UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (388) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 25043  
Subject: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 10:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The famous movie "Inherit the Wind" is widely recognized by historians as propaganda. So too in time, I predict, will the latest sacrifice offered to you creationist's-blood-thirsty Darwinbots by PBS.

Here is the DI on the errors made in the "Judgement Day" special:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html#more
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12014 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
So too in time, I predict, will the latest sacrifice offered to you creationist's-blood-thirsty Darwinbots by PBS.


cool.

when the relatively reasonable are reduced to slurs .. we must be winning.



=b

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12015 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 10:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
when the relatively reasonable are reduced to slurs .. we must be winning.


Sorry if that offended you . . . I'm just trying to fit in with the new look of C v E.

Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12016 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 10:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
PZ Myers on the rebuttal:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/the_morning_after_judgment_day.php

They have an eight-point "rebuttal" of the documentary that consists of many picked nits and regurgitated whines...

Most importantly, it misses the point of the program entirely.

If you've seen it, think back. What was the story it told? It has two parts.

First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science...

Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise...

The Discovery Institute "rebuttal" doesn't even touch these issues; their objections don't address the thrust of the court decision, which was accurately portrayed. The story is very simple, and this is all we need to say: Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message, and that's the decision of a major court case, and that's what the scientists have been saying for years. And now, in the desperate gasp of the creationists, they've failed to even touch these conclusions.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12017 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
when the relatively reasonable are reduced to slurs .. we must be winning.


Sorry if that offended you . . . I'm just trying to fit in with the new look of C v E.

Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.



i don't think i was really offended.

just don't see how "blood-thirsty" and "darwinbot" could be intended any other way.


yup..... Rational arguments for religion have been scarce since Aquinas (plus or minus a century)


=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12018 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 11:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
just don't see how "blood-thirsty" and "darwinbot" could be intended any other way.


And why exactly did you personalize what I considered an obviously over-the-top (and funny) characterization?

If it doesn't fit you, then it wasn't FOR you!

No one has a sense of humor anymore. And no g2w, I won't use the sissy little smileys so you won't think I'm insulting you. You either get it or you don't.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Weitzhuis Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12019 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/14/2007 11:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html#more



There's so many points... I only have time and patience for one.

3. PBS wrongly claims that Tiktaalik is "one of the most vivid transitional forms ever discovered" and is "the latest evidence to refute intelligent design."
A centerpiece of "Judgment Day's" attack on ID is the fossil Tiktaalik, which allegedly shows fish evolving into amphibians. It's not clear why this would "refute" ID because ID is not incompatible with universal common ancestry. Regardless, Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet. For more information on why the finlike fin of Tiktaalik does not explain how feet evolved, see:


If i remember correctly, the Tiktaalik was used as an exemplary example of a transistional species, predicted to have existed by the theory of evolution. Therefore it was strong positive evidence in support of the theory of evolution, rather than positive evidence against ID. It refutes ID in only the sense that it supports Evolution. One of the points made in the episode and at the trial is that ID is fundamentally untestable.

And the Tiktaalik is very impressive for it not only shows the amphibian style head on a body with scales but its, "fins" were well on there way to becoming legs, with accompanying bones, including wrist bones. No there weren't feet yet, but you first need legs to stand on.

I leave the other points as exercises for the others.

- weitzhuis

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Weitzhuis Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12020 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Much less widely known but, perhaps, more important was the Susan Epperson Vs. Arkansas case in 1967 or 1968.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html

This is the case that really opened the doors to teaching Evolution in public schools in the first place.

The Tennessee case actually changed very little, legally speaking, as John Scopes was found guilty, and that was later set aside on a technicality.

- weitzhuis

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Weitzhuis Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12021 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

And in the world at large...

http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/11/pat_robertson_d.html

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12022 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.


Hey, your side is the one that lied under oath, pal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12023 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

Bryan,

They could close this board down now. NOVA gave you the rational argument all tied up with a nice bow and handed it to you. The only thing they left out was "QED".

1poorguy (the pleas of the creationists now remind me of the Black Knight..."it's only a flesh wound...come back and I'll bite your knee-caps...!")

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12024 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 8:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
No one has a sense of humor anymore.

Sure they do. The problem is just that you're not very funny.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12027 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 8:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
Biased or not, the profound ignorance and complete denial of truth and facts by creationist made its own case.

The threats to the plaintiffs, science teachers, and the judge drive home the issue of ignorance with a sledge hammer.

The fact that you would refer to provable facts as propaganda illuminates how closed your mind is in stark relief.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12028 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 8:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.


