Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Lovye]

Wow. How extraordinarily unimportant. You do realize he said that six months ago right?

Was this at me?  It's never too late to learn.  You never know, he may be on Jeopardy and need to know this!

[Nick]

Good point. If Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet is ever a question in a trivia game, I will fucking know that answer!

[bettertomorrowamy]

Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on.

No.  That's not true.  It was first proposed by Catholic botanist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet.  ...Forgive me if this has already been stated.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_studied_evolution

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08753c.htm

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/l/lamarck,chevalier_de.html

...and also, you didn't "kick start" things back then....I believe they used cranks.  Now of course we use electric starters in our Evolutionary motivators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_start
http://www.wikihow.com/Request:Crank-Start-a-Model-T

[BathTub]

Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on.

No.  That's not true.  It was first proposed by Catholic botanist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet.  ...Forgive me if this has already been stated.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_studied_evolution

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08753c.htm

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/l/lamarck,chevalier_de.html

Actually I think evolution goes waaaaaay back further,  It was certainly not first proposed by Lamark. The only reason people remember Lamark is his belief that parents passed on gained traits to their kids, Giraffes stretching their necks longer so their kids were born with longer necks, that kind of thing.

The summary you snipped was in this context.

so there's like no common ground for this right?

you're either a rational human being, or a religious nutjob?

It's strange because this isn't strictly 'Science' VS 'Religion', this is Creationists vs Evolution*, many Christians believe in theistic Evolution. It's the official belief of the Catholic Church. This is essentially the Discovery Institute working to get Creationism into the Science Class. Something that has gone to court twice (the first time to the Supreme Court) and both times been thrown out.

One of the odder things used in the film and all the publicity around it is the term Darwinist, or Darwinism. People don't study Darwinism, or become Darwinists. Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on. We don't get become Netwonist because we study physics or optics, we don't become Einsteinists when we study relativity. I think it's a weird move to perhaps attempt to diminish the science or even try to portray it more as a cult of personality.

Darwin's powerful idea was Evolution by Natural Selection, not Evolution. The point of all that was that creationists use the term Darwinist as slur against the Theory of Evolution when in reality the science has moved way beyond his original work. No one argues that his Book was perfect, or his Theory was unalterable.

[DarthChimay]

Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on.

No.  That's not true.  It was first proposed by Catholic botanist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet.  ...Forgive me if this has already been stated.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_studied_evolution

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08753c.htm

http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/l/lamarck,chevalier_de.html

Actually I think evolution goes waaaaaay back further,  It was certainly not first proposed by Lamark. The only reason people remember Lamark is his belief that parents passed on gained traits to their kids, Giraffes stretching their necks longer so their kids were born with longer necks, that kind of thing.

Yep. The idea of evolution has been around at least since 6BC, when the Greek philosopher Anaximander talked about animals having come from the sea and then changed over time to become humans. Granted, his idea on what caused this was a touch off (they came from bark), but the idea was there. Even Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, knew about evolution before Chuckie D.  (as we used to call him) came on the sea. Chuckie just took it, added natural selection, and blew out the time needed for species to change, thanks to work done by Charles Lyell.

The summary you snipped was in this context.

so there's like no common ground for this right?

you're either a rational human being, or a religious nutjob?

It's strange because this isn't strictly 'Science' VS 'Religion', this is Creationists vs Evolution*, many Christians believe in theistic Evolution. It's the official belief of the Catholic Church. This is essentially the Discovery Institute working to get Creationism into the Science Class. Something that has gone to court twice (the first time to the Supreme Court) and both times been thrown out.

One of the odder things used in the film and all the publicity around it is the term Darwinist, or Darwinism. People don't study Darwinism, or become Darwinists. Charles Darwin is the guy who kicked started things off, he had a powerful idea, was wrong in many places, but gave the science a powerful start, but the subject has moved on. We don't get become Netwonist because we study physics or optics, we don't become Einsteinists when we study relativity. I think it's a weird move to perhaps attempt to diminish the science or even try to portray it more as a cult of personality.

