9/02/2008
Danger! Blogging!
Just fer fun… read some movie “reviews” of Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” but there’s a catch… as of now I have not seen a real review… nothing about was it clever?, funny?, poorly or well made… just the standard angry tirade and condescending putdowns against anyone questioning the “sacred” dogma of evolution… most have done EXACTLY what Ben Stein was illustrating! How’s that for irony? They are entitled to their prejudices and opinions… but I hoping for a review. Well I did see the word “loaded” at lot… and monkey, sucker, and the ultimate loaded word... Christian Conservative.
An Example: (from Roger Moore Orlando Sentinel)
“Shockingly, the ‘experts’ Stein hurls against evolution are disgruntled, under-credentialed academics dismissed from lesser colleges, they say because they say they wanted to teach creation rather than science. Other ‘experts’ in the film come from anti-evolution "think tank" cranks…”
Please Roger, open up... How do you really feel?
I guess “disgruntled” means not buying the evolution claptrap… or wanting to explore other options, to (try and) explain the incredible complexity of life. But anyone who questions the "faith" is automatically "disgruntled and under-credentialed"! That Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern atheism is not denied by anyone, especially atheists!
Which leads to this observation... Can atheists happy?... as they seem to be ALWAYS angry (at who?) and happiness and anger are exclusive of each other... (unless I guess, being angry makes you happy?)
When one rebels against G-d, all that is left is EGO... and ego has an insatiable appetite... must ALWAYS be fed, and is a fearsome merciless master! This is why most atheists deceive themselves into “presenting… as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun” and are soooo damn condesending... because that feeling of superiority is ALL they have! They are so pathetic!
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw one… “He who dies with the most toys wins” (wins what?) It should read “He who dies with the most toys… is still dead!”
RedNeckoBlogger
An Example: (from Roger Moore Orlando Sentinel)
“Shockingly, the ‘experts’ Stein hurls against evolution are disgruntled, under-credentialed academics dismissed from lesser colleges, they say because they say they wanted to teach creation rather than science. Other ‘experts’ in the film come from anti-evolution "think tank" cranks…”
Please Roger, open up... How do you really feel?
I guess “disgruntled” means not buying the evolution claptrap… or wanting to explore other options, to (try and) explain the incredible complexity of life. But anyone who questions the "faith" is automatically "disgruntled and under-credentialed"! That Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern atheism is not denied by anyone, especially atheists!
Which leads to this observation... Can atheists happy?... as they seem to be ALWAYS angry (at who?) and happiness and anger are exclusive of each other... (unless I guess, being angry makes you happy?)
When one rebels against G-d, all that is left is EGO... and ego has an insatiable appetite... must ALWAYS be fed, and is a fearsome merciless master! This is why most atheists deceive themselves into “presenting… as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun” and are soooo damn condesending... because that feeling of superiority is ALL they have! They are so pathetic!
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw one… “He who dies with the most toys wins” (wins what?) It should read “He who dies with the most toys… is still dead!”
RedNeckoBlogger
Comments:
<< Home
Most of the "criticism" of Mr. Stein has just been the same unimaginative vitriol Evos ALWAYS spew... much more condescension than facts! Theories and arguments of our origins and "evolution" are nothing but speculation... often with lotsa good computer graphics on the so-called science shows... all of which require Intelligent Design in order to show how we got here by accident. Go figure???
# posted by 
: 2:26 PM
: 2:26 PM
Why do you introduce the irrelevant subject of atheism into a discussion of a documentary addressing "Intelligent Design"?
Theories and arguments of our origins and "evolution" are nothing but speculation..
Your claim is demonstrably false. The theory of evolution is based upon extensive physical evidence found both in the fossil and the genetic record, and unified into a coherent explanation that relies upon known occurring mechanisms. If the theory of evolution wele mere "speculation", it would not qualify as a "theory".
Your claim is demonstrably false. The theory of evolution is based upon extensive physical evidence found both in the fossil and the genetic record, and unified into a coherent explanation that relies upon known occurring mechanisms. If the theory of evolution wele mere "speculation", it would not qualify as a "theory".
Should say:
"extensive physical evidence found both in the fossil and the genetic record, and unified into..." pure speculation. as to how it ended up like it is now... and you know it!
You live in fanastyland bud!
"extensive physical evidence found both in the fossil and the genetic record, and unified into..." pure speculation. as to how it ended up like it is now... and you know it!
You live in fanastyland bud!
# posted by : 4:29 PM
: 4:29 PM
Missing the point?
I humbly submit, this blog is NOT about the merits of evolution OR ID... but about how people are reacting to the Ben Stein movie.
In spite of Mr. Dimensio protestations, evolution IS the foundation of modern atheism!
So folks (like RNB)who are advocating ID would naturaly make this observation.
As to speculation, those aspects that ARE beyond (as of now) the reach of science (like origins) are pretty much, well... speculation.
I humbly submit, this blog is NOT about the merits of evolution OR ID... but about how people are reacting to the Ben Stein movie.
In spite of Mr. Dimensio protestations, evolution IS the foundation of modern atheism!
So folks (like RNB)who are advocating ID would naturaly make this observation.
As to speculation, those aspects that ARE beyond (as of now) the reach of science (like origins) are pretty much, well... speculation.
# posted by : 9:34 AM
: 9:34 AM
"pure speculation. as to how it ended up like it is now... and you know it!
You live in fanastyland bud!"
Declaring that rational conclusions derived from observable patterns is DNA and in the fossil record is "pure speculation" is not logically equivalent to a rational rebuttal.
You live in fanastyland bud!"
Declaring that rational conclusions derived from observable patterns is DNA and in the fossil record is "pure speculation" is not logically equivalent to a rational rebuttal.
I humbly submit, this blog is NOT about the merits of evolution OR ID... but about how people are reacting to the Ben Stein movie.
Are you referring to rebuttals to specific claims made within the movie?
In spite of Mr. Dimensio protestations, evolution IS the foundation of modern atheism!
So folks (like RNB)who are advocating ID would naturaly make this observation.
I believe that you are using faulty reasoning. Even if it is true that "evolution is the foundation of modern atheism", it would not be logically equivalent to the claim that "modern atheism is the foundation for evolution". As such, it is not rational to address the subject of atheism when addressing criticisms of the conjecture termed "intelligent design".
As to speculation, those aspects that ARE beyond (as of now) the reach of science (like origins) are pretty much, well... speculation.
Please explain and justify your assertion. Show that conclusions derived from ERV patterns found across primate DNA are "pure speculation", and that they have no rational basis.
Are you referring to rebuttals to specific claims made within the movie?
In spite of Mr. Dimensio protestations, evolution IS the foundation of modern atheism!
So folks (like RNB)who are advocating ID would naturaly make this observation.
I believe that you are using faulty reasoning. Even if it is true that "evolution is the foundation of modern atheism", it would not be logically equivalent to the claim that "modern atheism is the foundation for evolution". As such, it is not rational to address the subject of atheism when addressing criticisms of the conjecture termed "intelligent design".
As to speculation, those aspects that ARE beyond (as of now) the reach of science (like origins) are pretty much, well... speculation.
Please explain and justify your assertion. Show that conclusions derived from ERV patterns found across primate DNA are "pure speculation", and that they have no rational basis.
(Sigh) Dimensio rants on!
Observable patterns in DNA and in the fossil record show living things have a common pattern and makeup... the conclusion that one form "evolved" from another is speculation, whether you'll admit it or not... one could just as easily speculate a common architect... which ID folks do.
This is why evolutionists "pound the table" and descend into foaming at the mouth tirades when their "religion" is challenged… and why like they resort to fascist tactics to silence any opposition (see unimaginative vitriol, in an ealier post).
The assumption of evolution is first! Then "facts" are bent to "prove" the assumption. Any thinking person can see this. So rave on, it don’t change a thing.
Speculation, speculation and more SPECULATION!
Observable patterns in DNA and in the fossil record show living things have a common pattern and makeup... the conclusion that one form "evolved" from another is speculation, whether you'll admit it or not... one could just as easily speculate a common architect... which ID folks do.
This is why evolutionists "pound the table" and descend into foaming at the mouth tirades when their "religion" is challenged… and why like they resort to fascist tactics to silence any opposition (see unimaginative vitriol, in an ealier post).
The assumption of evolution is first! Then "facts" are bent to "prove" the assumption. Any thinking person can see this. So rave on, it don’t change a thing.
Speculation, speculation and more SPECULATION!
# posted by : 10:11 AM
: 10:11 AM
Observable patterns in DNA and in the fossil record show living things have a common pattern and makeup... the conclusion that one form "evolved" from another is speculation,
You are incorrect. This is not "speculation". This is a conclusion derived based upon known events. When organisms reproduce, a copy of their DNA passes to their offspring. If the germ cells of an organism are altered by an ERV, that alteration will then pass to the offspring of that organism. This has been observed to occur. Because identical ERV insertions at the same location within the genome is extremely unlikely, it is more reasonable to conclude that observations of identical ERV insertions at identical locations within a genome across multiple individuals are a result of those individuals being related through common ancestry, even if those individuals are members of different species. As such, the inference of common descent from observations of ERV insertion patterns is based upon a mechanism that is known to occur and a conclusion that is derived from the logical implications of that mechanism occurring.
whether you'll admit it or not... one could just as easily speculate a common architect... which ID folks do.
Please explain the mechanism for which "a common architect" could be concluded as an explanation for ERV patterns observed across species. Cite instances of the processes of this mechanism being observed.
This is why evolutionists "pound the table" and descend into foaming at the mouth tirades when their "religion" is challenged… and why like they resort to fascist tactics to silence any opposition (see unimaginative vitriol, in an ealier post).
Please explain, specifically, how this attempt to "silence" opposition is done. Be specific. Please also demonstrate that your conclusion of a "common architect" is as reasonable as "common descent" by citing a known extant mechanism for a "common architect". The process of evolution employs mechanisms that are all known to occur -- reproduction, genetic drift and selection pressures favouring specific heriditable traits. Please cite the known extant mechanisms that are employed by a theory that incorporates a "common architect".
The assumption of evolution is first! Then "facts" are bent to "prove" the assumption.
Please justify this assertion.
Any thinking person can see this.
Asserting that "any thinking person" can observe that your claim is correct is not logically equivalent to supporting your claim with evidence. You have engaged in a "poisoning the well" fallacy, as you are suggesting that those who disagree with your position are "not thinking". Your argument tactic is not honest.
So rave on, it don’t change a thing.
Speculation, speculation and more SPECULATION!
Repeating your initial unsubstantiated assertion is not logically equivalent to substantiating your assertion. Please explain why concluding that observations of ERV sequences are evidence of common descent based upon the known physical mechanisms of common descent is "speculation" and explain and cite instances of observation of the mechanisms that could be used to justify such a conclusion with respect to a "common architect".
You are incorrect. This is not "speculation". This is a conclusion derived based upon known events. When organisms reproduce, a copy of their DNA passes to their offspring. If the germ cells of an organism are altered by an ERV, that alteration will then pass to the offspring of that organism. This has been observed to occur. Because identical ERV insertions at the same location within the genome is extremely unlikely, it is more reasonable to conclude that observations of identical ERV insertions at identical locations within a genome across multiple individuals are a result of those individuals being related through common ancestry, even if those individuals are members of different species. As such, the inference of common descent from observations of ERV insertion patterns is based upon a mechanism that is known to occur and a conclusion that is derived from the logical implications of that mechanism occurring.
whether you'll admit it or not... one could just as easily speculate a common architect... which ID folks do.
Please explain the mechanism for which "a common architect" could be concluded as an explanation for ERV patterns observed across species. Cite instances of the processes of this mechanism being observed.
This is why evolutionists "pound the table" and descend into foaming at the mouth tirades when their "religion" is challenged… and why like they resort to fascist tactics to silence any opposition (see unimaginative vitriol, in an ealier post).
Please explain, specifically, how this attempt to "silence" opposition is done. Be specific. Please also demonstrate that your conclusion of a "common architect" is as reasonable as "common descent" by citing a known extant mechanism for a "common architect". The process of evolution employs mechanisms that are all known to occur -- reproduction, genetic drift and selection pressures favouring specific heriditable traits. Please cite the known extant mechanisms that are employed by a theory that incorporates a "common architect".
The assumption of evolution is first! Then "facts" are bent to "prove" the assumption.
Please justify this assertion.
Any thinking person can see this.
Asserting that "any thinking person" can observe that your claim is correct is not logically equivalent to supporting your claim with evidence. You have engaged in a "poisoning the well" fallacy, as you are suggesting that those who disagree with your position are "not thinking". Your argument tactic is not honest.
So rave on, it don’t change a thing.
Speculation, speculation and more SPECULATION!
Repeating your initial unsubstantiated assertion is not logically equivalent to substantiating your assertion. Please explain why concluding that observations of ERV sequences are evidence of common descent based upon the known physical mechanisms of common descent is "speculation" and explain and cite instances of observation of the mechanisms that could be used to justify such a conclusion with respect to a "common architect".
Dimensio sure is long winded... and stubborn! Determined to have the last word... BUT, even he knows... as to origin of life, all we have is speculation.
But on a show recently on the "origins" of life, we were (again) shown the long discredited Stanley Miller experiments, as if they actually proved something! And... were told of the "early earth" atmosphere (required by Miller’s experiment) which is NOT an agreed up "fact" at all, but fits the origin of life speculators fantasies.
But on a show recently on the "origins" of life, we were (again) shown the long discredited Stanley Miller experiments, as if they actually proved something! And... were told of the "early earth" atmosphere (required by Miller’s experiment) which is NOT an agreed up "fact" at all, but fits the origin of life speculators fantasies.
# posted by : 10:57 AM
: 10:57 AM
Dimensio sure is long winded... and stubborn! Determined to have the last word...
You have not addressed anything that I have stated.
BUT, even he knows... as to origin of life, all we have is speculation.
I have made no mention of the origin of life. Why have you changed the subject?
But on a show recently on the "origins" of life, we were (again) shown the long discredited Stanley Miller experiments, as if they actually proved something!
Who "showed" you these experiments? Are you unaware that research regarding life origins has advanced significantly since the time of the Urey-Miller experiments?
And... were told of the "early earth" atmosphere (required by Miller’s experiment) which is NOT an agreed up "fact" at all, but fits the origin of life speculators fantasies.
Who "told" you of this?
You have not addressed anything that I have stated.
BUT, even he knows... as to origin of life, all we have is speculation.
I have made no mention of the origin of life. Why have you changed the subject?
But on a show recently on the "origins" of life, we were (again) shown the long discredited Stanley Miller experiments, as if they actually proved something!
Who "showed" you these experiments? Are you unaware that research regarding life origins has advanced significantly since the time of the Urey-Miller experiments?
And... were told of the "early earth" atmosphere (required by Miller’s experiment) which is NOT an agreed up "fact" at all, but fits the origin of life speculators fantasies.
Who "told" you of this?
"...research regarding life origins has advanced significantly since the time of the Urey-Miller experiments?"
Awight! Tell me how life originated... no speculation please!
Awight! Tell me how life originated... no speculation please!
# posted by : 10:42 AM
: 10:42 AM
Awight! Tell me how life originated... no speculation please!
No explanation for life origins has yet reached the status of "theory". Note, however, that it is not accurate to refer to a hypothesis based upon factual information as "speculation". Additionally, I do not understand why you have insisted upon changing the subject from a discussion of evolution to a discussion of life origins.
No explanation for life origins has yet reached the status of "theory". Note, however, that it is not accurate to refer to a hypothesis based upon factual information as "speculation". Additionally, I do not understand why you have insisted upon changing the subject from a discussion of evolution to a discussion of life origins.
"you have insisted upon changing the subject from a discussion of evolution to a discussion of life origins."
They are inseparable... to say different is to play dishonest word games... cause anywhere evolution is discussed, speculations about "natural" origins flow freely.
'Cause if God did it, evolution falls apart.
Post a Comment
They are inseparable... to say different is to play dishonest word games... cause anywhere evolution is discussed, speculations about "natural" origins flow freely.
'Cause if God did it, evolution falls apart.
# posted by : 3:53 PM
: 3:53 PM << Home
