EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)

[Mighty AC]

Scenario: Five thousand years ago humans witness the awesome power of lightning and want to know the cause. Their knowledge base is limited so this is a challenging problem. The night sky lit up like it was day, a major rumble shook the earth and a tree burst into flames. Surely, this event is not natural. They conclude that the god of war is angry.

Does asserting that a magic being caused the lightning actually answer the question? Of course not, and through honest inquiry people determined the actual natural cause of lightning.

Fast forward five thousand years and we have the question, How did self replicating life first originate? Again this is a challenging problem for our current knowledge base. Asserting, without evidence that a magic being seeded the earth with life does not answer the question. It just adds more questions. I wish I had gone to Notre Dame, BYU, etc. Wouldn't it be great to answer every exam problem with God?

Fortunately, actual scientists that deal in demonstrable evidence are working on this problem. They can already show how the precursors to DNA can form in natural reactions from materials abundant on a primitive earth. Simple reaction makes the building blocks of a nucleic acid

[betsy]

They don't know. They cannot provide any answers.

"Whatever caused it," is not a scientific answer!

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Mighty AC

Filling the gaps with magic is dishonest and it hampers the ability of honest individuals from seeking the truth.

That's right. Your camp fills the gaps with magic - from hoaxes, to unsubstantiated claims, to biased and corrupted peer review journals! On top of that, now the evolution-guru Dawkins believes in the possibility that space aliens were the cause of life on this planet! We probably owe it all to leprechauns!

It's your camp that hampers the quest for answers by putting limits as to how far they can go! What kind of bs quest for answer is that?

Numerous scientists who'd made valuable contributions to science were mostly religious - Christians, as a matter of fact! Who believed in the Bible! Here, take a look:

]SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS[/b]

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY/ JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)

BACTERIOLOGY/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULUS/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

CELESTIAL MECHANICS/ JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

CHEMISTRY/ ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY/ GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

COMPUTER SCIENCE/ CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS/ LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

DYNAMICS/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

ELECTRONICS/ JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

ELECTRODYNAMICS/ JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

ELECTRO-MAGNETICS/ MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ENERGETICS/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS/ HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)

FIELD THEORY/ MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

FLUID MECHANICS/ GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)

GALACTIC ASTRONOMY/ WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

GAS DYNAMICS/ ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

GENETICS/ GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

GLACIAL GEOLOGY/ LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

GYNECOLOGY/ JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

HYDRAULICS/ LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)

HYDROGRAPHY/ MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

HYDROSTATICS/ BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

ICHTHYOLOGY/ LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY/ WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

MODEL ANALYSIS/ LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

NATURAL HISTORY/ JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY/ BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)

OCEANOGRAPHY/ MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

OPTICAL MINERALOGY/ DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

PALEONTOLOGY/ JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)

PATHOLOGY/ RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)

PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY/ JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS/ JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)

STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS/ JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

STRATIGRAPHY/ NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY/ CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

THERMODYNAMICS/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

THERMOKINETICS/ HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY/ GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

TABLE II

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ACTUARIAL TABLES/ CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

BAROMETER/ BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

BIOGENESIS LAW/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULATING MACHINE/ CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

CHLOROFORM/ JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM/ CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

DOUBLE STARS/ WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

ELECTRIC GENERATOR/ MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ELECTRIC MOTOR/ JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

EPHEMERIS TABLES/ JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

FERMENTATION CONTROL/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

GALVANOMETER/ JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

GLOBAL STAR CATALOG/ JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)

INERT GASES/ WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

KALEIDOSCOPE/ DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

LAW OF GRAVITY/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

MINE SAFETY LAMP/ HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

PASTEURIZATION/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

REFLECTING TELESCOPE/ ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

SCIENTIFIC METHOD/ FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)

SELF-INDUCTION/ JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

TELEGRAPH/ SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)

THERMIONIC VALVE/ AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE/ LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION/ LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

These identifications are to some degree oversimplified, of course, for even in the early days of science every new development involved a number of other scientists, before and after. Nevertheless, in each instance, a strong case can be made for attributing the chief responsibility to the creationist scientist indicated. At the very least, his contribution was critically important and thus supports our contention that belief in creation and the Bible helps, rather than hinders, scientific discovery.

In each case, the scientists listed were strict creationists, unreservedly believing in the Bible and the God of the Bible. Some were "progressive creationists," but none were theistic evolutionists, so far as can be determined. They came from a variety of denominational backgrounds and doctrinal persuasions, but all were at least professing Christians, committed to the basic doctrines of Christianity

http://www.icr.org/a...ts-past/</span>

Did they hamper the quest???? Hello?

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

They don't know. They cannot provide any answers.

"Whatever caused it," is not a scientific answer!

"God did it" is not a scientific answer either.

[betsy]

"God did it" is not a scientific answer either.

Irrelevant answer. Watch the movie.

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Numerous scientists who'd made valuable contributions to science were mostly religious - Christians, as a matter of fact! Who believed in the Bible! Here, take a look:

One can be a creationist and believe in God and still be a scientist.

Did they hamper the quest???? Hello? [/color]

Creationists can be scientists, as long as they leave the creationism out of science. All those discoveries that these people have made have been able to prove things using a scientific method in order for others to reproduce the tests and get the same results. All those discoveries have been observed in the material world. Nothing ethereal about it at all. No magic, no mystery, no 'god did it'.

[GostHacked]

Irrelevant answer. Watch the movie.

Actually that answer is more relevant than much of what you have posted in this thread.

String theory is based on a belief (sure let's go with that) and at this point not proven. Scientists understand that.

But actually String Theory is based and built on other scientific principles. So now testing is being done to debunk or validate the theory. That is how science works. The work must be done in order to verify the statement that String Theory is providing.

God is a theory based on belief, and at this point not proven. The religious cannot understand that.

God is a belief based on .. a belief and nothing more. Since God is not based in science, then there can be no scientific method to prove God created the Earth, or even if he/she/it exists at all. It's like trying to prove ghosts are real.

I have watched the movie a couple times. And as stated, was disappointed because I thought Ben Stein was intelligent.

Edited January 11, 2013 by GostHacked

[Mighty AC]

They don't know. They cannot provide any answers.

Science has provided us with countless answers. We don't know how the first self replicating organisms began yet but, as I've shown we're making progress on that mystery.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Mighty AC

[betsy]

Mighty AC

ID doesn't offer any answers or evidence, it just asserts that a designer is responsible for the gaps in our knowledge.

Your camp repeatedly hit the brickwall! The ID camp says the complexities show that it's been designed.

Well that's a start, isn't it? That there is a designer. Now....perhaps they can proceed to find out what or who that Designer is!

Of course, as a Christian I believe it is God....don't blame the scientists for that. It is me - and Christians like me - who want to believe that the Designer is God.

The ID scientists clarified they're not claiming the designer is God.

Besides, your camp doesn't offer any answers either! See the double standard? That's part of the issue, you know.

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Mighty AC

Scientists, are honest and admit what they do not know. They don't even claim to know. They are honest about it.

If they're honest about it....then why are they trying to pass it off as fact, and teaching it as fact?

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

If they're honest about it....then why are they trying to pass it off as fact, and teaching it as fact?

What are you referring to here? Edited January 11, 2013 by Mighty AC

[betsy]

What are you referring to here?

How life begun. The first link of a very long chain!

[Mighty AC]

Your camp repeatedly hit the brickwall! The ID camp says the complexities show that it's been designed.

Well that's a start, isn't it? That there is a designer. Now....perhaps they can proceed to find out what or who that Designer is! [/Quote]Apply that logic to my primitive human, lightning scenario. Lightning is complex, powerful and scary. We can't explain it, so it must have a creator. Now that we have a creator we can search for the identity of the creator.

Do you see how that assertion is not based in evidence? Now if we noticed a giant hand, extending from a cloud hurling lightning bolts, then we'd be starting from evidence.

The ID camp is doing the same thing. Self replicating organisms are complex, we can't explain it, they must have a designer.

Besides, your camp doesn't offer any answers either! See the double standard? That's part of the issue, you know.

Scientists are working on the answer for the origin of self replicating life. As I have shown, it looks like they are making progress.

[Mighty AC]

How life begun. The first link of a very long chain!

We don't claim to have the answer for how life began. So what are you claiming that we are passing off as fact?

[betsy]

Another irony came to me. The Atheist Evolutionists claim that the ID camp is influenced by religion.

Science admit they don't have the answer. They came up with all sorts of fiction. Dawkins even went as far as accepting the possibility that space aliens may've been responsible for life on earth. And yet, they wouldn't consider the possibility of a god, or God.

Well, Dawkins and company are influenced by religion! They're open to believe just about anything possible - and yet refuse to consider anything that might have a connection to religion!

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

We don't claim to have the answer for how life began. So what are you claiming that we are passing off as fact?

Evolution.

You might want to watch the movie again.

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

The ID scientists clarified they're not claiming the designer is God.

If that is the case, why is the termed 'designer' used? There are no other reason than implying there is a God.

Well, Dawkins and company are influenced by religion!

Nonsensical.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sleipnir

[g_bambino]

Your camp fills the gaps with magic... Dawkins believes in the possibility that space aliens were the cause of life on this

Stating something's possible is not the same as saying it's a fact.

[g_bambino]

How life begun.

(Grammatically incorrect) straw man. Nobody has made any claim to know how life began except those who believe a god did it.

[ed.: +]

Edited January 11, 2013 by g_bambino

[dre]

The ID scientists

[dre]

Stating something's possible is not the same as saying it's a fact.

Yes and Dawkins would not be allowed to teach that in a science or biology class, nor would that opinion be published as science in a journal.

[The_Squid]

It's OK not to know something.... science is not embarrassed or discouraged by this. There is no shame in not knowing. It leads to scientific study... which leads to hypotheses, evidence, theories and facts...

According to religion, illness had all sorts of bizarre causes ... demons.... sins... unclean spirits.... Luckily, there were scholars and scientists who didn't believe the priests word and discovered the true nature of disease, germs and mental illness.

Edited January 12, 2013 by The_Squid

[Mighty AC]

Evolution.

Evolution is fact, but has nothing to do with the origin of life. There are several hypotheses for the origin of life; but, you know that already - it has been explained to you many times.

[DogOnPorch]

[betsy]

betsy,

Your camp fills the gaps with magic... Dawkins believes in the possibility that space aliens were the cause of life on this

g Bambino

Stating something's possible is not the same as saying it's a fact.

DOUBLE STANDARD!

Watch the movie.

Edited January 12, 2013 by betsy