When you offer one, we'll talk rationally. Some of the claims you make marginalize any precept of rationality. You mind is closed to any option other than god. Mine is open to any possibility that can be proved.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12030 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 8:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You mind is closed to any option other than god. Mine is open to any possibility that can be proved.

I wish more people were like you, Nigel. Life would be less frustrating (and the judge wouldn't need a body guard).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: joseph714 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12031 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 11:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
No one has a sense of humor anymore.
--------------
Sure they do. The problem is just that you're not very funny.
---------------------

& I might add, why would name calling be even remotely funny?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12032 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
The famous movie "Inherit the Wind" is widely recognized by historians as propaganda.

It's widely contended to be propaganda by the religious propaganda machine, a well oiled and perfected machine that has been in high use for two thousand years. Since you can't see the forest through the trees, let's look at a different forest.

If Muslim fundamentalists manage to overthrow western civilization, just how do you think history books will look a thousand years from now? Osama Bin Laden will be revered as a prophet on the same scale as Mohammad, the martyrs of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran as Muslim saints, and all of history prior to the the over throw as evil.

History is written by the victors, and western thought has been influenced by the various facets of the christian church since its rise in Rome.

Have you even considered for a moment the propaganda involved in depicting evolution as anti-god? Did you see the and hear the deep anger from betrayal by those interviewed in the Nova special who's minds can't refute evolution, but still believe in god? Only the best propaganda machine in history can turn a quest for truth into an anti-god movement, which begs the real question, why is religion so afraid of truth? Because truth erodes its power base.

prop·a·gan·da –noun

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.


You want propaganda my friend? Religion demands blind acceptance and faith, claims the moral high road, and promises salvation to those who protect the name of god. Creationist felt bent out of shape prior to and during the Kitzmiller trial because they were accused of being ignorant, short sighted, and stupid. Those who supported the teaching of evolution were threatened with damnation and death. It takes a lot to incite folks to kill, and the best tool to do it is propaganda.

Nigel

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: going2win Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12033 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Rational arguments are hard to come by on the board these days.

Why don't you try some, then ?

Oh, I forgot. Creationism is, by definition, irrational.

g2w

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12034 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Regardless, Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet.

Sounds like Anne Coulter's line in her book Godless. First she complains that evolution advocates claim that fish developed feet, but with no evidence. Then she complains that the fossils shown to her as evidence are really just "fish with weird appendages."

You can't win with some people.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12035 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12036 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 12:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

That is a rational approach

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12037 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12038 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...


great movie. (Spencer Tracy, Fred March, Gene Kelly[*])

i think BOTH sides agree it exaggerates for effect.

..... it's a play ..not a documentary


-


[*] as "C. Darrow", "WJ Bryan", "HL Mencken"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12039 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.

It promoted/proposed critical thinking, it did not promote blind belief and denialism.

It questioned dogmatic adherance to old conservative ideas and questioned athority.

It did not promote a blind strict Christian worldview.

There are your similarities....i.e. not enough Christian Godness in either the movie or the Nova show.

md (of course I am biased on this subject, being a Secular Rational Humanist Deist with a dash of Zen <in three part harmony>)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12040 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.

You are correct. The reference most likely was simply to the C vs E debate going to court. The movie was (very) loosely based on the original Scopes trial. I believe some have likened the Dover School Board trial as the "new Scopes trial". In fact, it was even referenced in the opening of the PBS program.

I think that's as far as the comparison can go. The movie was, of course, for drama. NOVA was a documentary. I did find it interesting that last time it was the evolutionist that was the defendant, and this time it was the creationists. And unlike the Scopes trial, this time there was rock-solid data from multiple fields that all pointed to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, plus verified predictions from the theory. 100 years ago they simply didn't have that much data. Today it's a slam-dunk.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12041 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.


hmmm.... i never noticed/thought-of connection to McCarthy

.but a lot of poetic license .

and NOT a documentary.



-
... the connection is they both talk about Creationism v Evolution ..
( IMO ..the strongest message of the movie is "think for yourownself ..don't listen to ignorant preachers )

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12042 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
& I might add, why would name calling be even remotely funny?


IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.

( a bit of "smile when you say that, stranger" )

depends on the intent & context.