Darwin's powerful idea was Evolution by Natural Selection, not Evolution. The point of all that was that creationists use the term Darwinist as slur against the Theory of Evolution when in reality the science has moved way beyond his original work. No one argues that his Book was perfect, or his Theory was unalterable.

Darwin's idea worked far better than one of his contemporaries, Pete "Dodgy Spoon" McMannimus, who claimed that species thrived dependent on whether or not they were eaten by supernatural clowns.

[jewishcarpenter]

Roger Ebert has written a fairly substantial piece on the film called "Win Ben Steins Mind"

What's next, trying to prove that dragons exist so that the dragon can try to eat the baby as Revelations stated?)

Sorry to go off-topic but I was under the impression that was a reference to constellations and stars.

[Tripe]

Roger Ebert has written a fairly substantial piece on the film called "Win Ben Steins Mind"

What's next, trying to prove that dragons exist so that the dragon can try to eat the baby as Revelations stated?)

Sorry to go off-topic but I was under the impression that was a reference to constellations and stars.

There are passages of Revelation related to stars but, unless it s a reference to Draco, the passage with the dragon and the baby isn't one of them.

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

Roger Ebert has written a fairly substantial piece on the film called "Win Ben Steins Mind"

What's next, trying to prove that dragons exist so that the dragon can try to eat the baby as Revelations stated?)

Sorry to go off-topic but I was under the impression that was a reference to constellations and stars.

There are passages of Revelation related to stars but, unless it s a reference to Draco, the passage with the dragon and the baby isn't one of them.

Here is the scripture I was referencing:

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.  She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.  Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and then horns and seven crowns on his heads.  His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.  The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to be give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.  She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.  The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1, 260 days.  Revelations 12: 1- 6 NIV

It continues with war in heaven where the dragon is revealed as Satan, him getting thrown to Earth and after realizing it continues hunting the woman who is saved by a giant eagle and placed in a safe place for a time, times and half a time and then she gets swept away by a great amount of the dragon's spit which the earth then opens up to receive the spit.  The dragon gets pissed and goes after her other offspring, the Christians, and he then stands at the shoreline and waits for his homeboy, the Beast out of the sea.

Remember:  John's Revelation is an apocalyptic work and as good ole Wikipedia says "Apocalypse" is from the Greek word for "revelation" which means "an unveiling or unfolding of things not previously known and which could not be known apart from the unveiling" (Goswiller 1987 p. 3). The poetry of the Book of Revelation that is traditionally ascribed to John is well known to many Christians who are otherwise unaware of the literary genre it represents."  These works can be prophetic or they simply can be referencing current events through metaphor and allegory.  The intent for the most part would be assumed to be the latter while the former is possible if it is Divinely inspired.  When you are lambasting Antiochus IV or the Roman emperors, its better not to be too obvious.  So if it sounds utterly absurd, its meant to be.

Now for my translation of it:

Since Christians are referenced later as the offspring of the woman, the woman is a metaphor for the Jewish state and people with the crown being the 12 tribes.  When birth pains are mentioned, it usually means a period of turmoil and persecution, a "groaning of the earth" against sin. Also note the possible reference to Herod's attempt to kill Jesus as a baby.  Make of the dragon as you will.

The last two confuses me though.  Obviously the child is Christ, but it mentions 1,260 days which is equivalent to 3.5 years, the time that Jesus's ministry was.  Of course since the woman is the Jews, could it be prophetic for that the Diaspora that Titus caused would be thousands of years?

Anyhow, now you know what I was meaning to say by that reference.

[Tripe]

No, I knew the passage you were referring to.

I wasn't sure how it related to what JC was saying, I'm still not. The mention of stars in the passage is incidental as far as other references to stars in Revelation go (most notably Wormwood) 

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

No, I knew the passage you were referring to.

