You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- « next
Ben Stein's "Expelled" | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
fenk the evil midnight stabber Posted:
I would legitimately call Expelled religious propaganda. And speaking as a Michael Moore fan…of course, all dogreat timesentaries have agendas, and with as far left as Moore leans, calling his films propaganda is a legitimate claim.
However…Rotten Tomatoes has Expelled at 9% meta-score, while Moore’s films average around 80% or higher, with Sicko at 93% or so. This is because Moore does his best at appealing to as broad of an audience as he can, and part of that is having a strong sense of ethics. Moore cites his sources on his website, he criticizes his own party, and he let’s interviewees finish their sentences instead of cutting them off mid-sentence.
As opposed to what Ben Stein, Ann Coulter, etc., think…not all people are sheep. Most people understand when they’re being deceived, and they do question the credibility of speakers, even if the speaker does make good points. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 8:27PM | View Bill_Murray_Fan_...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
L2 Posted:
Yes it is. If you can’t study something, it is not science, and it has nothing to do with science. You can’t relate science to ID. you just can’t. hasn’t this already been said like 5 times in this thread? |
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 8:38PM | View BirdofPrey's Profile | # | ||||||
|
BirdofPrey Posted:
So you’re saying we should throw the entirety of theoretical science out the window? Alternate dimensions, time travel, the majority of quantum mechanics? There’s no way to study these things, all we can do is make bumumptions and inferences based on mathematical equations and logical reasoning.
|
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 8:49PM | View Bill_Murray_Fan_...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
Thingysomeone Posted:
ID is creationism in a trojan horse because it is a deliberate attempt by christian fundamentalists to place religion back in schools.
In this case, it’s more about the intentions than what is actually said.
L2 Posted:
l2 there is no way you are this very special.
I made numerous posts on these previous pages explaining in explicit detail why what you’re saying is horribly, horribly, god awfully wrong.
SO LET ME DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE I AM BORED
Now, throughout this posts there may be reiterations of the same point which some of our readers who are not l2 may consider redundant. Let me bumure you however that it is completely necessary as previous efforts on my part to explain these exact things have failed and I feel it is because L2 may need a guiding hand in his thinking process.
However, it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID. At the moment, it certainly is, but in the same scope, we haven’t DISPROVED ID either.
This is really, really twisted reasoning.
Do you know why we haven’t ‘disproved ID’?
Because it’s impossible to study.
Here, lets try this again.
it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID At the moment, it certainly is (That’s awful narrow minded of you, l2.) we haven’t DISPROVED ID either (the “either” there makes it appear as if there is an option between the two things you just said. That it is “Impossible to study ID at the moment”, and that “we haven’t disproved ID”. These are actually two separate statements that are not directly related to each other and the latter could actually be considered a departure, or “non sequitur”, from the previous statements. It almost appears as if you added this last part and phrased it so that it is deliberately misleading.)
Lets break it down again, but without those pesky words of mine getting in the way. it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID At the moment, it certainly is we haven’t DISPROVED ID either
And again:
1. “It’s narrow minded to say it’s impossible to study ID.” 2. “We can’t study ID.” 3. “ID has not been disproved.”
I have simplified your statements and broken them into three separate pieces so that this next section of my post will be neatly organized and understandable for those on l2’s reading level. In the next paragraph I will deal with the first two parts.
When someone says that it is impossible to study ID, for example, someone in the scientific community, they say it because at this point in time it is impossible to study ID. Your position is that while it is now currently impossible to study ID it may be possible in the future, and that those who disregard ID because of it’s currently unstudiable are narrow minded.
My question is: What the **** do you want us to do? Wait until a moment where it can be studied? Technically, that’s what we’re doing. But at the same time we’re saying the truth; That it is (currently) impossible to study Intelligent Design.
What’s so narrow minded about saying something true?
PART ONE OF MY SERIES ON “WHY L2 IS A BAD PERSON” IS NOW OVER. IN PART TWO OF MY SERIES I WILL ADDRESS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF HIS POST AND POINT OUT WHY IT IS ALSO WRONG. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 9:12PM | View nanalatinojesus ...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
L2 Posted:
L2 Posted:
oh.
oh no you didn’t.
Theoretical physics is a completely valid and falsifiable section of science, and to put ID in the same level as it is an insult to everyone not as very special as you.
Intelligent design has no mathematical equations or logical reasoning backing it, first off.
Theories that involve other dimensions have arisen because other theories allow the mathematical possibility of them.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that time travel is a valid scientific theory.
And you’re so horribly horribly wrong about the quantum mechanics part that it hurts.
It hurts l2.
It shows that you are completely uneducated in it’s field and should never, ever talk about it ever again.
Honestly, just do yourself a favor and learn the basics of it and then talk about it. If you’re not willing to do that then don’t embarrbum yourself further and talk about something which you do not understand. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 9:19PM | View nanalatinojesus ...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
BUT ANYWAYS, YOUR MOST RECENT HORRIBLY WRONG POST DISTRACTED ME FROM POINTING OUT THE OTHER HORRIBLY WRONG THINGS IN THIS POST
L2 Posted:
It’s the scientific method’s job to do exactly that.
I mean, honestly, you could not have gotten science more wrong.
You said the exact opposite of what is actually true. I’m not exaggerating here either, that is *literally* the exact opposite of what’s true.
Give me an example of some of this “Good science.”