( but also reminds me of a story from Philosophy School
Prof said that Aristotle supposedly said "sometimes there's arguments where the only thing you can do is get out your club" [ ad baculum ..as they say ] Sometimes because YOU have nothing else to add; sometimes because the other guy just isn't listening. The trick is in distinguishing ..but that's more a Socrates thing )


=b

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12043 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

For real?? You have some cultural catching up to do, my friend. The original version was a play, so there have been several film adaptations, but the one you need to watch has Spencer Tracy in it, along with Danny Kaye and "Darren" from Bewitched.

Absolutely classic film. Certainly not all historically accurate, but with outstanding dialogue.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12044 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And unlike the Scopes trial, this time there was rock-solid data from multiple fields that all pointed to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, plus verified predictions from the theory. 100 years ago they simply didn't have that much data. Today it's a slam-dunk.


made me look.

only 80 yrs ago ..but your point still holds (the "Grand Synthesis" only about 60yrs old)


=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12045 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
AFAICT, it was a movie making a point about McCarthyism, using a whole lot of poetic license in the play and the movie based on the Scopes trial. I don't see the comparison to a PBS documentary at all.


Inherit the Wind is not historically accurate, nor was it intended to be. But many people have seen it, and when they think "Monkey Trial", that is what comes to mind.

The NOVA program on the Dover trials is not historically accurate (at the points the DI make clear). Yet when people think "Kitzmiller", what will come to mind?

I think that is the reasoning behind the comparison, as far as I can tell.

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12046 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
but the one you need to watch has Spencer Tracy in it, along with Danny Kaye and "Darren" from Bewitched.

Absolutely classic film. Certainly not all historically accurate, but with outstanding dialogue.



no Danny Kaye


-b
.....it was on TCM just a few nights ago

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12047 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
& I might add, why would name calling be even remotely funny?


IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.

( a bit of "smile when you say that, stranger" )

depends on the intent & context.


Agreed -- name calling can be hilarious. But name calling is not, by itself, a joke. Like for instance, with the usual Humor and Urban Legends thread:

Person A: This ethnic group is a bunch of stupid a**h***s and they're ugly and unpatriotic too.
Person B: That's kind of rude.
Person A: What's wrong with you? Can't you take a JOKE?!? Boy, this board has really declined.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12048 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
the one you need to watch has Spencer Tracy in it, along with Danny Kaye and "Darren" from Bewitched.


And Col. Potter as the judge.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12049 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
The NOVA program on the Dover trials is not historically accurate (at the points the DI make clear).



The Nova program was pretty damn close. And you've got a lot of nerve talking about accuracy after you brought up the 'Expelled' movie.

Shall we talk about the instructor who was 'unfairly' fired? You know, the one who talked about dogs turning into cats?


Yet when people think "Kitzmiller", what will come to mind?


What I think of is this: ID lost the argument in court, they lost the batle of public opinion judging by the school board election afterwards, and they lost the argument among other scientists. Pretty much a complete and total loss, and yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12050 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

What I think of is this: ID lost the argument in court, they lost the batle of public opinion judging by the school board election afterwards, and they lost the argument among other scientists. Pretty much a complete and total loss, and yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.



god is seriously testing them....
NOT answering their prayers to smite their enemies.



-b
...... didn't see the NOVA ..but saw a lecture by one of the attorneys on UC_TV .. maybe the most interesting part (to me) was the quotes of support he got from Religious people (of course, as a commie-lying-evilutionist ACLU LAWYER ..take with )
..my favorite was something like, <problem with Creationism is it makes God a god-of-the gaps ..MY GOD fills the Universe, he doesn't lurk in the gaps>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12051 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I've never seen Inherit the Wind. Off to do some googling...

It's about a guy with an inherited predisposition for gas. It was made long before Beano® evolved, and was both humorous and tragic, at the same time. Curly Howard was wonderful in the role of Samuel "Stinky" Feldman, and I suspect it was only the stigma of having been a stooge that denied him an Academy Award for his spectacular effort.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12052 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Inherit the Wind is not historically accurate, nor was it intended to be. But many people have seen it, and when they think "Monkey Trial", that is what comes to mind.

The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told aren't historically accurate, either. However, many people have seen it and think Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and that Max Von Sydow arose from the dead. I'm not sure of your point........

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12053 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The NOVA program on the Dover trials is not historically accurate (at the points the DI make clear). Yet when people think "Kitzmiller", what will come to mind?

Oh, I have faith, brother, that CBN will come out with their own wonderful version soon with Judge Jones played by a pig. They have to. Evolution is anti-god, and we can't have the truth threatening god, can we?

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12054 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told aren't historically accurate, either. However, many people have seen it and think Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and that Max Von Sydow arose from the dead. I'm not sure of your point........

cliff


The point is those people were told to never, ever, never watch Planet of the Apes.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12055 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.


:)

That is because you are an annointed "Poopy Head" as per NADA requirements.

md

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12056 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
IMO ..it can be ..

certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.


I agree. Some of my best names came from AF'ers

Bray-on

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12057 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
yet they keep whining about how things aren't fair.

:)
lol

Science of course is not "fair".....fair has nothing to do with science; it is a social/civilization concept.

Is it fair that ID has no data or experiments to back up its idea?

Nope....but life and science just are not "fair".

md

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12058 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
certainly when i'm the callER ...but sometimes even when i'm the callEE.


:)

That is because you are an annointed "Poopy Head" as per NADA requirements.




true.


-b
..... better than "Poppy Head" ....perhaps

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12059 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 3:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Science of course is not "fair".....fair has nothing to do with science; it is a social/civilization concept.

Is it fair that ID has no data or experiments to back up its idea?

Nope....but life and science just are not "fair".


Science may not be fair. But ID should be evaluated and represented truthfully, even by it's opponents.

I don't think you represent ID truthfully. This short article addresses your "no data or experiments" argument, and several other common ones, in the context of the Kitzmiller decision.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3719

I might add that Behe's new book also examines "data" in light of ID, as do previous works by him and the other major proponents of ID.

ID is based on data, and reasoning from that data.

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12060 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
no Danny Kaye

Dang it, I meant Gene Kelly. Understandable mistake, right? Both leading men of the same era with a charming characteristic smirk.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12061 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 4:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I don't think you represent ID truthfully. This short article addresses your "no data or experiments" argument, and several other common ones, in the context of the Kitzmiller decision.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3719


I see a section on that page that claims to be about an experiment on the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum. What has that got to do with a data or experiment supporting intelligent design? What data constitutes positive evidence for a designer? How does demonstrating IC prove an unidentified intelligence any more that it proves that the first flagellum dissolved out of a magical sugar cube?

The earlier question was whether ID is actually a positive theory or whether it's just a collection of gripes about evolution. Casey Luskin's lame response illustrates yet again that it's in the latter category.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12062 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Bryan,

the discovery institute is the blind leading the blind, and Behe has nothing other than a mind incapable of pressing forward when something is beyond his grasp to comprehend. ID is based on a preconceived notion that god exists without proof, or a lack of desire to keep digging until a natural explanation can be found.

Sorry dude, but the DI is a propaganda wagon trying to get up to speed, and it needs to be fought in courts, the classroom, and the election booth.

Nigel

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12063 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 5:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I see a section on that page that claims to be about an experiment on the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum. What has that got to do with a data or experiment supporting intelligent design?

IC is a hallmark of design

What data constitutes positive evidence for a designer?

Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation

How does demonstrating IC prove an unidentified intelligence any more that it proves that the first flagellum dissolved out of a magical sugar cube?


We experience intelligent designers creating IC structures, and we know of no other source for them; we don't experience designers making functioning flagellums out of magical sugar.

Casey Luskin's lame response . . .

Oh golly, I can't believe you called him lame, the board nannies are going to come down on you so hard . . . I'm going to sit back and enjoy this!

Bryan
:-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12064 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 5:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
the discovery institute is the blind leading the blind

you know, I've never accepted others attempts at smear-tactics, I'm not about to accept yours.

If you want to address a specific arugment, go ahead. I'll play along.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12065 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 5:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I don't think you represent ID truthfully. This short article addresses your "no data or experiments" argument, and several other common ones, in the context of the Kitzmiller decision.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3719


So...ummm...where is this data and/or experiments that prove there is a Intelligent Designer?

Is there some "copy right" logo I missed or fingerprint or something?
What does this designer look like?
Did it design everything or just some things and then evolution took over?
What would we predict from the information, is this designer going to introduce some new creatures for us soon, does it do good design, will it help us with the evolving super bugs (Resistant TB)?

Complexity is not proof of a designer....a lack of understanding or gaps in our knowledge on how the world got from point A to point B is not proof of a "Designer". It is just a lack of knowledge. Something sicence is working to fill.

Where in these articles does it prove there is a designer and what does it say about the designer?

And I am being "fair" here...so far, as presented to the public, ID idea is a negative idea (i.e. Evolution hasn't explained this yet, so we win) which predicts nothing, and tell us nothing about the how, why, or when of this world. The ID idea is not useful for moving forward, evolution has been very useful in both exploring the world and solving problems. What does the ID idea solve?

