We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Ben Stein interviewed on BNN (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7..14~15~16 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20662 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Payne you are actually making my point for me. Zeus, Buddah, God, Jehova, science, Darwin, however you get through the day. But oddlly enough YOU do more judging of anyone than any "religious" person I have ever seen. Pretty funny to watch really so please don't stop.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Daniel Santos
View Profile
Special user
562 Posts

Profile of Daniel Santos
As a matter of fact, you're all wrong.

As a Pastafarian, I must admit that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true creator of all. Unfortunately, He was intoxicated at the time of creation, thus making all things flawed. Additionally, global warming is the result of a huge decrease in number of pirates since the 1800s.

RAmen

(Yes, this is a joke. Smile)
If it is to be, it is up to me.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 01:27, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 00:02, Chessmann wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-20 22:40, Payne wrote:

The fundamentals of evolutionary theory have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.



Payne, you have just lost whatever credibility you may have had. This is "Robert W. Funk bad".


So prove me wrong. What evidence do you have to support that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? It is the most widely accepted explanation by serious scientists as to how life developed on this planet. So far no viable alternative theory has been put forward that fits with the evidence we have.


Payne, you have GOT to be kidding me? Prove you wrong? How about proving your position RIGHT before making the incredible claim that evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt! The whole world knows that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and not just that, it simply crumbles under the weight of its own - many - unanswered questions!). But then, in your next sentence, you then claim only that it is the "most widely accepted explanation". Had you stuck with that, you would have no argument from me.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:

Payne wrote:
I don't need to deny its (God's) existence. It does a great job of denying it own existence by not providing any evidence for its existence.


An interesting quote from one whose worldview can give an account for....nothing.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
This argument between the realm of the sentimental (feelings) and the rational (measurable) is entertaining even if sad.

Of course it's more comforting to put a benevolent sentience behind the measurably random events we find in the world. No disputing the basic tastes on that one. For matters of predicting outcomes of measurable things it has yet to be shown that any experimental outcome is affected by the personally held beliefs of those doing the experiments as regards there being any particular benevolent sentience (or plethora therof) or even a malevolent sentience (well if you put in the second law of thermodynamics you might get some leeway on that one) behind the measurable world.

To be blunt, that's what distinguishes science from religion. Science looks for patterns in what one can experience which don't depend upon one's personal beliefs. Religion offers a model by which one can sentimentally relate to and find a positive value in what one experiences. The hose pulls the cart down the road. The cart holds the food for the horse. Why are we trying to argue one is in conflict with the other?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 17:35, Chessmann wrote:

Payne, you have GOT to be kidding me? Prove you wrong? How about proving your position RIGHT before making the incredible claim that evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt! The whole world knows that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and not just that, it simply crumbles under the weight of its own - many - unanswered questions!). But then, in your next sentence, you then claim only that it is the "most widely accepted explanation". Had you stuck with that, you would have no argument from me.


Start with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

then move along to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

and then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

in fact watch all of this guys videos as they are quite informative and very well produced

after you've worked through these then go through this series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=related
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Image


:)
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
Glad you found it ^


Quote:
On 2008-09-21 15:40, Dannydoyle wrote:

Since this is the cornerstone of your arguement, "we have fossils and we win" then when your fossils are proved to be an outright haox, you then by extension lose, and lose badly.

.


"when your fossils.." How long have these fossils been around? How many types of dating procedures have been done on them? I think the Hoax thing is a little bit out of reach. Its not like its bigfoot or anything. it would be the biggest conspiracy ever put forth-and it would be evolutionists who did it, always a devious group.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
If the fossils are some kind of hoax - don't you think there would be all sorts of "counter hoax" findings to make it obvious - like ... well why give these sad people ideas.

Yes - if it's not what you want to find it's a hoax...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 18:18, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 17:35, Chessmann wrote:

Payne, you have GOT to be kidding me? Prove you wrong? How about proving your position RIGHT before making the incredible claim that evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt! The whole world knows that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and not just that, it simply crumbles under the weight of its own - many - unanswered questions!). But then, in your next sentence, you then claim only that it is the "most widely accepted explanation". Had you stuck with that, you would have no argument from me.


Start with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

then move along to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

and then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

in fact watch all of this guys videos as they are quite informative and very well produced

after you've worked through these then go through this series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=related


Payne, I clicked on the first video, and within 2 minutes it was clear that we were going to be treated to a very biased, inconsistent and illogical presentation, talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!

Who produced these videos? I didn't notice any claim to ownership, etc....
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 19:21, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
If the fossils are some kind of hoax - don't you think there would be all sorts of "counter hoax" findings to make it obvious - like ... well why give these sad people ideas.

Yes - if it's not what you want to find it's a hoax...


If one wants to be taken seriously, one needs to argue vs. the best arguments that the other side has to offer. Likewise, one's own arguments have to be on as high a level as possible. Otherwise, the result is embarassment.

In an earlier post, someone posted info about Kent Hovind, a fairly prominent creationist. He has done some work in other areas that is quite frankly, bad. If he cannot be trusted to do competent research in one area, why should one believe his info on creationism (or vs. evolution) is going to be worth a crap? Likewise, it is not very expedient for someone to present negative info on Kent Hovind in an attempt to further a pro-evolution point of view.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 19:51, Chessmann wrote:

Payne, I clicked on the first video, and within 2 minutes it was clear that we were going to be treated to a very biased, inconsistent and illogical presentation, talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!

Who produced these videos? I didn't notice any claim to ownership, etc....



It's on the left hand side of the screen

"The 'Made Easy' series is designed to explain the evidence that shows how we got here, from the Big bang to human migration out of Africa, and to counter the unsupported idea that this somehow happened through the power of an invisible being.

A better quality version will soon be available for free download from a website -- details to be announced. I will be happy to send DVDs free of charge to schools after the series is finished

The 'Made Easy' series of videos can be freely copied and distributed for educational purposes, but cannot be used for commercial gain in whole or in part. They cannot be altered, transformed or added to. If you use repost these videos you must attribute them to on YouTube.

I've been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology, but while working for a science magazine and several science programs I had to tackle a number of different fields, from quantum physics to microbiology.

Anyone is free to post on the fora, and ALL views are welcome. You won't find that on most fundamentalist channels, but I have nothing to fear from open discussion or criticism."

If you have any questions as to the information contained of these excellent videos you should direct them to him via his YouTube account.

As for your statement that "talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!"

That is not what he is saying. He is presenting a hypothesis of how organic molocules formed out of inorganic ones. Not about the creation of matter itself.

That would be touched on here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9......&index=0
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20662 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 18:45, kcg5 wrote:
Glad you found it ^


Quote:
On 2008-09-21 15:40, Dannydoyle wrote:

Since this is the cornerstone of your arguement, "we have fossils and we win" then when your fossils are proved to be an outright haox, you then by extension lose, and lose badly.

.


"when your fossils.." How long have these fossils been around? How many types of dating procedures have been done on them? I think the Hoax thing is a little bit out of reach. Its not like its bigfoot or anything. it would be the biggest conspiracy ever put forth-and it would be evolutionists who did it, always a devious group.


But speaking of hoaxes what about the evolution hoaxes? Piltdown man for example. In 1912 I think it was He miraculaously appeared in a gravel pit in Sussex England. Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered a skull with a human cranium and an apelike jaw in Piltdown Quarry. It was a creature not quite ape, not quite man, a TRANSITIONAL SPECIES. Big headlines EVOLUTION PROVEN TRUE. It was peer reviewed, and dated and so forth. Yep true as can be.

Then in 1953, bam radiocarbon dating proved it a tremendous hoax. A thousand year old human and the jaw of a modern orangutan. OOPS. If this "theory" is so real, why does it need so much help?

But if you read a book by paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Robert Carroll, "Patters and processes of Vertebrate Evolution, pp 2-4 even HE ADMITS "very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil record". This is a huge defender of evolution who has to take as a tennent of FAITH most of the fossil record.

Leaving aside some of the issues such as opposable thumbs, moral sense and consciousness of morality you believe that random mutation of desirable attributes happens. Natureal selection weeds out those less fit, and that leads to the creation of new species.

My favorite Darwin quote really says it all. Now rember he knew nothing of DNA. Nothing of cells and so forth. All the evolutionists seem to miss this quote for some reason, it must not be on WIKI. "If it could be demonstrated that ant complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive , slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So lets get to the idea that a bacterial moror, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The removal of any almost any ONE of them renders the flagellum useless. An animal cells whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Michael Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap. Though there are only a few parts to a mouse trap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve a usefull function. If one is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that only catches a mouse half the time, you don't get a mousetrap at all. Then went on to prove the mathematical impossability of evolving with 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 protein parts.

Even evolutionists like Tom Cavalier-Smith were forced to concede the point. He is at the University of British Columbia. "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explination of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity." Many others have no choice but to admit it, but don't worry Payne, don't let your heart sink, they have FAITH they will prove it some day.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20662 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Payne, I have no desire for this to be some sort of debate. You post as if things are fact, and they are far from it. You are a biggot when it comes to things like this plain and simple. Maybe it is possible you come across harsh when you are trying to be more funny, but either way you are a biggot against the religious.

You claim debates are over, when they are hardly begun. I find the whole debate pointless as you will never admit that you have no darn idea where things came from. You have an "opinion" which is far less optomistic than the reilgious viewpoint. You are despirate to be the smartest guy in the room and you are crazy to prove the non existance of God. Funny proving a negative is not possible, and someone with such a scientific background should know it LOL.

You have your beliefs and your religion, why not just allow others theirs?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 20:53, Payne wrote:
As for your statement that "talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!"

That is not what he is saying. He is presenting a hypothesis of how organic molocules formed out of inorganic ones. Not about the creation of matter itself.

That would be touched on here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9......&index=0


Thanks, Payne. I see your point - I was getting ahead of myself. I'm tempted to ask you another question, re: the inorganic molecules (where did they come from), but I think I'll first watch the rest of the series - and then ask again if this thead is still here.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 21:04, Dannydoyle wrote:

So lets get to the idea that a bacterial moror, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The removal of any almost any ONE of them renders the flagellum useless. An animal cells whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Michael Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap. Though there are only a few parts to a mouse trap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve a usefull function. If one is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that only catches a mouse half the time, you don't get a mousetrap at all. Then went on to prove the mathematical impossability of evolving with 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 protein parts.

That was debunked a while back. This video goes into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko

You can skip ahead to 2:40 to get to the meat of it.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 21:12, Dannydoyle wrote:

You have your beliefs and your religion, why not just allow others theirs?



Because unfortunately there are those who want their belief system to be mine. Social conservatives who want to legislate my beliefs and behaviours because they feel it violates the precepts of their bronze age deity.
We live in a secular state and sometimes the only way to keep it that way is to push back at those who would like to see this country become a "Christian" Nation.

Sneaking Creationism into the schools under the guise of Intelligent Design is just one of the ways the religious right is trying to inflict their belief system on others.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Payne, what belief(s) of yours do you think these "social conservatives" want to legislate? You state that they "want to legislate" your beliefs. Do you believe that they wish to *enforce* your belief in the Chistian God?
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
4145 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 22:18, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-21 21:04, Dannydoyle wrote:

So lets get to the idea that a bacterial moror, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The removal of any almost any ONE of them renders the flagellum useless. An animal cells whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Michael Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap. Though there are only a few parts to a mouse trap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve a usefull function. If one is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that only catches a mouse half the time, you don't get a mousetrap at all. Then went on to prove the mathematical impossability of evolving with 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 protein parts.

That was debunked a while back. This video goes into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko

You can skip ahead to 2:40 to get to the meat of it.


After watching the video, unfortunately all we are able to really get is Miller's assertions (he was speaking before a group of unknown people). Not "the proof, and here's why". I see also that Behe has taken Miller to task in print. I'll be interested to scrounge up more from these two.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2008-09-22 00:23, Chessmann wrote:

After watching the video, unfortunately all we are able to really get is Miller's assertions (he was speaking before a group of unknown people). Not "the proof, and here's why".

It does give you the information you need, if you wanted to research this further in the scientific literature. That's really all you can ask of such a short video, isn't it? I mean, do you or I have the scientific training to understand the answer even if he spelled it out clearly? I certainly do not. I was already lost when he started naming chemical compounds.

However, even if you or I do not have the scientific training to understand the details, the video does give a reasonable explanation as to how these so-called 'irreducibly complex' structures can come about. Specifically, some of the parts changed their function along the way (e.g., imagine a stinger becoming a propeller) and / or some intermediate parts fell away as the structure developed.

The end result only appears 'irreducibly complex' because we were not there to witness the process from start to finish.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Ben Stein interviewed on BNN (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7..14~15~16 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL