticeably screwball and perverted.
The Founding Fathers were not Atheists like yourself, but Theists and
Deists. They were Creationists like most persons in the 18th century.
Since we know that you have no degree in history you ought to stick to
misrepresenting biology. America was founded on a Biblical worldview:
the papers and documents of early America are strewn with pro theistic
and deistic reasonings. We explain your denial and corrupt revisionism
by your Atheism. In fact when we remember that you are an Atheist
everything you say suddenly "makes sense."
Ray
Ye Old One
He has a limited right to free speech. He does not have the right to
use another person's music in his film without permission. He is going
to get done for it and I hope he gets done big time.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
What I was actually saying was that fair use applies to review only -
not to use in a commercial film.
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
>> [...]
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film
>>
> It says in the end of this article that Ben said he
> did not mislead anyone and that the name of the
> film was changed to Expelled and that was not
> the original title of it. So were they misled? It
> doesn't sound like it.
They misled, first, in that they lied about the proposed content of the
movie, not just its title, saying it would be an even-handed description
of the controversy. They misled, second, in that the title "Expelled"
apparently had been selected at the time of the interviews, since the
website of that name had been selected by then.
The fact that the final name had not been selected doesn't count for much
when the entire reason for its not having been selected is because
another neutral name was needed to bamboozle the people who might not
talk to you otherwise.
>> You might be interested in the copyright issues surrounding this
>> animation....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_controversy_of_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>>
> I read what this says but one of the things it says
> is that the fair use doctrine says that you can
> cite usage of 25 seconds of the song. The melody
> and instrumental part of the song and John's
> voice are beautiful, but what the words say is like
> what they showed while those 25 seconds were
> playing. If John Lennon's wife and children feel
> that they need to sue the film owners, then they
> should do what they think is right. The words are
> cold to me. It sounds like the film owners thought
> all this through because according to what this says,
> they laid money aside in case there were law suits.
> That doesn't mean that they had knowledge that they
> did something wrong, it means that they had to have
> a supply of money set aside to fight any court case.
> They probably had legal advice before the film was
> released.
Fair use depends on more than length (and I think the length of "Imagine"
in "Expelled" was closer to 15 seconds); purpose is another essential
factor. Fair use allows using excerpts to illustrate comments about the
work or for parodies. Neither case, from all reports, applies in the
movie. Note also that trademark infringement is part of the suit, for
which length matters not a whit. If I went out of my way to associate
your name with Stalinism to a national argument, how would you feel?
The legal budget is probably routine for *any* movie, but if not, it is
not evidence in the filmmakers' favor, since it shows that they knew they
were near the edge of illegality at best.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:a3e334hqflikpflrj...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:33:48 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rupert Morrish" <rup...@morrish.org> wrote in message
>>>news:482cf8f0$0$13102$8d2e...@news.newsgroup-binaries.com...
>>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>>> "Ritsjoena" <bramv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[major snip]
>>>No, idiots have tampered with people reading the
>>>Bible in school or any reference to any kind of
>>>religion. So it's not really the same as it was when
>>>I was a child. That's what my comment above was
>>>all about. It never was disallowed to teach evolution
>>>theory. What this is about now, is not that they want
>>>the right to teach evolution, that never was not taught.
>>>But the Bible has been attacked and the people do not
>>>want that.
>>
>> Your use of English makes it very hard to work out what you are
>> saying. "It never was disallowed to teach evolution theory." is a very
>> badly put statement that is also wrong.
>>
>Saying that something "never was disallowed" is a
>literary form of protest against someone saying
>that something never was allowed. This is a form of
>editorial writing. It's not wrong, it's considered to be
>very colorful.
It is TOTALLY wrong, and any English teacher would throw the book at
you for using such appalling phrasing.
Something like "The teaching of evolution theory has never been
disallowed" would have been better - even though you would still be
wrong because we all know it was banned.
>>
>> The bible has no place in school - other than in a comparative
>> religion class. It certainly has no place in a science class.
>>
>The Bible does have a place in school.
Yes, but ONLY in a comparative religion class where is can be compared
with other religious works on an equal basis.
It could, just remotely, have a place in a history class in a lesson
on "look at the stupid things our ancestors used to believe."
My ancestors were.
>>
>>>and managed to produce all that we have that
>>>is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
>>>What amazes me is this idea said in this article
>>>that even allows that alien forms of life could
>>>be what started life on the earth. This shows that
>>>no one knows how life began on this planet.
>>
>> Of course there is a possibility that life started off-planet, but not
>> a high probability. Certainly many of the building blocks of life came
>> from space where they are quite common.
>>
>And where did life come from on that
>supposed alien source? And what alien
>source are you considering?
Personally I don't favour panspermia, but if it is true then it just
moves abiogenesis to another point in our galaxy.
>>
>>>> > That part
>>>> > surely is still a theory.
>>>>
>>>> No, none of them yet have survived sufficient attempts at falsification
>>>> to
>>>> be called a theory.
>>>>
>>>I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
>>>life began on the earth.
>>
>> No, it is not yet a theory.
>>
>It is a theory how life began on earth unless
>one considers what the Bible says.
No. It is NOT a theory. Learn what is meant by a "theory" in science.
We know, beyond all doubt, that abiogenesis occurred, we can see it
from the geological record. However, we need a lot more research
before action theories of how abiogenesis occurred can be put forth.
>>
>>>>> I just think that people are surprised
>>>>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>>>>
>>>> Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
>>>>
>>>I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
>>>had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
>>>taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
>>>made new wine at the wedding in Cana,
>>
>> No he didn't.
>>
>Yes he did.
No he did not. It is not possible to change water into wine - it is a
fairy story.
>>
>>> and he made it
>>>so that it would have the flavor of aged wine. The
>>>servants, Mary and Jesus alone knew this. The maitre d'
>>>did not and he tasted the wine and exclaimed that he
>>>thought the host had saved the best wine for the last.
>>>It was the custom that you served the best wine first
>>>then, so that when people were slightly tipsy, they
>>>may not notice the flavor of the later distributed wine.
>>>When they ran out of wine, Jesus still made the best.
>>
>> Fairy story.
>>
>No, it's not.
Yes it is.
>>
>>>It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
>>>vintage earth and universe.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>Why not? : )
So you cannot answer the question.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
>>[...]
> What is going on here is a violation of the very
> foundations of the USA. We were supposed to
> have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM
> religion. It is Christianity that is being attacked
> here.
"I'm being repressed! I am not allowed to beat up whoever I want!"
Saying that Christianity is being threatened in the United States is like
saying that the National Organization for Women is sexist against women.
Yes, Christianity has constantly been attacked. Almost always by other
Christians. That's why freedom of religion, which INCLUDES freedom from
religion, is so important.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I have not opposed the teaching of evolution.
>I have objected to God being taken out of the
>classroom.
Which "god"? Just your god? How about we put Odin into the classroom?
>In a time you do not know anything
>about, we could leave the house unlocked and
>whole families would go for a walk in the
>neighborhoods as late as 10:00 at night where
>I grew up in San Antonio, Texas just to see the
>millions of stars that are visible in that area.
>No one bothered to break into homes.
You are very deluded.
> The
>Ten Commandments were visible in the schools.
>The day was begun at school with a prayer over
>the loudspeaker to God. Students did not come
>into the schools and hold people hostage while
>they shot everyone. Taking God away from
>children was a BAD idea.
Children are better of without the evils of religion.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You do.
> not freedom FROM
>religion. It is Christianity that is being attacked
>here.
No it is not.
> People standing up for our rights as are
>advanced by the early government that founded
>this country, are being branded as trouble makers,
>which is not true.
Yes it is. They seek to send your country back to the dark ages.
> If one can find politicians that
>will make a difference and support moral things,
>then those politicians are the ones to likely
>support in an election. That's not always an easy
>thing to do.
>>
>> As far as I can tell the balance (at least as people see it) is mostly
>> disturbed by the politics of creationists to get creationism
>> (including ID) treated as science (which it is not) and to remove
>> evolution from the class room. I've heard a few sounds from non-
>> religious people to remove religion from the class-room but these were
>> a lot weaker and mostly in reaction to the politics of the
>> creationists.
>>
>I took a very valuable class about ethics in biomedicine
>one time. There are scientific things going on that are
>very immoral and there are things going on that are moral.
>I'll give you an example. You've surely heard of Christians
>being against the study of stem cell research? You will hear
>hype against Pres. Bush concerning this. It's misinformation.
>He is the only president who is for stem cell research. Here
>is what was going on. This is sickening, and I got our myself
>and researched this, not just in a library, but on foot going
>to clinics and doctors offices. (I can't believe I actually did
>that, but I did!) I found out that they had taken aborted
>babies, kept them alive and experimented on them.
You cannot keep an aborted baby alive.
>They
>were not even human about it. The babies all eventually
>died in a short time. But this is not all...
Clearly you need to learn something about the subject. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
It is well known that you have lost contact with reality Dishonest
Ray.
>The Founding Fathers were not Atheists like yourself, but Theists and
>Deists.
True, but they saw conflict if any one religion was to hold sway, so
for the good of all the banned the establishment of any religion.
>They were Creationists like most persons in the 18th century.
>Since we know that you have no degree in history you ought to stick to
>misrepresenting biology. America was founded on a Biblical worldview:
Actually, no it wasn't. If that had been true it would not have
rejected the divine rights of the king.
>the papers and documents of early America are strewn with pro theistic
>and deistic reasonings. We explain your denial and corrupt revisionism
>by your Atheism. In fact when we remember that you are an Atheist
>everything you say suddenly "makes sense."
And when we realize you hold Gene 'Expletive Delete' Scot is esteem
everything about you becomes clear.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:6456f36d-f072-4675...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 15, 10:39 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>> "Ritsjoena" <bramvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>>>
>>> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
>>> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
>>> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
>>> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
>>> that against him. Our country is made up of many
>>> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
>>> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
>>> would feel the same for someone that believes in
>>> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
>>> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
>>> being taught.
>>
>> Did I miss the part where they were banned from learning unscientific
>> alternatives on their own time?
>>
>Your idea of what is unscientific may not be
>everyone else's idea.
Unscientific is unscientific.
>>
>>>
>>> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
>>> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
>>> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>>
>> What "biblical things"? Did you critically analyse the mutual
>> contradictions between YE and OE interpretations? Did you have any
>> debates between anti-evolutionists who thought that the Bible
>> qualified as evidence and anti-evolutionists who thought that it did
>> not?
>>
>What biblical things? Creation for one. That there
>is a God, that we have a creator, that we can pray,
>that he hears our prayers. And yes I have analyzed
>the YE and OE interpretations. Yes I have had
>experience with debates on both sides of the issues.
>And yes the Bible does qualify for evidence.
You are one very deluded cookie.
Wrong again. We know it occurred somewhere between 4.3 billion years
ago, the time when the Earth had cooled enough for water to dominate
the planet, and 3.8 million years ago when the chemical signature of
life is clearly visible.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
And yet all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. More proof that
your bible is wrong.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:pd6034t33n13j0280...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:47:02 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:eY0g+cCL...@meden.invalid...
[snip]
>>
>> Nope. Many millions of years earlier. You are thinking about creatures
>> such as Meganeura which lived 300 million years ago in the
>> Carboniferous period (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura).
>>>>
>>>> Generally, again, the evidence is that lineages *tend* to increase in
>>>> size
>>>> over time (Cope's Law), and that early plants and animals were small in
>>>> comparison to todays'.
>>>>
>>>This sounds like a theory, and not a fact.
>>
>> It is evidence.
>>>>
>>
>In order to prove that, you would have to have
>evidence from most of the lifeforms and you
>do not have that just because you find a few here
>and there.
We have more than enough evidence.
>>
>>>> And finally you've got a red herring in there. The relative complexity
>>>> of
>>>> cells over the less few hundred million years is not germane to the
>>>> question of the relative complexity of cells a few billion years old.
>>>>
>>>And did you come up with this from....the fossil record?
>>>for example, can you explain how complicated the cells
>>>were in the graphite microparticles found in beds in the
>>>supracrystal belt of SW Greenland? These, for example
>>>are at least 3 billion years old it is said.
>>>>
>>>How can you say for certain that earlier lifeforms had
>>>less complicated cells?
>>
>> Examination of the evidence.
>>
>You haven't presented it.
Oh! You expect everything to be done for you?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Frank J
> "TomS" <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:221117689.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > "On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
>
> >>On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
Do you know *anything* about biology? No one claims that man is
*descended* from celery. They share common ancestors, with many
millions of years of evolution on each lineage separatiing them from
their long lost common ancestor. 11000+ members of Christian clergy
will tell you that:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
And they'll tell you that the "dust", 6 days and 6000 years stories
are allegories, not to be taken literally. They'll also tell you that
your soul was created just for you at conception, so it doesn't matter
who or what you are related to. Even an atheist would tell you that
you have free will, so you don't have to act like anyone or anything
with whom you share common ancestors.
If you still close your mind and choose to believe in your childhood
fairy tales, thank God that you live in a free country and can not
only believe it, but preach it to others. Just not in a science class
on the taxpayers' dime.
Since you appear not to want to learn biology, how about at least
learning the mutually contradictory creationist positions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Even many *creationists* will tell you that man was not "the last
thing created."
> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
My idea, and that of every scientist, save the usual cheaters who want
something without *earning* it is that one's explanation needs to work
- explain the data, make predictions that come true etc. Evolution
works, classic creationism failed, and ID doesn't even try. But my
point is that students are free to learn that on their own time.
Whining to have it taught in science class on the taxpayers' dime is
what I'd expect from the far left, not the far right.
>
> >> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
> >> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
> >> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
>
> > What "biblical things"? Did you critically analyse the mutual
> > contradictions between YE and OE interpretations? Did you have any
> > debates between anti-evolutionists who thought that the Bible
> > qualified as evidence and anti-evolutionists who thought that it did
> > not?
>
> What biblical things? Creation for one. That there
> is a God, that we have a creator, that we can pray,
> that he hears our prayers. And yes I have analyzed
> the YE and OE interpretations.
Well, which one do you find more convincing? And based on what
evidence *not* lack of evidence? And why have you been complaining
only about evolution when there are dozens of other positions that you
don't find convincing? Promoters of those positions and yours are the
ones trying to shove it down everyone's throat without doing the work
to suppor them (other than quote mining and other tricks).
> Yes I have had
> experience with debates on both sides of the issues.
> And yes the Bible does qualify for evidence.
>
>
Have you contacted Michael Behe, the chief *anti-evolutionist* who
begs to differ?
Yes it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
So much so that most educated *creationists* concede it. And unless
they are into the "don't ask, don't tell" ID scam they will tell you
that YEC is just plain nonsense.
>
> Suzanne
Stuart
> "Stuart" <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote in message
No, your just plain ignorant.
>
> > Yes the fundies love this, it shovels dirt on science that contradicts
> > their narrow
> > literalistic beliefs and at the same time obscures the root causes of
> > the Shoah.
>
> Many people that are Christians ARE scientists.
Yes, and practically none of them are fundamentalists.
>
> > In order for somebody with his background to allow himself to be used
> > in this manner
> > is simply unfathomable. The man is not only stupid, he is crassly
> > stupid.
>
> Stuart, are you not aware of the fact that there are those
> claiming that there was no holocaust?
Really? Gee I didn't know that....
<plonk>
Stuart
Suzanne
"Dysdiadochokinesia" <squishyb...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:2LCdnYjK7vS1A7LV...@giganews.com...
>
> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:NEKXj.4312$7k7...@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Dysdiadochokinesia" <squishyb...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:PPOdnZQ_oMZ8kLLV...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mXrXj.3706$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...>>>> news:482cb3a8$0$13061$8d2e...@news.newsgroup-binaries.com...
>>>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>>>> "Glend" <interelect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> "We all should be, but Jews have
>>>>>>> cultural and historic reasons for this."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
>>>>>>> historic reasons for this."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
>>>>>> actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
>>>>>> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
>>>>>> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
>>>>>> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
>>>>>> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
>>>>>> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
>>>>>> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
>>>>>> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
>>>>>> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
>>>>>> structure, far more so than people formerly believed.
>>>>>
>>>>> almost
>>>>> 4
>>>>> billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think earlier cells are less complicated because
>>>> we have evidence that early plants and animals were
>>>> huge by comparison with today's. For example, there
>>>> used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan of two feet.
>>>> Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting
>>>> with mastadon, then mammoth, to modern elephant.
>>>> Same with sabre-toothed tiger, to modern tiger. (A
>>>> mastadon is really a member of a different species,
>>>> Mammutidae, while elephants are of the Elephantidae,
>>>> but they are similar. But a Mammoth is an elephant.)
>>>>
>>>>> Since all we see now is cellular life, it's easy to fall into the trap
>>>>> of
>>>>> thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. Today, that's
>>>>> true. Any free-floating autocatalytic chemicals will quickly get eaten
>>>>> by
>>>>> the cellular organisms that exist almost everywhere on the planet. But
>>>>> without such competition, non-cellular life could have existed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>>>>>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>>>>>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>>>>>> Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Most Christians are Catholics. It's difficult to say of they
>>>> are creationists. If they read and believe the Bible, as a
>>>> rule someone is a creationist. However, the term creationist
>>>> usually applies to YEC, which are "young earth creationists."
>>>> They believe the world is not as old as billions of years, and
>>>> that they have found what they believe is evidence about that.
>>>>>
>>>> The next to the largest group in the USA at least are
>>>> Southern Baptists, and I am one of those. Most of those
>>>> do believe in creation. I'm sure that some don't believe
>>>> in creation, but most probably do. An overwhelming
>>>> amount of the unchurched people do believe the Bible is
>>>> the truth. I've lived all over the USA and everyone I met
>>>> usually has a belief in the Bible, to my surprise even if
>>>> they don't read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe (as Ray appears to be moving towards) that *every* cell
>>>>> is
>>>>> created by a Creator, or is cell division a natural process?
>>>>>
>>>> Every cell? I never thought about that before.
>>>> I can guess, based on scriptures, that God is
>>>> involved with everything that is alive and with
>>>> all of what he created. But, I suppose you are
>>>> wondering did I think he just created things to
>>>> unfold in their various descending forms from
>>>> his creating life and then setting it in motion,
>>>> or does he actually create with what he's made
>>>> each cell and/or life. I don't know the answer to
>>>> that, but from what he says to Jeremiah, he did
>>>> form him in the womb. I presume that would
>>>> mean that with what genetic material he did
>>>> program into Jeremiah's ancestors, he chose
>>>> which color of hair, eyes, skin, physical
>>>> characteristics, nature, and whatever gets
>>>> created about someone. The Bible also says that
>>>> when John the Baptist was being formed, his
>>>> mother was not to touch any alcohol. Somehow
>>>> that would have interfered with his life. Whether
>>>> that was because alcohol can put markers in the
>>>> brain, or not, I don't know. In fact, we don't know
>>>> yet a genetic problem with mother's imbibing,
>>>> except that a baby can be born an addict because
>>>> of the mother's drinking in excess, or maybe at
>>>> all. But does God get involved with the cell of a
>>>> celery plant when it is being formed? I can think
>>>> of a verse that may go along with God's being
>>>> involved in the creation of every cell and that is
>>>> Colossians 1:17:
>>>> "And he is before all things, and by him all things
>>>> consist."
>>>> ...so I suppose that's possible that he is in the
>>>> process by which things are formed.
>>>>>
>>>> In the case of a child being born out of wedlock, a
>>>> child is not evil. Once the process is started by
>>>> which a baby is born, I believe that God is invovled
>>>> with that life that is forming, and that he forms it
>>>> as surely as he did Jeremiah in his mother's womb.
>>>>>
>>>> Conceivably, the Lord could be involved with the
>>>> cells of a tomato since it will give nourishment to
>>>> someone, even if that someone is a rabbit that
>>>> invades your garden.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But for
>>>>>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>>>>>> though a single cell is so simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your explanation.
>>>>>
>>>> Suzanne
>>>
>>> Holy shit. I would not have thought someone with this little education
>>> and
>>> understanding of the world around them would be capable of operating a
>>> computer. Clearly it has become too easy to access the internet these
>>> days.
>>>
>> The level of your own intelligence is showing.
>
> How would you recognize intelligence, Suzanne?
>
Intelligence is a funny thing, A person can appear to be
less than smart, and actually be incredibly brilliant. Edison
was considered by some to not be too bright. An uncle of
mine by marriage had an aunt and uncle that lived down the
street from Einstein. They said that when he would walk
in front of their house and cross over to the university,
sometimes he had his shirt on inside out. His mind would
be locked in on something else, and the present would be
a shadow, I presume. At that time, no one considered him
at all to be lacking in intelligence. The smartest man that
I think I have ever met, and talked to for some length, was
Werhner Von Braun. He came to the University of Texas
in Austin when I was going there. He gave a lecture about
Uranium 235 in the cyclotron. He entered a galery room
were we were all anticipating his lecture. He walked in
with a jolly demeanor, and greeted everyone. He walked
to the chalk board, took a piece of chalk in his hand, and
as he dived into the lecture, he began writing a formula
across the board. It was an incredible formula and he
spoke about each step as though he were a new father,
talking about his new baby. When he got about three fourths
of the way through the formula he stopped and excitedly
began talking about a certain step in the formula. He was
discussing the half-life of uranium 235. I don't remember
what point in the formula that was, but I think it may
have been when a couple of isotopes remained radioactive
but simultaneously were stable in the process that he was
describing.
--
I was a very shy person and wanted very much to speak
with him when it was over. I got that opportunity and
even though I was really scared, I had an amazing
conversation with him about how he had decided to
come to our country and extended my best wishes in
what he was doing. He's known now as being the
"father of the space program." He was completely
unstuffy and kind. You ask how I would recognize a
person of intelligence? I would have to say it would
be someone like him. Someone completely kind and
very accomodating, and one who listens with
genuine interest; someone that does not present any
unkindness at all.
>
> I have a PhD in cell biology so I don't expect you to know as much as me,
> but I literally know 4th graders who have more scientific knowledge than
> you
> do.
>
I'm quite sure that you know more about cell biology
than I do, since I am not a specialist in that field, and
you seem to be. I'm happy for you that you know so
much. I'm also happy for any 4th graders that know
more than I do about science. Don't felk the sorkins
whatever you do.
>
Kindest regards,
Suzanne
>
er...@swva.net
>
> news:221117689.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > "On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
>
> >>On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
That really is only a problem if you are attached to the idea that the
Bible cannot be wrong about anything. There is no necessity (or even
desirability) for "inspired by God" to mean "dictated word-for-word in
person by God and having come down to us with no transmission
errors." Christianity and Christ do not need an inerrant Bible,
although, obviously, some Christians think they do. Meteorologists
are not being atheistic when they spend their time looking at air
masses instead of trying to peer up through windows in the dome of the
sky.
Eric Root
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:pd6034t33n13j0280...@4ax.com...
>
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>news:eY0g+cCL...@meden.invalid...
> >>> In message <mXrXj.3706$ah4.1...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne
> >>> <shil...@flash.net> writes
> >>>>> Of course cells are complicated. They are the current product of
> >>>>> almost
> >>>>> 4
> >>>>> billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.
>
> >>>>I don't think earlier cells are less complicated because we have
> >>>>evidence
> >>>>that early plants and animals were huge by comparison with today's. For
> >>>>example, there used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan of two feet.
> >>>>Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting with mastadon, then
> >>>>mammoth, to modern elephant. Same with sabre-toothed tiger, to modern
> >>>>tiger. (A mastadon is really a member of a different species,
> >>>>Mammutidae,
> >>>>while elephants are of the Elephantidae, but they are similar. But a
> >>>>Mammoth is an elephant.)
>
> >>> evidence
> >>> for the complexity of their cells. (Does a Shetland Pony have less
> >>> complex
> >>> cells that a Clydesdale?)
>
> >>Most textbooks in schools take the stand that
> >>modern elephants descended from their earlier
> >>relatives.
>
> > Of course, that is true of all life on Earth.
>
> >>It does not appear that the earlier
> >>ancestors were any the less complicated than
> >>the modern elephants.
>
> > How far back do you want to go?
>
> >>And the ones that you
> >>list are not descendants of one another, that
> >>we know of.
>
> >>> You've also got an error of fact in there. There is not a secular trend
> >>> from larger to smaller animals. The largest known animal is an animal
> >>> living today - the blue whale. For that matter I don't know of any
> >>> fossil
> >>> plants which are bigger than living redwoods.
>
> >>You are very smart to come up with this about the
> >>living redwoods. But since they still exist, do you
> >>think there are any redwoods that exist that are
> >>descended from these? Do you know of earlier
> >>redwoods that the giant redwood would be descended
> >>from? If so, are the parent plants' cells' less complicated?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >>> Generally, if the size of the largest member of a clade fluctuates over
> >>> time then for most clades you will find the largest member lived at some
> >>> time in the past, and by cherry picking species you can show an illusory
> >>> trend. Your dragonflies lived at a very different time to your
> >>> elephants.
>
> >>The larger dragonfly lived when dinosaurs lived.
>
> > Nope. Many millions of years earlier. You are thinking about creatures
> > such as Meganeura which lived 300 million years ago in the
>
> >>> Generally, again, the evidence is that lineages *tend* to increase in
> >>> size
> >>> over time (Cope's Law), and that early plants and animals were small in
> >>> comparison to todays'.
>
> >>This sounds like a theory, and not a fact.
>
> > It is evidence.
>
> In order to prove that, you would have to have
> evidence from most of the lifeforms and you
> do not have that just because you find a few here
> and there.
>
>
>
> >>> of
> >>> cells over the less few hundred million years is not germane to the
> >>> question of the relative complexity of cells a few billion years old.
>
> >>And did you come up with this from....the fossil record?
> >>for example, can you explain how complicated the cells
> >>were in the graphite microparticles found in beds in the
> >>supracrystal belt of SW Greenland? These, for example
> >>are at least 3 billion years old it is said.
>
> >>How can you say for certain that earlier lifeforms had
> >>less complicated cells?
>
> > Examination of the evidence.
>
> You haven't presented it.
>
I think where the misunderstanding is occurring is that Suzanne thinks
we are saying that the cells of modern creatures (such as birds) are
more complicated than those of comparatively-slightly less modern
creatures (such as dinosaurs) when in reality the move from proto-
cells to approximately modern-type cells happened much longer ago.
The distance from mastodons to elephants is an eyeblink in comparison
to the deep reaches of time in which life (and the development of
cells) first arose. At least, that's my own hazy layman's picture of
the situation.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
(snip)
> >> If people say Stein ruined his life by making this
> >> movie, he really didn't. He will still go on. He
> >> felt this really deeply from a Jewish perspective,
> >> and you have to realize that. People will not hold
> >> that against him. Our country is made up of many
> >> kinds of people and since it is a free country, people
> >> should be allowed to speak as he did in this film. I
> >> would feel the same for someone that believes in
> >> evolution as an origin. The main thing that these
> >> hoped to have is balance in what our kids are
> >> being taught.
Is it a matter of balance to teach Civics in Wood Shop? That's the
kind of "balance" you'd get from allowing non-science to be taught in
science class.
>
> > Did I miss the part where they were banned from learning unscientific
> > alternatives on their own time?
>
> Your idea of what is unscientific may not be
> everyone else's idea.
The question was, who is stopping them from studying creationism on
their own time?
>
> >> We used to have evolution taught in schools and
> >> at the same time, biblical things as well. There
> >> was a balance and no one rocked anyone's boat.
Actually, the boats of non-Christians were being rocked by sticking
church stuff into non-church school.
>
> > What "biblical things"? Did you critically analyse the mutual
> > contradictions between YE and OE interpretations? Did you have any
> > debates between anti-evolutionists who thought that the Bible
> > qualified as evidence and anti-evolutionists who thought that it did
> > not?
>
> What biblical things? Creation for one. That there
> is a God, that we have a creator, that we can pray,
> that he hears our prayers. And yes I have analyzed
> the YE and OE interpretations. Yes I have had
> experience with debates on both sides of the issues.
> And yes the Bible does qualify for evidence.
It qualifies as evidence as to what it says, but it does not qualify
as any sort of evidence on science matters. This is not a matter of
opinion. What conceivable basis would there be to start bringing in
religious writings into scientific endeavors (or any other area not
specifically to do with religion)? And what basis would a scientist
have to pick Christian unscientific beliefs over Hindu or Norse non-
scientific beliefs?
(snip)
>
> >> That's very interesting. I don't know that we have enough
> >> information to say how an original cell started. That part
> >> surely is still a theory.
Theories are a kind of thing. They don't quit being theories at some
point.
> >> I just think that people are surprised
> >> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>
> > Please don't use the misleading "only a theory" language. In fact
> > there is no theory yet for abiogenesis, only several competing
> > hypotheses regarding the "how." The "when" however, is well
> > established.
>
> The when is not well established.
The when is established well enough that, if they find out that they
are wrong, it will be because they find out that life start 3.9
billion years ago or 3.7 billion years ago instead of 3.8 bya. They
are no more going to find out that it really started 6000 years ago
than they are going to find out that the Moon is really a ten-foot
ball of green cheese just above the treetops.
>
> Suzanne
Eric Root
TomS
<p9r334dlca3is7nkf...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One stated..."
I think that that's right.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
TomS
<SBkYj.1344$mh...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne stated...">news:221219671.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>say that it remains to be seen if this was a violation.
>The controversy centers around Ben Stein's right to
>free speech, as well, it is said.
I haven't seen the film, I am not a lawyer, and I don't
have any opinion as to whether or not what the film does
is permitted under the law. And, to tell the truth, I
don't care.
All I was trying to point out is that the Wikipedia
entry does *not* say that using 25 seconds of music is
"fair use". Wikipedia is reporting what the lawyers for
"Expelled" are saying, and apparently, the lawyers are
not saying that 25 seconds makes it fair use.
If I were ever to make a film, I would think twice
before using 25 seconds of the "Happy Birthday" song.
I'd talk to a lawyer before doing that. I wouldn't rely
on 25 seconds being automatically "fair use".
Shane
But they do, because why should the line be drawn just where
you want it?
>> ISTM, that implicit in the push to get creationism taught in
>> schools are two rather embarrassing admissions.
>> 1. That the example of the creationist/biblical lifestyle
>> set at home/church is so weak it cannot counteract the few
>> hours of teaching of evolution a child receives at school in
>> any give week.
>> 2. That the power of Jesus to work in a person--about which
>> you have strong opinions--is somehow negated by a few
>> hours/years of receiving instruction about evolution.
>>
> They are not!
So why the fear of evolution then?
>> Why are the religious fundamentalists and creationists so
>> afraid of evolution? It shows a remarkable lack of faith in
>> the ability of their god to rule this earth. Surely a
>> paraphrase of the advice of Gamaliel applies here? If
>> evolution is true, you should not be opposing the teaching
>> of it, and if it is false it will fail all by itself, as
>> have many ideas, scientific and otherwise, throughout the
>> course of history?
>>
> I have not opposed the teaching of evolution.
> I have objected to God being taken out of the
> classroom. In a time you do not know anything
> about,
I do that now, as do many epople in the area in which I
live. I often leave my car in the driveway with the keys in
the ignition. My house is rarely locked when I am in the
locality. I can walk safely at any time of the day or night.
> we could leave the house unlocked and
> whole families would go for a walk in the
> neighborhoods as late as 10:00 at night where
> I grew up in San Antonio, Texas just to see the
> millions of stars that are visible in that area.
I think you mean thousands.
> No one bothered to break into homes.
Well obviously they would not need to if they were unlocked.
> The
> Ten Commandments were visible in the schools.
> The day was begun at school with a prayer over
> the loudspeaker to God. Students did not come
> into the schools and hold people hostage while
> they shot everyone. Taking God away from
> children was a BAD idea.
Yet apparently in that, I'm assuming, same community, a
bunch of your friends tortured a dog to death, in spite off
all the religion that permeated the area. I'm detecting a
possible contradiction here.
>>
> Suzanne
Mark Isaak
> I have not opposed the teaching of evolution.
> I have objected to God being taken out of the
> classroom.
Funny, I have never *seen* you object to Vishnu being taken out of the
classroom. Or Woton, Tezcatlipocla, Gitche Manitou, Osiris, Nu Kwa,
Cagn, or any of thousands of other gods.
You must surely be aware that you promote religious bigotry. I am
curious why you consider that a good thing.
> In a time you do not know anything
> about, we could leave the house unlocked and
> whole families would go for a walk in the
> neighborhoods as late as 10:00 at night where
> I grew up in San Antonio, Texas just to see the
> millions of stars that are visible in that area.
> No one bothered to break into homes. The
> Ten Commandments were visible in the schools.
> The day was begun at school with a prayer over
> the loudspeaker to God. Students did not come
> into the schools and hold people hostage while
> they shot everyone. Taking God away from
> children was a BAD idea.
Sorry, that is simply not true. Religiosity is not correlated with less
crime. If anything, the statistics support the opposite.
gregwrld
>
> news:221117689.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > "On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:22:29 GMT, in article
>
> >>On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:18:52 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
Just because it's in the
Bible doesn't make it a
fact.
gregwrld
Je voudrais que le mauvais
chien morde l'enfant mechant
TomS
<dJlYj.1357$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne stated..."
You are giving a very free interpretation of what
the Bible says.
That's OK with me, you have every right to do that.
And I'm not going to argue with you about your own
private interpretation of the text.
If you care to think that God did not create each
individual, but rather created some categories of
things, and let something else take over, once the
"kinds" were created - well, to tell the truth, I
find that rather strange, but that's your belief.
What I was saying is that there is something in
common, a great deal in common, among all living
things on earth. All living things are related.
That relationship might not be one of common
descent. But it is beyond any doubt that there
is a lot in common among all living things.
Suzanne
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.19....@earthlink.net...
is what a court decides that they have done.
>
> The legal budget is probably routine for *any* movie, but if not, it is
> not evidence in the filmmakers' favor, since it shows that they knew they
> were near the edge of illegality at best.
>
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
You could be right.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:33:10 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>> "On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:26:25 GMT, in article
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:06:28 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>>>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>news:slrng2okki.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
>>> [...snip...]
>>>>>> animation....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_controversy_of_Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
>>>>>>
>>>>>I read what this says but one of the things it says
>>>>>is that the fair use doctrine says that you can
>>>>>cite usage of 25 seconds of the song.
>>>>
>>> [...snip...]
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the copyright
>>> law is that there is no fixed number of seconds of music
>>> (or number of words of text) that constitutes "fair use".
>>>
>>> The Wikipedia entry does *not* say this. What Wikipedia
>>> does say is this:
>>>
>>> "The film producers released a statement in response on April
>>> 23, 2008, stating that they believed they could use the music
>>> of 25 seconds of the song."
>>>
>>> use", *not* on the basis of some rule about 25 seconds.
>>> They are saying that the movie used 25 seconds, and they
>>> are saying that, in this particular instance, that was
>>> fair use.
>>>
>>I've read a lot of lawyer blogs and many of them
>>say that it remains to be seen if this was a violation.
>>The controversy centers around Ben Stein's right to
>>free speech, as well, it is said.
>
> use another person's music in his film without permission. He is going
> to get done for it and I hope he gets done big time.
>>>
>>Suzanne
>
It will be interesting to see the outcome.
>
Suzanne
Mark VandeWettering
Frankly, I don't think its all that interesting. Claims of fair use
are individually decided by the courts, and they typically aren't very
consistent in their application of the law. It could swing either way,
depending on what judge and what day of the week it comes to trial.
According to this article on the WSJ, the judge indeed appears to have
a rather interesting notion of fair use:
Judge Lowe asked Falzone why it was necessary to use Lennon's
actual performance of the song, rather than, say, having Stein
say the lyrics himself or flashing the lyrics on the screen. To
this, Falzone gave what we thought was a compelling and novel
reply. Lennon's performance, said Falzone, triggers a specific
emotional response in the viewer's mind -- i.e. "Maybe Lennon's
right; maybe the world would be better off without religion" --
and it's that response that the film, and its use of "Imagine,"
seeks to criticize.
I'm not sure what the Judge's point actually is. While some uses might
arguably be "more fair" than others, it appears to me rather arbitrary to
try to claim that film makers are under some mandate to choose the least
offensive (to the copyright holder) way of criticizing a particular work.
Me? I'm convinced that the use is probably fair (although how criticizing
John Lennon's views has anything to do with the nominal subject matter of
Expelled is anyone's guess). I suspect that ultimately Yoko will lose,
but I wouldn't bet the house on it.
Mark
> Suzanne
Pekka de Groot
wrote:
>>>> What would be the appropriate balance between mainstream history and
>>>> holocaust denial to be taught in history class?
>>>>
>>>It would be wrong to teach that there was no
>>>Holocaust. People living still were there, and I
>>>was alive when this was going on and can testify
>>>that it did happen. Not only that but a little girl
>>>I knew that went to our school was a victim of
>>>a concentration camp. She died about a month
>>>after I met her because of the damage they did
>>>to that child's body. We all knew it was real.
Sorry, Suzanne, I feel that you didn't answer the question. Could you
address it, please?
[snip]
>> The cell came long after the start of life.
>>
>You were there? : )
Were you there when Jesus turned water into wine?
That is a silly argument in this context. There are many ways to study
the past, some are scientific, some are not. Which methods would you
use in this case?
[snip]
>>>I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
>>>life began on the earth.
>>
>> No, it is not yet a theory.
>>
>It is a theory how life began on earth unless
>one considers what the Bible says.
Is that a scientific source?
>>>>> I just think that people are surprised
>>>>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>>>>
>>>> Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
>>>>
>>>I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
>>>had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
>>>taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
>>>made new wine at the wedding in Cana,
>>
>> No he didn't.
>>
>Yes he did.
Were you there? :)
[snip]
>>>It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
>>>vintage earth and universe.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>Why not? : )
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the depth of creationist scientific
inquiry.
Cheers,
Pekka de Groot
Suzanne
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:33:48 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>>>> "Ritsjoena" <bramv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:e2161537-089f-4eed...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On May 12, 6:34 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Glend" <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>No, idiots have tampered with people reading the
>>>>Bible in school or any reference to any kind of
>>>>religion. So it's not really the same as it was when
>>>>I was a child. That's what my comment above was
>>>>all about. It never was disallowed to teach evolution
>>>>theory. What this is about now, is not that they want
>>>>the right to teach evolution, that never was not taught.
>>>>But the Bible has been attacked and the people do not
>>>>want that.
>>>
>>> Your use of English makes it very hard to work out what you are
>>> saying. "It never was disallowed to teach evolution theory." is a very
>>> badly put statement that is also wrong.
>>>
>>Saying that something "never was disallowed" is a
>>literary form of protest against someone saying
>>that something never was allowed. This is a form of
>>editorial writing. It's not wrong, it's considered to be
>>very colorful.
>
> It is TOTALLY wrong, and any English teacher would throw the book at
> you for using such appalling phrasing.
>
> Something like "The teaching of evolution theory has never been
> disallowed" would have been better - even though you would still be
> wrong because we all know it was banned.
>
Bob, you misunderstand some things. I don't
know where you live, but haven't you ever heard,
someone say "you can't do (something)," and a
person responds by saying "you can't (afford to)
NOT do (something)"...? You are talking to
someone that teaches ESL, Conversational English,
Accent Reduction, and Basic Understanding of
Spoken and Written Styles of English? Have you
never heard catchey expressions replied to common
styles, for example, someone says "No way!" and
another responds, "Yes, way!!"...? I normally don't
tell anyone this, but I've had people that are orators
say they love the way that I put words together, and
that it is modern and refreshing. Perhaps where you
live, they don't allow this...? You can't pick up a
novel, see a movie, or a play, or read a good editorial,
but what it is displayed that people do talk and also
write this way. The expressive modern ways of talking
and writing are meant to make the reader, or hearer,
stop and really think about what the author is saying,
and not just skim past it blindly.
>
>>> The bible has no place in school - other than in a comparative
>>> religion class. It certainly has no place in a science class.
>>>
>>The Bible does have a place in school.
>
> Yes, but ONLY in a comparative religion class where is can be compared
> with other religious works on an equal basis.
>
Possibly you are younger than I am, but when I was
growing up, it was a wonderful part of our lives in
school. It was not in a class, it was a lifestyle that
was conveyed and it was a good lifestyle that it put
forth. The few people that were atheists did not take
issue over it and were glad that there were goals and
ideals being upheld that had been advanced by the
reading of the Bible, and many of them today can
quote the Bible, and even admire some of the better
known and quoted verses.
>
> It could, just remotely, have a place in a history class in a lesson
> on "look at the stupid things our ancestors used to believe."
>
I am happy to know that you can express yourself
freely in speech, even though I do not agree with
you.
>
>>>>>>>> own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
>>>>>>>> comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
>>>>>>>> whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
>>>>>>>> he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
>>>>>>>> film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
>>>>>>>> allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
>>>>>>>> also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
>>>>>>> different kind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you, I shall.
>>>>>>>> all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
>>>>>>>> to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
>>>>>>>> animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
>>>>>>>> worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
>>>>>>>> saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
>>>>>>>> whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
>>>>>>>> though a single cell is so simple.
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>> exist. I see no reason why such a thing could not arise by natural
>>>>>>> means. The cell might be complex, its origins (or the processes by
>>>>>>> which is becomes so) does not have to be complex (can be complex of
>>>>>>> course).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> information to say how an original cell started.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>>>>>
>>>>I have previously read this, thank you. It is very
>>>>interesting, truly. It does not tell the complications
>>>>of a single cell though,
>>>
>>> It wouldn't. It is talking about a point far earlier in the
>>> development of life.
>>>
>>>> and that is what there is
>>>>no evidence of...a simple single cell that started
>>>>life
>>>
>>> The cell came long after the start of life.
>>>
>>You were there? : )
>
>
And did they actually tell you that they were
non-cells at one time? Or did someone else tell
you what he thought they were and when he
thought they lived?...someone attempting to at
least try to figure it out, given the limited
knowledge that he had some years ago?
>
>>>>and managed to produce all that we have that
>>>>is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
>>>>What amazes me is this idea said in this article
>>>>that even allows that alien forms of life could
>>>>be what started life on the earth. This shows that
>>>>no one knows how life began on this planet.
>>>
>>> Of course there is a possibility that life started off-planet, but not
>>> a high probability. Certainly many of the building blocks of life came
>>> from space where they are quite common.
>>>
>>And where did life come from on that
>>supposed alien source? And what alien
>>source are you considering?
>
> Personally I don't favour panspermia, but if it is true then it just
> moves abiogenesis to another point in our galaxy.
>
If scientists come to a place where they can see
that an intelligent being in some other location in
the universe actually was responsible for life forming
on the earth, I wonder if they will ever see that it's
possible that this "alien" being's name might be
already known on earth as "God?" There is a great
difference between who some think that God is,
and who he really is. Think of him as being the
intelligent alien that created life on earth, that also
desires to make contact with his creations through
internal, built in means and inward thoughts.
>
>>>>> > That part
>>>>> > surely is still a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> falsification
>>>>> to
>>>>> be called a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
>>>>life began on the earth.
>>>
>>> No, it is not yet a theory.
>>>
>>It is a theory how life began on earth unless
>>one considers what the Bible says.
>
> We know, beyond all doubt, that abiogenesis occurred, we can see it
> from the geological record. However, we need a lot more research
> before action theories of how abiogenesis occurred can be put forth.
>
If you cannot prove how life began on the earth,
and you can't, then that part is a theory. At best,
you surely must realize opinions about how life
began on the earth are simply opinions based on
what facts are currently known. Unless you think
you have all the facts there are to know (and
scientists do not think that), then you have to call
that part a theory. No more of this thing you are
saying that I need to learn what theory is. That's
nonsense. I am not talking about the study of
evolution as scientific theory, I am <ahem>
talking origins. (Catchey name...what?)
>
>>>>>> I just think that people are surprised
>>>>>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
>>>>had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
>>>>taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
>>>>made new wine at the wedding in Cana,
>>>
>>> No he didn't.
>>>
>>Yes he did.
>
> fairy story.
>
Is real.
>
>>>> and he made it
>>>>so that it would have the flavor of aged wine. The
>>>>servants, Mary and Jesus alone knew this. The maitre d'
>>>>did not and he tasted the wine and exclaimed that he
>>>>thought the host had saved the best wine for the last.
>>>>It was the custom that you served the best wine first
>>>>then, so that when people were slightly tipsy, they
>>>>may not notice the flavor of the later distributed wine.
>>>>When they ran out of wine, Jesus still made the best.
>>>
>>> Fairy story.
>>>
>>No, it's not.
>
> Yes it is.
>
Jacob struggled with God, and came to the conclusion
because of the struggle that God was certainly there,
and he wanted God's blessing upon his inner emptiness
for having cheated his brother and father. God took away
all his "evil" (sins) and left him with a peace, that he
even acknowledged years later: Genesis 48:16. This was
upon the occasion of the blessing of the sons (grandsons)
he had from Jacob. On that earlier occasion, Jacob's name
was changed curiously to Israel, which meant that he
was one who had struggled with God and who also prevailed.
Within his name that he was then given anew, is the presence
of a pagan god right up against the true God, curiously:
Is-ra-el. Most people struggle with this internal battle where
a false god is struggling to survive against the true God.
Some prevail. Prevailing seems to mean that the person
more than believes, he receives (the blessing.). It's real.
>
>>>>It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
>>>>vintage earth and universe.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>Why not? : )
>
>
I did answer the question, with a question that you
cannot answer. That's called a Mexican Standoff.
>
If your "why" means why would the Lord create
an earth and universe that was already vintage, I
can think of several reasons. 1.) He wanted one that
functioned correctly so he caused it to already
be the way it would be if it really were billions
of years old. And 2.) he wanted to get man's attention
at least to see it all the way that Einstein described
one would see it when he talked about how we are
in a situation like a child that goes into a great big
library full of books from many nations. He says
the little one has the idea that there has to be
someone who wrote all those books, but he doesn't
know how they were written. The child deeply
perceives of a mysterious order in the way the books
are arranged, yet he can't figure out what this
arrangement is. Einstein relates that this is the epitome
of what he thinks the most intelligent human being
has towards God. You can see the original quote
online:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
The part about Spinoza that I have not quoted (which
see article) are disputed by some, but the objections
are objected to, as well, by others:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
is my brother's daughter, that does not mean that
I am drawing a line in information saying that our
ancestors arrived in the USA in the state of Virginia
hundreds of years before. The immediate introduction
of my neice is what my motive are, and not how our
ancestors all came to America from other countries.
That is another matter.
>
If I served tapioca pudding at a dinner at my house
to my guests, that doesn't mean that I deny that in
Hawaii, they eat poi, or that both are made from
taro root, aka cocoyam and dasheen.
>
>>> ISTM, that implicit in the push to get creationism taught in
>>> schools are two rather embarrassing admissions.
>>> 1. That the example of the creationist/biblical lifestyle
>>> set at home/church is so weak it cannot counteract the few
>>> hours of teaching of evolution a child receives at school in
>>> any give week.
>>> 2. That the power of Jesus to work in a person--about which
>>> you have strong opinions--is somehow negated by a few
>>> hours/years of receiving instruction about evolution.
>>>
>> They are not!
>
> So why the fear of evolution then?
>
of it. I haven't even said that it should not
be taught.
>
>>> Why are the religious fundamentalists and creationists so
>>> afraid of evolution? It shows a remarkable lack of faith in
>>> the ability of their god to rule this earth. Surely a
>>> paraphrase of the advice of Gamaliel applies here? If
>>> evolution is true, you should not be opposing the teaching
>>> of it, and if it is false it will fail all by itself, as
>>> have many ideas, scientific and otherwise, throughout the
>>> course of history?
>>>
>> I have not opposed the teaching of evolution.
>> I have objected to God being taken out of the
>> classroom. In a time you do not know anything
>> about,
>
> I do that now, as do many epople in the area in which I
> live. I often leave my car in the driveway with the keys in
> the ignition. My house is rarely locked when I am in the
> locality. I can walk safely at any time of the day or night.
>
us live, now.
>
>> we could leave the house unlocked and
>> whole families would go for a walk in the
>> neighborhoods as late as 10:00 at night where
>> I grew up in San Antonio, Texas just to see the
>> millions of stars that are visible in that area.
>
> I think you mean thousands.
>
as Inspiration Point, so named not because of teens
that go there to neck, but because of the incredible
view of the heavens that are there. From that height,
the stars in this area seem to be so prolific and as
your eyes descend to the vast number of city lights,
you can hardly tell where the stars leave off, and the
city lights begin. So when someone says that in
certain locations of the land, they can view millions
of stars, they are referring to those locations where
you actually do see many more stars than in locations
where bigger city lights blot out the starry sky. However,
since I like your side-track question, I would have to
ask you if you ever saw the Milky Way? It contains a
huge number of stars. Under certain conditions, the
Milky Way is much more observable, and it is
estimated to contain over 200 billion stars. If you see
it, you are seeing more than millions of stars.
>
>> No one bothered to break into homes.
>
> Well obviously they would not need to if they were unlocked.
>
>
>> The
>> Ten Commandments were visible in the schools.
>> The day was begun at school with a prayer over
>> the loudspeaker to God. Students did not come
>> into the schools and hold people hostage while
>> they shot everyone. Taking God away from
>> children was a BAD idea.
>
> Yet apparently in that, I'm assuming, same community, a
> bunch of your friends tortured a dog to death, in spite off
> all the religion that permeated the area. I'm detecting a
> possible contradiction here.
>
make one, I see. I did not say that my friends
tortured a little dog to death, so you are being
unnecessarily morbid. I did not say these were
friends. I did not say that "religion permeated"
the area. The influence of seeing the Bible in
school, hearing people read it on the loudspeaker,
and hearing prayers said over the loudspeaker,
the influence of the posted Ten Commandments,
the local churches, all made an impact on these
boys who mostly grew up to choose to be
Christains. But they did not break into people's
houses and steal, and they did not menace people
as they walked with their families on starlight
nights. They certainly did not go into schools
and hold people hostage and kill people.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:31:49 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
>
>> I have not opposed the teaching of evolution.
>> I have objected to God being taken out of the
>> classroom.
>
> Funny, I have never *seen* you object to Vishnu being taken out of the
> classroom. Or Woton, Tezcatlipocla, Gitche Manitou, Osiris, Nu Kwa,
> Cagn, or any of thousands of other gods.
>
> You must surely be aware that you promote religious bigotry. I am
> curious why you consider that a good thing.
>
>> In a time you do not know anything
>> about, we could leave the house unlocked and
>> whole families would go for a walk in the
>> neighborhoods as late as 10:00 at night where
>> I grew up in San Antonio, Texas just to see the
>> millions of stars that are visible in that area.
>> No one bothered to break into homes. The
>> Ten Commandments were visible in the schools.
>> The day was begun at school with a prayer over
>> the loudspeaker to God. Students did not come
>> into the schools and hold people hostage while
>> they shot everyone. Taking God away from
>> children was a BAD idea.
>
> Sorry, that is simply not true. Religiosity is not correlated with less
> crime. If anything, the statistics support the opposite.
>
any normal understanding of what someone says.
You pick out things to pick at and ignore the rest.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Rarely.
> I don't
>know where you live,
Gloucester, UK.
> but haven't you ever heard,
>someone say "you can't do (something)," and a
>person responds by saying "you can't (afford to)
>NOT do (something)"...?
There are people who abuse English in that way - it doesn't make it
right.
>You are talking to
>someone that teaches ESL, Conversational English,
>Accent Reduction, and Basic Understanding of
>Spoken and Written Styles of English?
Then you should learn to write English correctly.
> Have you
>never heard catchey expressions replied to common
>styles, for example, someone says "No way!" and
>another responds, "Yes, way!!"...? I normally don't
>tell anyone this, but I've had people that are orators
>say they love the way that I put words together, and
>that it is modern and refreshing.
It is also, from many example here, wrong.
There is a standard of English that is acceptable in the street, on a
face to face basis. The standards are higher when you come to written
English.
Ok, your error ridden text read: "It never was disallowed to teach
evolution theory. What this is about now, is not that they want the
right to teach evolution, that never was not taught. But the Bible has
been attacked and the people do not want that."
Should have read: "The teaching of evolution theory was never
disallowed. What this is now about is not that they want the right to
teach evolution, but that the bible has been attacked and some people
do not want that."
That has now put it into reasonably correct English. However, it still
contains one major error, the very first sentence is factually wrong.