I can accept ID if it can accumulate some testable, reproduceable evidence of the core part of its idea....i.e. that there is an "Intelligent Designer"....show me a picture, a correlation, a fingerprint, a Identification Code built into say creatures DNA that is something that we can say means "Designed by ME - the Intelligent Designer". The ID idea also needs to be useful....science is useful, ID idea only seems to be useful in some folks attempt to slow down science.

At this point it is nothing but an idea, not even at the hypothesis stage in my mind, just some peoples idea.

md

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12066 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 6:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation

Bull. Prove it.

We experience intelligent designers creating IC structures,

We experience humans creating IC structures. At the moment we know of no "designers" who are capable of performing abiogenesis and creating a flagellum from scratch. If you've got one up your sleeve, show it.

and we know of no other source for them;

Of course we do. Evolution.

we don't experience designers making functioning flagellums out of magical sugar.

We don't experience designers making functioning flagellums out of *anything*, including sugar. So if we can make up magic men, we can surely make up magic sugar.

Oh golly, I can't believe you called him lame, the board nannies are going to come down on you so hard . . . I'm going to sit back and enjoy this!

No, let me explain the different to you. In addition to making an insult, I made an actual point along side it. Pointless, context-free insults earn you mockery. Accurate insults earn you recs. Keep trying.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12068 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Casey Luskin's lame response . . .

Oh golly, I can't believe you called him lame

Correction. Kazim called Luskin's response lame. He didn't say that Luskin himself was lame as you asserted.

Surely you're familiar with the concept, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12069 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 6:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If you want to address a specific arugment, go ahead. I'll play along.

Okay, but that ball is already rolling. Just because we don't see Jamie Loves Michael written in the sand on a regular basis is not proof that complex designs can only occur through intelligent intervention.

Please refer to Jesus and Mary in the pancake that just sold on eBay for $338 as to just one example of how random events can be misinterpreted.

Secondly, the complexities of the universe are so profound that we have just scratched the surface. As I put forth when I first started posting here, the concepts of infinite time and space are as close to incomprehensible to humans as you will get because we cannot shed our mortality.

The complexity argument only holds water until real science makes a bona fide attempt to explain the phenomena being help up as proof of design. The flagellum motor is a further adaptive process from the toxin injector. In other words, proof of evolution.

If ID were real science it would be designing a god phone so contact could be made.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12070 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 6:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So...ummm...where is this data and/or experiments that prove there is a Intelligent Designer?

I don't know, why do you ask? You had said:

Is it fair that ID has no data or experiments to back up its idea?


and I gave you a link to such data. Of course you know that science doesn't prove things, so if ID can't prove intelligence behind certain structures, that doesn't mean its not science.

a Identification Code built into say creatures DNA that is something that we can say means "Designed by ME - the Intelligent Designer"

You don't ask for much. "Look, see this code we discovered inside every living thing? . . . well, show me the code INSIDE the code, and then I'll believe . . ."

The existence of a code (DNA) is evidence of intelligence. Every known code, where we know the source, was intelligently designed.

As far as ID being useful, its probably about as useful as evolution:

Jerry Coyne wrote in an article entitled “Selling Darwin” in Nature, explaining that the answer is again, “No”:

[I]f truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1095

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12071 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 6:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Irreducible complexity . . . when you find it, intelligent design is the best explanation
---------
Bull. Prove it.


Internal combustion engine . . . I happen to know that it was designed. You'll have to trust me.

and we know of no other source for them;
--------
Of course we do. Evolution.


If you mean know as in "Richard Dawkins makes really neat fairy tales about how it MIGHT have happened (with no way to test the ability of RV/NS)", then you are right. I stand corrected.

Or, I could say: Male bovine dung. Prove it (to keep the "argument" at the appropriate level)

No, let me explain the different to you. In addition to making an insult, I made an actual point along side it. Pointless, context-free insults earn you mockery. Accurate insults earn you recs. Keep trying.


Again, I have to bow to your superior skill in this too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12072 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 6:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Correction. Kazim called Luskin's response lame. He didn't say that Luskin himself was lame as you asserted.


Ok, how about this . . . "James, you're full of hot air"

<No dang it, still at the person>

Ok, give me another chance, really, I'll get it this time. . .

"James, that distinction is so lame, it . . . it . . . it is really lame."