I wasn't sure how it related to what JC was saying, I'm still not. The mention of stars in the passage is incidental as far as other references to starts in Revelation go (most notably Wormwood) 

Of course, of course.  I merely clarified my reference for others who were confused on the issue.  My explanation was significantly over-wrought I must say.  It happens when I put on the many hats that I have, but of course being very small hats at this time they tend to fall off my head here and there.

[Thrifty]

I love the "No missing link" thing. It's so blatant, it's funny.
Whenever someone finds some fossils that seem to link two creatures, ID/Creationist folks just ask for a link between the new fossil and the old ones. The links just get narrower and narrower, with the creationists remaining unimpressed.

Kirk Cameron is waiting for us to find a "bunny-gator" or something.

Crocoduck actually, although he has a couple other examples. 

I think the idea is that for evolution to be proven, you need this:

1) Crocodile mysteriously gives birth to crocoduck.
2) Crocoduck mysteriously gives birth to duck.
3) Crocodiles and ducks live together, occasionally giving birth to crocoducks.

So evolution taking more than 2 generations is not evolution.  I think that's how it goes.

[Tripe]

And the thing is, substituting the basic description for the name "crocoduck" we get this:

There's never a creature with both saurian and avian characteristics

is patent bollocks:

Spoiler

[DarthChimay]

And the thing is, substituting the basic description for the name "crocoduck" we get this:

There's never a creature with both saurian and avian characteristics

is patent bollocks:

Spoiler

Whatever. That's just a bird with arthritis.

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

And the thing is, substituting the basic description for the name "crocoduck" we get this:

There's never a creature with both saurian and avian characteristics

is patent bollocks:

Spoiler

Whatever. That's just a bird with arthritis.

Science and Its Evil Empire by Jojerick Hajenron

Chapter 5 - The Mass Extinction or First Rapture?

Neo-darwinists like to taut the bones and seeming evidence of the mass extinction 65 millions years ago Before Common Era (their true intentions appear when one just looks at what they revise).  Of course, it is impossible for the Earth to be this old since it invalidates everything we know about the present Earth.  Why would there be oranges and apples suitable for humans to eat if such a long period of time actually happened?  Would not the fruit that would "evolve" be completely unsuitable for human consumption?  Would not the shark sooner or later have risen out of the sea and consumed humanity before now?  What grotesque natural process would give the giraffe such a neck as to be make more possible the chances of that neck snapping?  These questions are necessary for the atheist to answer if they wish to be taken seriously.

....

What then of all those bones then?  I have an answer to this, but I first have another criticism of a sect of believers of evolution.  That would be those who also try to justify believing in both evolution and Christianity.  These false prophets are double-minded and foolish.  The two beliefs are entirely incompatible.  In the opinion of this writer, Jesus would not sit at the same table as Buddha.  Evolution wishes to equate humanity as merely straighter backed chimps in circus clothes on an unicycle.  Christianity elevates man to a greater height than any previous philosophy or religion, such as Atheism and Jehovah's Witnesses.  To believe one makes the man hypocritical with the other.  It is like thinking that peanut butter and ham make the best quick sandwiches.

...

To soften the problem of how the so-called Mass Extinction makes the divine look arbitrary and cruel, I have taken a good look at the last book and come up with the answer.  What animal best fit the description of the dragon?  I believe that it is the Tyrannosaurus Rex.  What monstrosities would best fit the agents of the Enemy?  Look at any child's dinosaur book at there would be your answer.  In short, though there was many of these creatures that were all killed off, many more was spared a demise and taken, you could say, to a storage shed in heaven.  Once the true Rapture has occurred, the gates to this storage shed will open and all these huge reptiles will emerge to wreck havoc and death.  Would it not be presumptuous of the Enemy to be riding one of these himself at this final battle?

Never second guess the impossibly nutty.

[ScottotD]

that HAS to be a joke.