Ben Stein, CBS Sunday Morning commentary

[T-TownVol]

If Hell is in the center of the Earth & most folk go to Hell, shouldn't it be getting full by now?

the center of the earth is not hot enough to be hell

 

[KB5252]

If Hell is in the center of the Earth & most folk go to Hell, shouldn't it be getting full by now?

Who believes hell is in the center of the earth?

 

[T-TownVol]

Who believes hell is in the center of the earth?

scientists, otherwise it just doesn't make sense

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Who believes hell is in the center of the earth?

A lot of people do.

You have never heard the urban legend about the digging in Russia and they put sound amps in the hole and they could hear people screaming.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Drilling to Hell-Facts

 

[KB5252]

A lot of people do.

You have never heard the urban legend about the digging in Russia and they put sound amps in the hole and they could hear people screaming.

Yes it was very popular with Art Bell. Many people found it interesting but I would argue very few found it credible.

 

[T-TownVol]

A lot of people do.

You have never heard the urban legend about the digging in Russia and they put sound amps in the hole and they could hear people screaming.

those people were Vernions (Journey to the Center of the Earth)

 

[OrangeEmpire]

People also believe our government could plan out 9/11 and be successful.

 

[KB5252]

People also believe our government could plan out 9/11 and be successful.

The most outrageous conspiracy theory to date.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

People also believe our government could plan out 9/11 and be successful.

The most outrageous conspiracy theory to date.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the plan worked to well to be a government operation.

 

[kptvol]

ID isn't science because it starts with the answer beforehand (there is a designer) and works backward to prove it.

Sounds pretty similar to forming a hypothesis and then conducting an experiment to prove or disprove it.

 

[T-TownVol]

Sounds pretty similar to forming a hypothesis and then conducting an experiment to prove or disprove it.

shhh...we are not smart enough to realize that one

 

[rjd970]

Sounds pretty similar to forming a hypothesis and then conducting an experiment to prove or disprove it.

Wrong again.

By that rational I could come up with an hypothesis that the lochness monster exists. My experiment to prove it is looking at all the photographs and listening to eyewitness accounts. Nevermind what could possibly be wrong with the witness accounts or photgraphs I saw, I have my proof. I.E....I'm here, I'm complex, so I must have come from something more complex. Nevermind addressing the question of timelines, evidence against, or what created the creator.

The difference is the hypothesis should be open to being wrong. There shouldn't be any effort to prove, there should only be investigation of the hypothesis. ID looks at all evdience supporting its claim and disregards any that doesn't. The scientific community is very open to teach and make known the holes in Gravitational, Evoutionary, Relativity, etc... This is to a fault almost, because then you get wacko ideas that jump on the shortcomings and wrongly claim it is equal. ID is nothing more than creationism dressed in a bad suit that is driven by an agenda, not scientific inquiry. ID proponents know it can't pass scientific muster, so they try the legal route. It's pathetic.

Teach ID all you want, just keep it out of science classes.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Are you seriously trying to pretend that evolution belongs in the same category as gravitation? or that it has been proven to the point to stand up to real scientific inquiry better than intelligent design?

I don't have an agenda about this in the least and I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive. When you try to espouse one as the only permissible argument, you tend to look a bit agenda driven, but call me crazy.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Are you seriously trying to pretend that evolution belongs in the same category as gravitation? or that it has been proven to the point to stand up to real scientific inquiry better than intelligent design?

I don't have an agenda about this in the least and I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive. When you try to espouse one as the only permissible argument, you tend to look a bit agenda driven, but call me crazy.

Ya think?

 

[JZVOL]

A lot of people do.

You have never heard the urban legend about the digging in Russia and they put sound amps in the hole and they could hear people screaming.

I did the same thing in my back yard when I was younger.

 

[rjd970]

Are you seriously trying to pretend that evolution belongs in the same category as gravitation?

I am not trying, it is in the same category. They are both theories. Period. The simple truth is gravitation is a theory, nobody really knows why two objects are attraced to one another.

or that it has been proven to the point to stand up to real scientific inquiry better than intelligent design?