How's that?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12073 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 7:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you want to address a specific arugment, go ahead. I'll play along.
-----------
The complexity argument only holds water until real science makes a bona fide attempt to explain the phenomena being help up as proof of design. The flagellum motor is a further adaptive process from the toxin injector. In other words, proof of evolution.


Nigel, I'm sorry to be the one that breaks it to you, but that was not an argument. It was an assertion. A lame one at that (How am I doing James?)

The TTSS is a data point. In and of itself, it proves nor demonstrates nothing.

How many mutations were needed to go from one to the other? Do you know?
Can you estimate the time necessary for all those mutations to accumulate?
Can you demonstrate ANYTHING about your proposed solution, other than make a bald assertion?

This is what I'm talking about . . . somehow this passes as "science", making up pretty stories about what evolution can do.

Nigel, the only thing I'm criticizing about you here is your blind acceptance of what you are told by scientists . . . you can study the literature yourself and see that the emperor has no clothes. Because it is obvious that you are highly intelligent and a non-conformer (in most things)

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12074 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 9:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Nigel, I'm sorry to be the one that breaks it to you, but that was not an argument. It was an assertion. A lame one at that (How am I doing James?)

Bryan,

you've gotten defensive.

You seem to forget that at the core of my beliefs are that we humans are a bumbling, inept lot, but as a group, over time, we mange to solve all the puzzles. To cling so desperately to the fact that science, in 150 some odd years, can't replicate what occurred over millions is spurious. The fact that it has been able to find so much evidence to support a theory put forth a century and a half ago speaks volumes on the beauty and soundness of the original thoughts.

But let's go [deleted by the stupid net nanny]-for-tat. Irreducible Complexity is an assertion, as is the assertion that god visited the earth several thousand years ago, interacted briefly with the world, then went on walk about. Unless you're one of the billion plus who so adamantly believe he was whispering away in Mohammed's ear, but you're not, and just like happens in my home all the time, I can't decide which of you is lying, so you both have to go to your room.

It's also an assertion that god created life and species. Kazim asked a great question, that expands upon my issue with this notion of god just appearing briefly, long ago, in a conveniently unverifiable time. If he's the cause of species, why did he suddenly stop? If he didn't stop, when can we expect him to create the next species?

A theory of ID as science would not only ask these questions, but would provide predictions based on the suppositions of the theory, look for clues in the archaeological data, and conduct experiments to verify these predictions.

What does ID predict, besides evolution can't explain it all yet? Evolution predicts that systems evolve, and the structure of the toxin syringe sure looks like a simplified version of the flagellum motor to me. If it didn't, I most certainly wouldn't just blindly accept the explanation given. In fact, my jury was out until they showed the electron microscope pictures of the two structures, as a graphical depiction is subject to interpretation before it's drawn. Yes, I do accept that the proteins involved in the construction of both systems are the same because I don't have the tools to decipher that myself.


the only thing I'm criticizing about you here is your blind acceptance of what you are told by scientists

Religion has a long rich history of suppressing scientific thought, of imprisoning, torturing, and killing those who disagree with their views of anything and everything. This ugly head reared itself in Dover PA. You are stepping onto a very slippery slope here. I accept nothing blindly, but if I had to lean in one direction, I'll lean towards science that is questing to discern the truths in nature without agenda, than lean towards religion, which has always had its own agenda.

The science of evolution is not an agenda, it is the currently accepted best explanation of how life as we see it got here. As technology advances, it becomes an even stronger theory as the new technology shows evidence the predictions made long before there was any way to prove them.

Feel free to make your own predictions and follow the evidence to truth.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12075 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 9:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Irreducible Complexity is an assertion,

No, its really not. IC things exist.

Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.

All these things can be tested by you, or have been tested by scientists in the lab, and verified to be IC

It's also an assertion that god created life and species. Kazim asked a great question, that expands upon my issue with this notion of god just appearing briefly, long ago, in a conveniently unverifiable time. If he's the cause of species, why did he suddenly stop? If he didn't stop, when can we expect him to create the next species?

A theory of ID as science would not only ask these questions


No, it wouldn't need to ask these questions to determine if something was designed. You can study an object and tell that it was design, totally apart from knowing anything about who designed it. ID is not the science of designers, it is a science of studying the effects of design, the tell-tale marks of intelligence behind something.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Weitzhuis Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12076 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If ID were real science it would be designing a god phone so contact could be made.

ID phone home ?

- w

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Weitzhuis Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12077 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 10:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.


It should be noted that all the above, save the flagellum, are not part of or is something that replicates itself. That's one reason why the first three items are easily identified as being built rather than evolved. No replication, no evolution. It works both ways.