Good science studies ideas which it is able to study, and does not waste resources trying to figure out ways to study things without any supporting evidence. nanalatinojesus gets you JUSTICE IN YOUR FORUMS edited this message on 05/18/2008 9:25PM |
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 9:23PM | View nanalatinojesus ...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
BirdofPrey Posted:
ALSO YES
YES IT HAS
THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT ALL OF MY POSTS IN THIS THREAD HAVE BEEN
L2 WHY DO YOU HURT ME
WHY Log in to see images!
|
||||||
Posted On: 05/18/2008 9:24PM | View nanalatinojesus ...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
nanafabulous personjesus Posted:
Actually, I shouldn’t have included time travel in that example, because one-way time travel into the future has been argued possible, using special relativity and time dilation. The effects are impractical, but measurable.
And I may have used some poor choice of words, but my point is – because something is not scientifically measurable doesn’t mean it gets thrown out. Left alone until evidence emerges? Sure. You said as much. But not thrown out.
I made another poor choice of words while bringing up theoretical science, in saying that it can only be addressed via mathematical possibility and logical reasoning, both of which I will agree that ID cannot be measured by. But the bare bones is, much of theoretical science, such as wormholes, exotic matter, etc., can’t be directly observed. Until a wormhole is observable in some way, it remains as objectionable as ID.
Philosophically, the case for ID can be argued. And while philosophy is far, FAR removed from science, and should never be approached as such, it argues a case in which ID can exist where science cannot. I never said ID has a place in science textbooks, or that it CAN be studied.
I will also agree that ID was created BY CREATIONISTS, specifically to WORK AROUND laws that PROHIBIT CREATIONISM, removing the blanket label of God from CREATIONISM so that it can be taught in clbumrooms and bring CREATIONISM back into scientific dialogue, it’s main proponent’s ARE CREATIONISTS, and it is HEAVILY used as a disguise FOR CREATIONISM. But a white horse is not a horse – creationism specifically states the creator as God, a god, etc., while ID is much trickier and depends on how one defines the term ID. There’s a complex, convoluted difference between the two, but a difference none-the-less. Bill_Murray_Fan_7383 edited this message on 05/19/2008 1:27AM |
||||||
Posted On: 05/19/2008 1:25AM | View Bill_Murray_Fan_...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
so what exactly is your point
the only thing i’m getting from your post is backpedaling |
||||||
Posted On: 05/19/2008 5:56AM | View BirdofPrey's Profile | # | ||||||
|
BTW… nobody said that ID has to be thrown out. Maybe you can point out where you got that idea from. We simply said it’s not science. So you agree to that now? |
||||||
Posted On: 05/19/2008 12:27PM | View BirdofPrey's Profile | # | ||||||
|
http://www.peteykins.com/October05/images/JesusSpiderBig.jpg Biff Weasley edited this message on 05/21/2008 2:35AM |
||||||
Posted On: 05/21/2008 2:34AM | View Biff Weasley's Profile | # | ||||||
|
nanafabulous personjesus Posted:To be fair, string theory (among other things in high-energy physics) has been argued to be unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/29/2008 2:26PM | View Schadenfreude's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Schadenfreude Posted:
Which is why I dislike string theory.
Edit: My biggest problem with his post was that it was elevating Intelligent Design to the level of theoretical physics and saying ID and Quantum mechanics are equally viable because of his lack of knowledge about Quantum Mechanics.
And while String Theory is unfalsifiable and ****, it at least has some mathematical backing. Something ID lacks. nanalatinojesus gets you JUSTICE IN YOUR FORUMS edited this message on 05/29/2008 2:37PM |
||||||
Posted On: 05/29/2008 2:35PM | View nanalatinojesus ...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
nanafabulous personjesus Posted:
Once again, I admit it was a bad comparison, since mathematics and theory at least provide a venue for it’s study. But with a famous mathematical anomaly, I can argue that 1=2 – my point was the lack of observable evidence for subjects such as wormholes or exotic matter.
In the same sense, I can argue the case of ID PHILOSOPHICALLY, but that means **** without observable, scientific evidence. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/29/2008 6:43PM | View Bill_Murray_Fan_...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
L2 Posted:
Oh, I know you already apologized for that.
And no one who knows anything about wormholes gives a **** about them. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/29/2008 6:45PM | View nanalatinojesus ...'s Profile | # | ||||||
|
nanafabulous personjesus Posted:Agreed.
On a related note, I do find it disheartening to see creationism and intelligent design compared, much less equated. They plainly are not the same. Creationism makes testable, specific, observable predictions about the world, such as: -There are limits on “how far” a species can evolve (things reproduce after their kind). -Dinosaurs and man coexisted. -Geological layers, if they exist, should be sorted mostly according to mbum (i.e. hydrologically). -Fossils are sorted hydrologically, with no obvious relationship between their morphology and where they’re found. -The mutation rate in all organisms is very high (to account for all the neutral polymorphisms within species), or there is some evidence that it was very high in the past and suddenly dropped. -No correlation exists between the depth of layers and the radioactivity of the rocks contained therein, or if such a correlation is found, then radioactivity is explainable in terms of flood geology in a way that makes dating measurements all consistently give false dates. -Species have a distribution which generally reflects radiation out from Mt. Ararat 4,000 years ago. -The speed of light is changing, or there is evidence that it has changed in the past, or no star is more than 6,000 light years away. -People wearing radiation suits can live for 900 years.
Of course, these predictions all happen to be completely wrong, but at least creationists are willing to take a stand and submit their theory to the evidence nature provides. Of course, when their explanation for why their theory’s predictions are wrong begins with “Well, you see, God…” then it’s basically the same as ID. But otherwise, it’s actually a much better theory. |
||||||
Posted On: 05/30/2008 12:16AM | View Schadenfreude's Profile | # | ||||||
Lara Croft Posted: best part in this thread! JUST CUZ WE CAN’T STUDY TIME TRAVEL DOESN’T MEAN ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO HANGS WITH DINOS, LOL |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/18/2008 7:13PM | View Shram24's Profile | # | ||||||
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- « next