Expelled Movie

[BrutalB83]

Wiki's abiogenesis article is decent. For the books, no, we haven't been able to create life. Once we do such, then the theories get MUCH stronger.

Alright then, I'll be sure to check it out. Thank you.

If you want to get into origin theories... funny enough, panspermia is the theory that got a shot in the arm recently with some decent evidence in its favor. It's possible and makes a whole lot of sense. The problem with origin theories is that we've got so little to go on versus everything else... where else have we seen life or know where life has started? We can see evolution, we can see it work and see its effects. Origins are another story.

Are you talking about Panspermia in the sense of an accidental transfering of biological material through meteorites and whatnot, or an intentional "seeding" of biological material by other forms of intelligent life?

I am simply showing that you are aiming at the wrong target. Looking towards evolution for life origins is going to yield nothing. In contrast, the origins of life could be pretty much anything... from panspermia to a pink unicorn from Jupiter. The reason science does not touch on ID or creationism is simply because God or any other supernatural being simply isn't science. No tests can be made, no predictions, no evidence, and most importantly of the bunch... no ability to be falsified. All scientific theories can be falsified, find a horse fossil in the Precambrian area of the geologic column and evolution is toast. ID/Creationism simply say "Goddidit" and continue on. It's not science.

Right, yeah. I suppose that belief in ID is highly influenced by one's faith. Any evidence in favor of ID is probably that much more convincing to folks who are religious because belief in God (for them anyway) is fact. From a scientific and theoretical perspective however, you're completely right. It really can't be considered science since it's not testable in any way.

Thanks for the insights. I'll do some reading.

 

[TurboMirage]

until this thread i figured it was a broken lizard/comedy type of movie about college.

moving on

 

[BrutalB83]

Yeah, that's kind of what the previews make it look like...

 

[Sabz5150]

Are you talking about Panspermia in the sense of an accidental transfering of biological material through meteorites and whatnot, or an intentional "seeding" of biological material by other forms of intelligent life?

"Traditional" panspermia. The first building blocks of life were hitching a ride on an asteroid and it slammed into Earth.

Did Life Begin In Space? New Evidence From Comets

The concept of intentional seeding is "directed panspermia" and is catalogged under Intelligent Design. Life arising by the work of an 'intelligent agency'.

Right, yeah. I suppose that belief in ID is highly influenced by one's faith. Any evidence in favor of ID is probably that much more convincing to folks who are religious because belief in God (for them anyway) is fact. From a scientific and theoretical perspective however, you're completely right. It really can't be considered science since it's not testable in any way.

And that is all why ID is not taught in classrooms.

Thanks for the insights. I'll do some reading.

No prob. Also, for the books, my whole "being nicer" comment wasn't aimed at any sort of belittling... it's that normally when I debate evolution, it is with people who honestly believe that the Earth is 4000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs.

Oh, and that they breathe fire.

 

[BrutalB83]

"Traditional" panspermia. The first building blocks of life were hitching a ride on an asteroid and it slammed into Earth.

Did Life Begin In Space? New Evidence From Comets

The concept of intentional seeding is "directed panspermia" and is catalogged under Intelligent Design. Life arising by the work of an 'intelligent agency'.

Ah, ok. Yeah, that's actually the reason I was asking because I figured that the concept of directed panspermia could fall under the category of ID.

No prob. Also, for the books, my whole "being nicer" comment wasn't aimed at any sort of belittling... it's that normally when I debate evolution, it is with people who honestly believe that the Earth is 4000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs.

Oh, and that they breathe fire.

Right. And just so you know where I stand, I am definitely NOT one of those persons. I don't think it could be anymore obvious that the earth is billions of years old. And even for religious persons, I think this should be obvious. Every ancient culture had their own "origin of life" stories and myths, and the story presented in Genesis should be taken as just that, ancient Isreal's version of the creation myth. To believe that stories like that should be taken literally in this day and age is simply ignorant.

I'm definitely going to do some reading this weekend. Thanks again for all the info! Some rep for you, sir!

 

[TurboMirage]

so is this even worth watching? i dont like documentaries. i like comedy. any of that?

 

[nootrac22]

sure, if you like laughing at people who've convinced themselves that the earth is only 4000 years old

 

[TurboMirage]

wait, it isnt?

 

[Celerity]

Ben Stein was on Glenn Beck talking about it. I think the point of the documentary is going to be completely missed by the masses.

He summed it up very nicely on the show: If you're pro evolution or creation or intelligent design, or whatever - you have to start your baseline at the sanctity of human life

I would change a few words in there, but it's a good point. Evolution teaches us that when we die, we go in the ground and become worm food. We are born, we are gone. Blink. Done. It's a depressing notion.

As a nice counterargument to Evolution (vs intelligent design) it's open minded to observe the sheer size of our galaxy, the universe and everything. To assume that we're the only thing out there is ignorant - Moving forward, take the breadth of the universe and apply it as it's depth: To assume we are the first intelligence is equally as ignorant.

Our solar system is full of oddities. Everywhere you look are exceptions to the rule: Strange behaviors that ruin models. Venus has an opposite spin, our own moon is perfectly in orbit, Saturns moon Iapetus has a shape and orbit that breaks the mold, and is perfect. Among other things, there is a divided hall of scientists who believe there are artificial structures on the Moon and Mars, and that life on Mars is ancient and looks a lot like it has been deserted.

Colonization of Earth is a plausible theory. It may be not a bearded white guy named "God", but it certainly follows the idea that life could have been planted here, or cultivated.

If you read the quotes and thoughts of Ramtha (I know I know.. Mrs Knight is a fuckin wierdo) her / his theories put notions of God within the realm of science and quantum physics (All of heaven is so grand as the universe, but fits within the grain of sand)

 

[Sabz5150]

Ben Stein was on Glenn Beck talking about it. I think the point of the documentary is going to be completely missed by the masses.

He summed it up very nicely on the show: If you're pro evolution or creation or intelligent design, or whatever - you have to start your baseline at the sanctity of human life

I would change a few words in there, but it's a good point. Evolution teaches us that when we die, we go in the ground and become worm food. We are born, we are gone. Blink. Done. It's a depressing notion.

As a nice counterargument to Evolution (vs intelligent design) it's open minded to observe the sheer size of our galaxy, the universe and everything. To assume that we're the only thing out there is ignorant - Moving forward, take the breadth of the universe and apply it as it's depth: To assume we are the first intelligence is equally as ignorant.

Our solar system is full of oddities. Everywhere you look are exceptions to the rule: Strange behaviors that ruin models. Venus has an opposite spin, our own moon is perfectly in orbit, Saturns moon Iapetus has a shape and orbit that breaks the mold, and is perfect. Among other things, there is a divided hall of scientists who believe there are artificial structures on the Moon and Mars, and that life on Mars is ancient and looks a lot like it has been deserted.

Colonization of Earth is a plausible theory. It may be not a bearded white guy named "God", but it certainly follows the idea that life could have been planted here, or cultivated.

If you read the quotes and thoughts of Ramtha (I know I know.. Mrs Knight is a fuckin wierdo) her / his theories put notions of God within the realm of science and quantum physics (All of heaven is so grand as the universe, but fits within the grain of sand)

Reality is hardly sugar coated.

Evolution teaches NOTHING about "what happens when we die". On the contrary, religion teaches us that we go to a magical place where everyone's waiting with open arms.

I gotta wonder Cel... how could you mix those two up?

You're trying to point towards a supernatural being... something which, by definition, is beyond any scientific realm. It cannot be scientific because it cannot be tested in any form or fashion. You cannot "control" God.

There are no theories whatsoever pointing towards any deity. Hypotheses, yes. Theories, no.

 

[BrutalB83]

UPDATE!

I did actually see the film.

so is this even worth watching? i dont like documentaries. i like comedy. any of that?

There are some funny parts, both in just the conversations he has with people and via some animated sequences and re-dubbed 50s era video clips. It does get rather slow and technical at times though.

sure, if you like laughing at people who've convinced themselves that the earth is only 4000 years old

Surprisingly there wasn't really any of that at all in the movie. All the scientists who were pro Intelligent Design were of the thought that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution did occur, but that life was set in place by some kind of intelligent designer.

My thoughts on the movie:

It's interesting for sure. The first half of the movie talks about a bunch of scientists who have either been dismissed, denied tenure, or had their funding pulled because of some association to the idea of Intelligent Design (they got "expelled" from the scientific community, hence the film's title). Some of this does seem somewhat unfair, but I've read other places that the quality of some of these people's academic work had been lacking in recent years, and that's why they were dismissed, denied tenure, didn't have their contracts renewed, etc. Who knows where the truth actually falls...

The second half of the movie delves more into pitting the idea of atheism against the idea of Intelligent Design. It actually does delve somewhat into abiogenesis theories and the theory of panspermia (but only really from the perspective of directed seeding). I actually found myself thinking back to the conversation that I had here with Sabz; part of the problem with the film is that it tends to pit ID against Darwinian evolution, but that's like comparing apples and oranges. ID is an origin hypothesis, wheras evolution is a theoretical explanation of how we went from single-celled organisms to where we are now.

Some of the stuff about Darwin was clearly misinformed (or just misrepresented). They tried to form some type of correlation between atheistic theory and Nazism (Holocaust akin to survival of the fittest) as a "warning" of sorts to where unrestrained atheistic thought can lead. I found this argument to be pretty weak and not really necessary to the film. While I can see how one can look at those two things and see similarities, the concept of Darwinian evolution certainly wasn't the catalyst behind Hitler and Nazi Germany. As I recall, the Nazis burned Darwin's books right along with countless others they deemed unhealthy and unfit to be read.

Overall, I'd say it's an interesting piece, and funny at times, but clearly biased. It might be worth renting or seeing in the dollar theater (as I did), but probably not worth paying full price for...spend that $10 on Iron Man instead...

 

[Sabz5150]

UPDATE!

I did actually see the film.



There are some funny parts, both in just the conversations he has with people and via some animated sequences and re-dubbed 50s era video clips. It does get rather slow and technical at times though.



Surprisingly there wasn't really any of that at all in the movie. All the scientists who were pro Intelligent Design were of the thought that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution did occur, but that life was set in place by some kind of intelligent designer.

My thoughts on the movie:

It's interesting for sure. The first half of the movie talks about a bunch of scientists who have either been dismissed, denied tenure, or had their funding pulled because of some association to the idea of Intelligent Design (they got "expelled" from the scientific community, hence the film's title). Some of this does seem somewhat unfair, but I've read other places that the quality of some of these people's academic work had been lacking in recent years, and that's why they were dismissed, denied tenure, didn't have their contracts renewed, etc. Who knows where the truth actually falls...

The second half of the movie delves more into pitting the idea of atheism against the idea of Intelligent Design. It actually does delve somewhat into abiogenesis theories and the theory of panspermia (but only really from the perspective of directed seeding). I actually found myself thinking back to the conversation that I had here with Sabz; part of the problem with the film is that it tends to pit ID against Darwinian evolution, but that's like comparing apples and oranges. ID is an origin hypothesis, wheras evolution is a theoretical explanation of how we went from single-celled organisms to where we are now.

Some of the stuff about Darwin was clearly misinformed (or just misrepresented). They tried to form some type of correlation between atheistic theory and Nazism (Holocaust akin to survival of the fittest) as a "warning" of sorts to where unrestrained atheistic thought can lead. I found this argument to be pretty weak and not really necessary to the film. While I can see how one can look at those two things and see similarities, the concept of Darwinian evolution certainly wasn't the catalyst behind Hitler and Nazi Germany. As I recall, the Nazis burned Darwin's books right along with countless others they deemed unhealthy and unfit to be read.

Overall, I'd say it's an interesting piece, and funny at times, but clearly biased. It might be worth renting or seeing in the dollar theater (as I did), but probably not worth paying full price for...spend that $10 on Iron Man instead...

Alrightey, you've seen it! Now, just because I am me... I am gonna point out approximately sixty seconds of that flick that makes it eat itself.

Did you remember the part with Dawkins when he was asked whether there's a form of ID that he would classify as scientific? His response was "Directed Panspermia", correct?

Ben gives you that sarcastic "yeah, right" look...

But isn't that... intelligent design?

 

[90_EF_Hatch]

hmmm ... people like to defend evolution by telling people to prove Intelligent Design right,

But who has proved it wrong yet??? no one.

So why are people hating on scientists who assosciate with ID instead of Evolution, it seems absurd to me.

I remember reading in history when people SWORE the earth was flat, and any one who didnt believe it was flat was a dumb ass, because you could obviously see its flat right??

Science is about diversity and exploring all variations of a question, not about guessing at an answer and telling anyone who questions that answer to fuck off.

 

[Sabz5150]

hmmm ... people like to defend evolution by telling people to prove Intelligent Design right,

But who has proved it wrong yet??? no one.

Things aren't proven wrong. They are proven right.

Example: The world was created by a pink unicorn from Jupiter. Prove me wrong.

So why are people hating on scientists who assosciate with ID instead of Evolution, it seems absurd to me.

Because ID is not science. Plain and simple. Also, if you look at the details, you will find that several of these "expulsions" were taken WAY out of context. One person was fired for circumventing the scientific method, one was never fired... or actually never had a job.

I remember reading in history when people SWORE the earth was flat, and any one who didnt believe it was flat was a dumb ass, because you could obviously see its flat right??

Actually, people knew the Earth was round for millenia. Seeing the Earth's curvature does that.

Science is about diversity and exploring all variations of a question, not about guessing at an answer and telling anyone who questions that answer to fuck off.

Guess what! That's what ID and the Disc. Ins. does!


Oh boy!!!! This is fun!!!

 

[TommyTheCat]

Actually, it is easiest to prove something wrong that has some sort of evidence. The problem is that your statement of the unicorn has no evidence - so there is no use attempting to prove it wrong.

But in mathematics, the quickest way to disprove something is to find one counter-example. It is impossible (and unnecessary) to prove something right because you couldn't document every case in which it is true.

 

[BrutalB83]

Alrightey, you've seen it! Now, just because I am me... I am gonna point out approximately sixty seconds of that flick that makes it eat itself.

Did you remember the part with Dawkins when he was asked whether there's a form of ID that he would classify as scientific? His response was "Directed Panspermia", correct?

Ben gives you that sarcastic "yeah, right" look...

But isn't that... intelligent design?

Right, like that's supposed to be the icing on the cake. It still doesn't offer any proof or evidence of a supernatural creator in any way...

EDIT: BA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! I just noticed your avatar is the chick sucking on the nub!

 

[Sabz5150]

Actually, it is easiest to prove something wrong that has some sort of evidence. The problem is that your statement of the unicorn has no evidence - so there is no use attempting to prove it wrong.

The Unicorn has as much evidence as God.

But in mathematics, the quickest way to disprove something is to find one counter-example. It is impossible (and unnecessary) to prove something right because you couldn't document every case in which it is true.

This is not mathematics. Confusing the two is a quick way to misunderstand the subject.

 

[90_EF_Hatch]

well no one has proved evolution right, so i will stick with my pink unicorn

as far as i see it there is more evidence for ID than Evolution

 

[Sabz5150]

well no one has proved evolution right, so i will stick with my pink unicorn

as far as i see it there is more evidence for ID than Evolution

Betcha I can 'prove you wrong'

Oh, and evolution itself is fact. The path that evolution has taken... that's the theory, the part that changes here and there.

 

[BrutalB83]

well no one has proved evolution right, so i will stick with my pink unicorn

as far as i see it there is more evidence for ID than Evolution

Such as?