Anyway, this all just deja-vu of the watchmaker's argument, all over again.

- weitzhuis

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12079 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 11:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It should be noted that all the above, save the flagellum, are not part of or is something that replicates itself. That's one reason why the first three items are easily identified as being built rather than evolved. No replication, no evolution. It works both ways.


What you say is true, but its not immediately clear to me why that makes the flagellum not IC.

The question (as I interpreted it anyway, Nigel may disagree thats what he meant) was if there are IC things at all.

The flagellum is IC, but was it designed? And the fact that it is part of a replicating system . . . what is more highly designed than a IC system that can replicate itself?

You need a blueprint, and tools within the cell in order to construct a flagellum. It is even MORE designed because of that in my fevered mind. An internal combustion engine has to be assembled by something outside itself. But a cell with a flagellum, no less complex, can actually replicate itself, along with the instructions to make a new flagellum.

Hume's argument IIRC was that the watchmaker argument fell apart because of lack of analogy, the watch and a living thing were not close enough alike.

Now we know that is not true, because we find tiny little machines inside the cell . . .

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12080 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
No, its really not. IC things exist.

Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.

All these things can be tested by you, or have been tested by scientists in the lab, and verified to be IC


But none of what you offer is IC. All are comprised of parts that function quite well when separated, that were placed together, or evolved, to a different job. And just as you pull components from a cell phone they no longer function as a cell phone, as you drop the proteins from the flagellum motor, what's left does a different job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.[10] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[11] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[12]
--------------------------------------------------------------

No, it wouldn't need to ask these questions to determine if something was designed. You can study an object and tell that it was design, totally apart from knowing anything about who designed it. ID is not the science of designers, it is a science of studying the effects of design, the tell-tale marks of intelligence behind something.

So, we can study a bee hive, see the complexity, understand the strength of repeated, perfect hexagons in its construction, and deduce the intelligence of bees?

We're right back to the "God created the earth in six days, and that's all I need to know" argument. Science is not simply postulating that because this is observed here, then anything that resembles it is the same. Science deconstructs everything, knowing that often what appears to be the same is drastically different, and what appears to be diametrically opposed is similar. When evidence is produced to support a scientific theory, it comes not only from people of different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, but different disciplines of science. This conspiracy of science you seem to feel is at work has a few too many participants. Conspiracies come from small groups, with a single agenda. Like ID.

If ID wants to claim it is science, it has to stop pretending and do so. The theory of ID needs to formulate testable predictions it can then substantiate. If god created man, then why chromosome 2? If it is science, it has to have a legitimate answer to this question. Why is it that parts of my DNA are the same as a worm's? What's up with the platypus? ID as science can make predictions that will answer these and many more questions if there is any veracity to it.

Nigel

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12081 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/15/2007 11:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Your car's engine, for example. Your cell phone. Your Oral-B electric toothbrush. The bacterial flagellum.

All these things can be tested by you, or have been tested by scientists in the lab, and verified to be IC
----------
But none of what you offer is IC. All are comprised of parts that function quite well when separated, that were placed together, or evolved, to a different job. And just as you pull components from a cell phone they no longer function as a cell phone, as you drop the proteins from the flagellum motor, what's left does a different job.


Wikipedia is ok for many things, but for ID it is well-documented that it is extremely biased, to the point of putting up this bogus definition of IC you posted.

Of course those things are not IC . . . under the strawman definition you gave. But that is not how Behe or any other of the major ID proponents define IC.

Here is a fork in the road, Nigel. You've been deceived by Wikipedia on this, and it is easy to prove. Just look up a dicussion of IC written by Behe or Demski. Here, I'll give you a place to start:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

I can really go no further in discussing ID with you if we disagree on this key point. ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.

Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12082 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 8:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
IC is a hallmark of design...


No, it isn't. It is easy to get IC results through evolutionary processes. A point that has been demonstrated to you many times before.

Or, talkorigins has the bridge example, simple and effective:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12083 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 8:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This is what I'm talking about . . . somehow this passes as "science", making up pretty stories about what evolution can do.


It is no different than looking at the moon's orbit today and 'making up pretty stories about what gravity can do.'

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12084 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 8:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Wikipedia is ok for many things, but for ID it is well-documented that it is extremely biased, to the point of putting up this bogus definition of IC you posted.

Of course those things are not IC . . . under the strawman definition you gave. But that is not how Behe or any other of the major ID proponents define IC.

Here is a fork in the road, Nigel. You've been deceived by Wikipedia on this, and it is easy to prove. Just look up a dicussion of IC written by Behe or Demski. Here, I'll give you a place to start:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

I can really go no further in discussing ID with you if we disagree on this key point. ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.

Bryan


You insult my intelligence. I merely offered up the wikipedia offering as an abridged, independent version of my own thoughts. I comfortably refute the IC argument outright as illogical. Complex machinery is built from simpler parts in both nature and mechanics. A lever, wheel, or cell can't be reduced, but an engine, watch, or circulatory system can.

Since ID cannot provide, answers, or explanations to my questions, I am forced in the direction of that which can. Perhaps I should email the DI and ask them. I'm a very curious guy, and evolution makes predictions to answer the questions I ask. If ID can't do the same, it is bunk. Trust me doesn't cut it. Pointing to a bacteria's flagellum doesn't speak to chromosome 2. IC doesn't explain a platypus, warm blood, or carnivores. As a scientific theory, it has to provide explanations as to why and how an ID created these things. That's the quest.

Nigel

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12086 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 9:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
IC is a hallmark of design

IC was blown out of the water by one of the plaintiff's witnesses. Very elegantly, and very eloquently. IC is as invalid as the notion of evil spirits causing disease.

1poorguy (wondering when someone is going to market miniature mouse-trap tie clips)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12087 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 9:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
so if ID can't prove intelligence behind certain structures, that doesn't mean its not science.

Correct. The fact that it makes NO testable predictions means it is not science.

QED.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12088 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 9:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The bacterial flagellum.

Did you watch the program?? That was one of the examples that destroyed the notion of IC, and probably contributed to Behe going into a corner and sulking after it was over. (Yes, I'm speaking metaphorically...but he was revealed to be less-than-credible.)

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12090 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
IC is a hallmark of design...
-------------
No, it isn't. It is easy to get IC results through evolutionary processes. A point that has been demonstrated to you many times before.

Or, talkorigins has the bridge example, simple and effective:


I kinda like the bridge analogy. It does several things for me. One, it shows the usefulness of analogies drawn from human-made machines to the biological world. It puts to rest Hume's critique of the design argument once and for all. Funny though, I keep hearing complaints here about making analogies from human design to biology, but I guess they were just mistaken, since the bridge is so powerful.

Second, it demonstrates the bankruptcy of intellectual efforts to refute Behe's conception of IC. Lets take the bacterial flagellum for example. The bridge analogy predicts either a) that the flagellum was made up originally of 4 or more parts, but became a flagellum by loosing parts (not likely) or b) that the relationships of the parts of the flagellum (some 30-40 proteins) were built up by a series of a-type steps.

So the history of the flagellum should be able to be shown to be that of a continual process of 4 parts coming together, then loosing one part (leaving 3), then more such processes happening until all 40 proteins are now working together to form a fully-functioning flagellum. All these intermediate steps must have a function, or it wouldn't get selected.

Ok Ben, since you say this is so easy to accomplish, can you show me a couple of examples of how this idea was tested on live bacteria to show that it is in fact not only a fairy tale, but the result of experimentation?

I would suspect since it is so easy to accomplish, you'd have 100's of examples of it.

Or, by "demonstrated to you", did you mean making a bald assertion with nothing to back it up? Yes, in that case I've been "schooled" here many times.

Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12092 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
This is what I'm talking about . . . somehow this passes as "science", making up pretty stories about what evolution can do.
------------
It is no different than looking at the moon's orbit today and 'making up pretty stories about what gravity can do.'


It's very different Ben. You can locate the moon (or other planet), and using your understanding of gravity, make a prediction on where it will be in a month, then test your calculations to see if it was correct.

When we test evolution, on highly amenable organisms like bacteria or malaria, we get nothing. Not only can you not predict what changes will take place, you don't hardly see any changes at all, certainly not changes that could lead to flagellums and EVERYTHING you have to explain in biology.

Evolution explains everything in the same sense that ether explains light.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 12093 of 25043
Subject: Re: Inherit the Wind (once again) Date: 11/16/2007 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
I can really go no further in discussing ID with you if we disagree on this key point. ID falls completely apart if there are no IC structures in biology.

Of course it doesn't. Why can't a designer simply always choose to design things that are reducible? ID has explicitly put the details of God -- er, excuse me, I mean of "the designer" (wink wink) -- off limits. So cdesign proponentsists simply can't say that Gthe designerod does or does not have a propensity to create irreducibly complex objects.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools