Rip Ben Stein's Expelled Movie Blog a new one
Offline I'm new to this site but I'll just jump right in 
I've been practicing my new found atheist skills on the expelled movies blog. (The one with ben stien, the creationists new weapon) Theres mostly theists on that website using the usual creationist logic and quote mining etc, the whole 9 yards. There are some atheists or agnostics on there also, making good refutations. This is my 2nd time actually arguing with theists (besides my sister). In my 3 year journey of enlightenment and reasoning, from avid uninformed church goer to steadfast critical thinking atheist. I think I've seen my fair share of debates and read almost every atheist book, so I have confidence in taking on any irrational claim.
Here the link http://tinyurl.com/3b5w6g
So go wild. I only started replying after the 70th post.
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the forums!
Yea, I posted a little something on the blog myself quite a while ago. I critisized Ben for not answering questions (is it not his blog?). I also posted something that I'm not very sure of: that in science, just like economics (well, I should say, "in the communities thereof" ), competition is very important. I mean, if a scientist is caught lying, or being incompetent about his/her work, that false data will be caught by other scientists. At least, that seems to make sense to me.
My first post was on Ben's intro blog, not the one you're posting on. However, I just skimmed that same one, the blog you linked to, and posted there myself. I essentially said the same thing, though a bit more elaborate: that scientists compete among one another, so what they add to the literature will most likely be kept honest.
I've only skimmed - the whole thing, including what you said, but from what little I could catch, I think you should continue to make an effort on that blog, b/c you seem to make points right on.
holy christ balls, i think i am truly dumber after reading most of those comments. Fucking shit are people that retarded?
Thanks I feel welcome already
I very much doubt that its "his" blog its all snazzy web 2.0 style. Its definitely not his judging by the flash animations and all that jazz they (haha I wonder who *ID* cough *creationists* cough) payed a good amount of money for the design of that site.
Ben probably only wrote the draft for the actrical and had his ID buddys tuch it up. He probably never even looked at the comment himself. That site is for the buessness of promoting the movie, definitely not people friendly or personal... Enless your a theist, go figure. >_>
DEFINITELY spent BIG money on promotion they even have models trying to look intelligent XD
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/resources.php
Posts like this make it hard to keep food down: http://tinyurl.com/2yqwcx
Oh god thats just sad, but its a good thing also when someone like that meets an actual evolutionary biologist or zoology scientist thats when the fun begins. People like that can be used as ammunition proving how vacuous and devoid of information most people who support ID are.
(caution, tangent.. probably a topic for another thread down the line)
You know.. I too have trouble completely squeezing the regular theist "god" phrases out of my vernacular. And I've been an unbeliever for at least 15 years or so. I suppose it's just upbringing and surroundings, but been really hard to kick classics like "holy shit," "god dammit!" and "oh my god!" out of habit speech.
I added to that comment chain as "stunned" but I fear it's like trying to squirt a little Febreze on a 30-ton toxic shit pile.
Its just habit I guess, I think It'll slowly wean itself out of my vocabulary over time. For now I don't even realize it until someone points it out :\
You never know someone might just catch a whiff of a nicer smell in that shit pile. It certainly what got my attention and lead to more investigating and thinking, when I was a theist. You never know who might be reading someone could be on the theist edge or what they like to call "crisis of faith" a one sentence post or a science article, or a youtube video can be all it takes for them to make the final dive into reason.
More ripping done on his new blog, "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" What an idiot.
Welcome to the site and ty for the link, I look forward to getting pissed off at peoples ignorance and stupidty. Nothing like a good mental work-out imo.
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
Shame really, I have always enjoyed Ben Stein's work.
Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?
Classic!
I will still try to set my opinion of this tripe aside and judge his acting on it's merits, rather than his religious/political convictions.
I hope the movie makes clear that he is an economist, not a scientist.
Considering that creationists often fail to mention their "biologists" got their degrees from diploma mills, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
I've been known to say 'Holy Mackeral'...but nobody really worships Tuna.
Cultural upbringing and imprinting is a bitch, ain't it?
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
I don't see any merit in censoring these words from our vocabulary. They're just enhancing mechanisms within the language. 'Holy shit' is no more a summoning of the divine than 'Fuck you' literally means I want to fuck the 'you' in question.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
If anything, it's the believers who should be censoring such words and phrases from being spoken. They actually believe in this god and this religion, so to them it's blasphemous to utter such things as "jesus christ", "oh my god" or "holy shit" when startled, it is using gods name in vain which is against one of the 10 commandments. Atheists and non-believers on the other hand, it's just another swear word similar to "fuck" "shit" etc. They're the ones who get in trouble for it as they believe in it. Why should we be the ones to go to the effort. In effect we're mocking them by using such terms.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
My friend and I try to replace the word god with science. So instead of "God dam it." or "Oh my god" it becomes "Science damn it" and "Oh my science"
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
I gotta watch this movie, must be hilarious. But i will download it illegally so they don't get a penny from me. They really spent a lot on promoting it, but you'll see, it will reach the tops.
What a morons. I should come to USA its full of morons, i should be able to easily earn a million by creating my own religion
I believe this is almost exactly what L. Ron Hubbard decided to do.
Do you believe in a power that is unseen? (magnetism or electricity or other)
Sure we know the principal behind these.
Use your blinding logic on these paradoxes.
Please do research on these problems of evolution.
1-Darwin had a problem with the evolution of an eye. Study why.
Hint: There are many parts of an eye that have to function together to see
light. These small development toward a working eye would have gotten discarded
before it developed to the next stage.
2-The most simple cell is more complicated than a working jet airplane--
then add miniaturization and that will add another level of complexity to
this small machine. Find the probability of a cell made by chance.(10 to the 150)
Study all of the machinery that has to work in concert with one another for
a cell to survive for an second or an hour. Think about the complexities that
are in that first cell to divide and survive. Learn how hard it is for a
cellular biologist to believe in evolution. Don't laugh it is true.
These are a couple of examples that make it hard for me to believe in evolution.
Show me the evidence to the contrary.
In physics the top scientists believe we have at
least ten dimensions around us. 4 we know about and 6 we can only speculate about.
They also say we can only see 5% of everything around us and the other 95% is dark matter. Dark matter is every bit as real as you or I or this rock in my hand. Yet all the void of space is made of it.
Please study both sides of the argument before you make up your mind.
I call bullshit. By the way, theists aren't welcome in this forum.
Uh... you do realize Darwin died over 135 years ago? There's been quite a bit of knowledge and understanding gained since he lived, including how the eye evoloved. The evolution of the cell has also been mapped out to a certain extent, and we gain more knowledge about it almost every day. As far as the "odds of that happening by pure chance," please read up on evolution before trying to deconstruct it. Then you'll understand how chaos ("pure chance" ) plays into it, and understand that it is only one teensy part of the whole process. The "pure chance" argument is a strawman erected by those ignorant of actual evolutionary theory.
Further, even if evolution through natural selection turned out to be an incorrect model of the actual physical processes, that still doesn't prove creationism. What you present is a false dichotomy: either evolution is correct, or creationism is correct. That is completely false, There may be a third (or fourth of fifth) model that is more accurate than the theory of evolution through natural selection that also excludes irreducible complexity.
The whole concept of "irreducible complexity" is ontologically and logically stillborn. I hope you go back and actually study "both sides," especially the evolutionary side, instead of simply spouting long-debunked Behe nonsense.
As far as dark matter: "all the void of space" is not made of it. The "void of space" may contain it, but it is not made up of it. Plus, what does dark matter have to do with creationism? That's a new one. I really hope you don't mean to imply that God is composed of dark matter. That'd be really funny.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I'm pretty sure Darwin mapped out a very plausible way that the eye could have evolved when he was alive. In any event, even if he didn't Richard Dawkins did a great job of explaining it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
In fact in one of his many books on the subject of evolution (I belive iit was 'Climbing Mount Improbable') he discussed that eyes were extremely easy to evolve and as such has evolved over 40 times independently of each other in the animal kingdom using several different methods (pin hole, compound, etc..).
If you still have any questions about the evolution of the eye, feel free to post them. I'm sure there are others here that know even more about it then I do.
This is a straw man argument as no respectable biologist that I know thinks that the first cells just formed themselves spontaneously. The single celled organisms that we see today have themselves gone through billions of years of evolution. I am not extremely well versed in this subject, but I can give you a quick synopsis:
Early on, all that was necessary was a molecule that could self replicate, there are several theories about what this molecule could be (the leading candidate at the moment is RNA). This is all that's needed for natural selection. From there any mutation that would cause this molecule to make more copies and higher fidelity copies would soon take over the environment. this can lead to the very first proto-cells or prokaryotes (sp?). If you look at the modern cell many of the organelles can be traced back to these prokaryotes.
Like I said, I'm not the best at explaining these kinds of things, but if you do some more research for yourself on this topic I'm sure you'll find everything you're looking for.
The only cellular biologist I know that has an issue of evolution is Michael Behe, who has had vitually all of his work thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.
I just did. I would definately encourage you to go and do further research on your own. Dawkins has some great books on evolution, and makes things really easy to understand. If you have any other examples that are making it hard for you to accept the theory of evolution then feel free to post them and someone here would be more than happy to give you answers.
I'm a little confused about your dark matter comment and don't understand what you're trying to say. Most of us here (I don't want to speak for everyone) have looked at both sides. We realize that evolution is backed up by truck loads of converging evidence from virtually every scientific field. Creationism is not science and has not provided anything new to thier case that hasn't been easily debunked by real scientists since the scopes trial.
In any event, I hope this helps and I hope you continue to do research on your own with an open mind. Look at real scientific sources, read what real scientists have to say about the subject.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
I imagine everyone here has already seen this, but everyone here really needs to.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.