>Perhaps where you
>live, they don't allow this...? You can't pick up a
>novel, see a movie, or a play, or read a good editorial,
>but what it is displayed that people do talk and also
>write this way. The expressive modern ways of talking
>and writing are meant to make the reader, or hearer,
>stop and really think about what the author is saying,
>and not just skim past it blindly.
>>
>>>> The bible has no place in school - other than in a comparative
>>>> religion class. It certainly has no place in a science class.
>>>>
>>>The Bible does have a place in school.
>>
>> Yes, but ONLY in a comparative religion class where is can be compared
>> with other religious works on an equal basis.
>>
>Possibly you are younger than I am,
I'm 54.
> but when I was
>growing up, it was a wonderful part of our lives in
>school.
No, it was a complete waste of time.
> It was not in a class, it was a lifestyle that
>was conveyed and it was a good lifestyle that it put
>forth. The few people that were atheists did not take
>issue over it and were glad that there were goals and
>ideals being upheld that had been advanced by the
>reading of the Bible,
What about Jews, Muslims, Hindus....? What about 'other' christian
faiths that do not approve of the KJV bible? In today's society it is
not acceptable to impose religion on kids.
> and many of them today can
>quote the Bible, and even admire some of the better
>known and quoted verses.
Poor kids.
Yes, they have done that by leaving parts of their DNA/RNA in modern
life.
>Or did someone else tell
>you what he thought they were and when he
>thought they lived?...someone attempting to at
>least try to figure it out, given the limited
>knowledge that he had some years ago?
Knowledge is building all the time, and that includes our ability to
decode the messages past life have left us.
>>
>>>>>and managed to produce all that we have that
>>>>>is very complicated. That part is still just theory.
>>>>>What amazes me is this idea said in this article
>>>>>that even allows that alien forms of life could
>>>>>be what started life on the earth. This shows that
>>>>>no one knows how life began on this planet.
>>>>
>>>> Of course there is a possibility that life started off-planet, but not
>>>> a high probability. Certainly many of the building blocks of life came
>>>> from space where they are quite common.
>>>>
>>>And where did life come from on that
>>>supposed alien source? And what alien
>>>source are you considering?
>>
>> Personally I don't favour panspermia, but if it is true then it just
>> moves abiogenesis to another point in our galaxy.
>>
>If scientists come to a place where they can see
>that an intelligent being in some other location in
>the universe actually was responsible for life forming
>on the earth, I wonder if they will ever see that it's
>possible that this "alien" being's name might be
>already known on earth as "God?"
Gods are the invention of primitive man, we have outgrown the need for
them now.
> There is a great
>difference between who some think that God is,
>and who he really is. Think of him as being the
>intelligent alien that created life on earth,
Then he would not be a god. Look up the definition of a god.
> that also
>desires to make contact with his creations through
>internal, built in means and inward thoughts.
>>
>>>>>> > That part
>>>>>> > surely is still a theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, none of them yet have survived sufficient attempts at
>>>>>> falsification
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be called a theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I am meaning that it is still a theory as to how
>>>>>life began on the earth.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not yet a theory.
>>>>
>>>It is a theory how life began on earth unless
>>>one considers what the Bible says.
>>
>> No. It is NOT a theory. Learn what is meant by a "theory" in science.
>> We know, beyond all doubt, that abiogenesis occurred, we can see it
>> from the geological record. However, we need a lot more research
>> before action theories of how abiogenesis occurred can be put forth.
>>
>If you cannot prove how life began on the earth,
>and you can't, then that part is a theory.
Once again, please go away and learn what the 'theory' is in science.
> At best,
>you surely must realize opinions about how life
>began on the earth are simply opinions based on
>what facts are currently known. Unless you think
>you have all the facts there are to know (and
>scientists do not think that), then you have to call
>that part a theory.
Learn what the 'theory' is in science.
> No more of this thing you are
>saying that I need to learn what theory is. That's
>nonsense. I am not talking about the study of
>evolution as scientific theory, I am <ahem>
>talking origins. (Catchey name...what?)
But you need to learn what the word 'theory' means in science. You
keep misusing it.
>>
>>>>>>> I just think that people are surprised
>>>>>>> to find out that a single cell can be as complex as it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Way more complex than any known designer would make it, for sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I saw a news article in the past year that said scientists
>>>>>had finally figured out what it is that makes aged wine
>>>>>taste like aged wine. But thousands of years ago, Jesus
>>>>>made new wine at the wedding in Cana,
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't.
>>>>
>>>Yes he did.
>>
>> No he did not. It is not possible to change water into wine - it is a
>> fairy story.
>>
>Is real.
Rubbish.
Bronze age fairy stories.
>>
>>>>>It would be no problem for the Lord to have made a
>>>>>vintage earth and universe.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>Why not? : )
>>
>> So you cannot answer the question.
>>
>I did answer the question, with a question that you
>cannot answer.
Then you did not answer the question.
Come back when you can think of a sensible reason.
--
Bob.
Chris Krolczyk
Thanks for completely missing the point. You asserted that
the period when public schools were allowed to hit people
over the head with Biblical homilies was a better time; Mark
thought otherwise. Keep in mind that for your assertion to
be true, things like interracial violence and outright murder
in the name of perpetuating segregation wouldn't've
occurred back then. They did. A lot.
Consequently, the fact is that less people in the prison system
identify themselves as "atheist" than any other denomination,
Christian or otherwise. For your model to be true, most of
the people in the joint would *have* to be God-despising heathens.
They aren't. Likewise, does the fact that most inmates identify
themselves as one breed of Christian or another *automatically*
mean that religion is bad in and of itself?
-Chris Krolczyk
Frank J
As you pick out things and ignore my replies of a few days ago. Did
you read the link I provided that Mark authored?
>
> Suzanne
Chris Krolczyk
> If scientists come to a place where they can see
> that an intelligent being in some other location in
> the universe actually was responsible for life forming
> on the earth,
Many scientists - including biologists who fully accept
the ToE as valid - are practicing Christians, so I
fail to see your point about how "scientists need
to come to a place".
> I wonder if they will ever see that it's
> possible that this "alien" being's name might be
> already known on earth as "God?"
Nope. A space alien is a space alien, unless you're
asserting that they have powers on par with what
most people *assume* is godlike. There used to be
an amusing little game that ID advocates played
(before they descended into pathetic whitewashes
like _Expelled_) where they toyed with the idea
that life on earth *could* have been created by aliens,
but they soon dropped that in favor of the choruses
of "Goddidit" they've resorted to as of late.
> There is a great
> difference between who some think that God is,
> and who he really is. Think of him as being the
> intelligent alien that created life on earth, that also
> desires to make contact with his creations through
> internal, built in means and inward thoughts.
Problem is, you can only take this so far - if God
is truly "alien", what what's all that handwringing about
how he created man "in his own image" supposed
to signify? Furthermore, what about other religious
traditions that don't reduce God to such anthro-
morphic conceits? I'm pretty sure that any
self-respecting alien might object strongly
to being thought of as merely being a bearded
old man.
-Chris Krolczyk
Mark Isaak
You say that like it is a bad thing. Some things are very important to
me, and those are the things I concentrate on.
One of the things that bothers me is religious bigotry. I would like to
know how and why you support it?
Frank J
I'm more interested in her scientific selectivity. For example, per
your "What Is Creationism" article she appears to be a YEC, but could
be an OEC, or even a Geocentrist or Flat Earther (note her doubt about
the "3.5 BY" age of the earth, but no mention of doubt or certainty
of any other age). Yet she seems to arbitrarily place a barrier
between ID and Evolutionary Creationism on the continuum. A sure sign
of believing or doubting based what "feels good."
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering- Hide quoted text -