Absolutely Evolutionary Theory stands up better than ID. Take the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Many specifics of this theory fly in the face of basic Evolutionary Theory, yet it gets time in science classrooms, because it can stand up to the scrutiny. ID is psuedoscience, plain and simple. Not once have I ever had a discussion about it, or come across a website promoting it, that hasn't turned at least implicitely religious. It is simply next generation creationism. All ID is good for is demonstrating the elasticity of religious belief combined with current unknowns in science.

I don't have an agenda about this in the least and I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive. When you try to espouse one as the only permissible argument, you tend to look a bit agenda driven, but call me crazy.

See bold. This statement shows you don't understand one or either of them then. Don't take my word for it, go take an evolutionary biology class, or try to understand ID. There are a number of theories that compliment and challenge certain aspects of Evolutionary Theory...but I'm sorry, ID simply isn't one. No agenda here, it is what it is.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I am not trying, it is in the same category. They are both theories. Period. The simple truth is gravitation is a theory, nobody really knows why two objects are attraced to one another.

There are theories and then there are those empirically provable every day. Gravitation would be empirically provable right now and relies upon no assumptions in measurement. Evolution is littered with half-truths, assumptions and garbage to come to a conclusion. Pretending the two are at similar points in the scientific realm is absolute trash.



Absolutely Evolutionary Theory stands up better than ID. Take the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Many specifics of this theory fly in the face of basic Evolutionary Theory, yet it gets time in science classrooms, because it can stand up to the scrutiny. ID is psuedoscience, plain and simple. Not once have I ever had a discussion about it, or come across a website promoting it, that hasn't turned at least implicitely religious. It is simply next generation creationism. All ID is good for is demonstrating the elasticity of religious belief combined with current unknowns in science.

Don't forget that your evolutionary trash eventually leads you to the same problems. Where did it begin? I don't care for all of your other blather and find it purely agenda driven. It is entirely sensible that all of the science is correct and a higher being set the entire process in motion. Precluding that possibility in the discussion is cultish, by the definition I have seen here. Assuming it could not have happened that way is just stupid.



See bold. This statement shows you don't understand one or either of them then. Don't take my word for it, go take an evolutionary biology class, or try to understand ID. There are a number of theories that compliment and challenge certain aspects of Evolutionary Theory...but I'm sorry, ID simply isn't one. No agenda here, it is what it is.

See bold above.

I guarantee you that I understand both as well as you. I don't wholly buy either, but if you've been getting your info from evolutionary bio professors, maybe you should wad it up, stuff it in your ear and look around a bit. Those are the clowns so fervently pushing your agenda and so blatantly accepting all of the holes in the science and the records. Pretending that's not biased information is similar to something I'd expect from Jerry Falwell.

 

[rjd970]

See bold above.

I guarantee you that I understand both as well as you. I don't wholly buy either, but if you've been getting your info from evolutionary bio professors, maybe you should wad it up, stuff it in your ear and look around a bit. Those are the clowns so fervently pushing your agenda and so blatantly accepting all of the holes in the science and the records. Pretending that's not biased information is similar to something I'd expect from Jerry Falwell.

I don't even know where to begin with your post. Given your statements, I find it highly unlikely you understand evolution, or gravitational theory in the least.

There are theories and then there are those empirically provable every day. Gravitation would be empirically provable right now and relies upon no assumptions in measurement.

I would love for you to empirically prove gravitation to me. If you are talking about Newton's Law of Gravity, then you have a point. Newton's Law can be empirically calculated all day long. Anybody that has had any kind of science or engineering classes should know the difference. Modern gravitational theory had its beginnings with Einstein who postulated gravity was caused by the mass of objects bending space-time. Gravitational Theory...or even gravity for that matter, is still a relatively new concept to humankind. In fact, Evolution has been around longer than gravitational theory. Einstien's theory was confirmed in 1919 when it was shown the mass of the sun caused a beam of light to bend, but it is far from providing the evidence that his theory should be considered law. By the flawed logic I am reading in this thread, we should disregard Einstien's theory and all supporting data because not all of it makes complete sense at the moment and adopt the theory that it was all designed by a higher creator....because, afterall, nobody really knows. Please.

Evolution is littered with half-truths, assumptions and garbage to come to a conclusion. Pretending the two are at similar points in the scientific realm is absolute trash.

Given how much you claim to know, I would love to have a discussion on which specific assumptions you have a problem with and what exactly these half-truths are. Evolution is no different than any other theory, there are many things that at present are not explainable, otherwise it would be considered Law. With real science, certainty is fleeting and absolutes are rare. With ID, creationism, etc....it is a staple, because "faith as a virtue" takes precedence.

Don't forget that your evolutionary trash eventually leads you to the same problems. Where did it begin? I don't care for all of your other blather and find it purely agenda driven.

It might help to concern yourself with the other blather because my "evolutionary trash" doesn't even begin to try and explain "where it began" and it never makes any such claims. Evolution is concerned only with the process that happened after the chemistry of biology started. You guys can argue back and forth about abiogenesis all you want. But the fact that you are dismissing evolution because it doesn't answer a question it was never meant to answer is ridiculous and again, demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what Evolutionary Theory postulates.

It is entirely sensible that all of the science is correct and a higher being set the entire process in motion. Precluding that possibility in the discussion is cultish, by the definition I have seen here. Assuming it could not have happened that way is just stupid.

By that line of thinking, it is entirely possible that aliens started life on earth and let evolution take over...or Zeus or Egyptian Gods started everything in motion. Or maybe we are are just really part of a simulation being run by a huge supercomputer developed by a higher being. Are you saying those are equally probable? I sure don't, I just take it one God further than you seem to.

I don't wholly buy either

That is the only sentence in your entire post that has anykind of credibility. I don't either, but one is far more likely than the rest.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't even know where to begin with your post. Given your statements, I find it highly unlikely you understand evolution, or gravitational theory in the least.

you would be incorrect.


I would love for you to empirically prove gravitation to me. If you are talking about Newton's Law of Gravity, then you have a point. Newton's Law can be empirically calculated all day long. Anybody that has had any kind of science or engineering classes should know the difference. Modern gravitational theory had its beginnings with Einstein who postulated gravity was caused by the mass of objects bending space-time. Gravitational Theory...or even gravity for that matter, is still a relatively new concept to humankind. In fact, Evolution has been around longer than gravitational theory. Einstien's theory was confirmed in 1919 when it was shown the mass of the sun caused a beam of light to bend, but it is far from providing the evidence that his theory should be considered law. By the flawed logic I am reading in this thread, we should disregard Einstien's theory and all supporting data because not all of it makes complete sense at the moment and adopt the theory that it was all designed by a higher creator....because, afterall, nobody really knows. Please.


I'm talking about the measurable effect of gravity, period. Evolution in no way shares a bed with that.

Given how much you claim to know, I would love to have a discussion on which specific assumptions you have a problem with and what exactly these half-truths are. Evolution is no different than any other theory, there are many things that at present are not explainable, otherwise it would be considered Law. With real science, certainty is fleeting and absolutes are rare. With ID, creationism, etc....it is a staple, because "faith as a virtue" takes precedence.

I want no discussions because I don't care, you do. If you want to pretend that evolution doesn't have more holes in it than the big bang, that's your problem, not mine.

It might help to concern yourself with the other blather because my "evolutionary trash" doesn't even begin to try and explain "where it began" and it never makes any such claims. Evolution is concerned only with the process that happened after the chemistry of biology started. You guys can argue back and forth about abiogenesis all you want. But the fact that you are dismissing evolution because it doesn't answer a question it was never meant to answer is ridiculous and again, demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what Evolutionary Theory postulates.

Evolution answers none of the fundamental questions about how it started and that's a problem with the entire premise. Ignoring it is retarded. The billions of years argument doesn't remotely acount for vast numbers of species popping up, many altogether unrelated to the rest. That's a problem. The fact that guesses have tried to link some animals to prehistoric creatures should be a huge problem for anyone thinking about it.



By that line of thinking, it is entirely possible that aliens started life on earth and let evolution take over...or Zeus or Egyptian Gods started everything in motion. Or maybe we are are just really part of a simulation being run by a huge supercomputer developed by a higher being. Are you saying those are equally probable? I sure don't, I just take it one God further than you seem to.

Those are equally as likely as life and conscience from nothing. Be as silly as you'd like, but you're still the one trying to shove a bunch of holes down everyone's throats and most of those everyones don't give a rat's ass. You do.


That is the only sentence in your entire post that has anykind of credibility. I don't either, but one is far more likely than the rest.

you kid yourself all over the place and play semantics. I don't care, I'm not the one with the agenda and you're arguing over garbage that is not going to be proven. Waste your air if you believe you are making some sense or headway. Enjoy.

 

[rjd970]

you kid yourself all over the place and play semantics. I don't care, I'm not the one with the agenda and you're arguing over garbage that is not going to be proven. Waste your air if you believe you are making some sense or headway. Enjoy.

I am not playing semantics, and I have no agenda. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and you seem to be proud of it.

I'm talking about the measurable effect of gravity, period. Evolution in no way shares a bed with that

No one ever said it did, one is law, the other is a theory. You're the one that got them confused. And just so you know, Newton's laws only apply in special cases. Einstein's theory on gravitation covers every case.

Evolution answers none of the fundamental questions about how it started and that's a problem with the entire premise. Ignoring it is retarded. The billions of years argument doesn't remotely acount for vast numbers of species popping up, many altogether unrelated to the rest. That's a problem. The fact that guesses have tried to link some animals to prehistoric creatures should be a huge problem for anyone thinking about it

The problem is yours if you are deciding to dismiss a theory because it doesn't address a question it was never meant to address. That stinks of an agenda.

And if you bothered to understand the theory on how new species arise from ordered selection of random gene mutations, the billions of years argument is more than enough time to account for the variety of species we see today. Look at the wide variety of dog breeds we see today...all done with artificial selection over the last couple hundred years. Given natural selection and more time, new species arising is perfectly reasonable, and can be done in relatively short periods of time. Heck, new strands of medication resistant bacteria come along every cold season.

Those are equally as likely as life and conscience from nothing. Be as silly as you'd like, but you're still the one trying to shove a bunch of holes down everyone's throats and most of those everyones don't give a rat's ass. You do.

Who's being silly here? I am simply using the rationale you guys are using. I don't care if you guys listen to me or not, but you are absolutely wrong about your understanding of basic scientific theory and what Evolution is postulating. I refuse to sit here and read these posts that paint my line of thinking similar to what you guys are peddling and as trying to push some sort of an agenda. It is two completely different things.

I'm sorry you have no idea what you are talking about here. Maybe you should give a rat's ass if you want to act like you do.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I am not playing semantics, and I have no agenda. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and you seem to be proud of it.



No one ever said it did, one is law, the other is a theory. You're the one that got them confused. And just so you know, Newton's laws only apply in special cases. Einstein's theory on gravitation covers every case.



The problem is yours if you are deciding to dismiss a theory because it doesn't address a question it was never meant to address. That stinks of an agenda.

And if you bothered to understand the theory on how new species arise from ordered selection of random gene mutations, the billions of years argument is more than enough time to account for the variety of species we see today. Look at the wide variety of dog breeds we see today...all done with artificial selection over the last couple hundred years. Given natural selection and more time, new species arising is perfectly reasonable, and can be done in relatively short periods of time. Heck, new strands of medication resistant bacteria come along every cold season.



Who's being silly here? I am simply using the rationale you guys are using. I don't care if you guys listen to me or not, but you are absolutely wrong about your understanding of basic scientific theory and what Evolution is postulating. I refuse to sit here and read these posts that paint my line of thinking similar to what you guys are peddling and as trying to push some sort of an agenda. It is two completely different things.

I'm sorry you have no idea what you are talking about here. Maybe you should give a rat's ass if you want to act like you do.

You read what you type, right?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I am not playing semantics, and I have no agenda. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and you seem to be proud of it.

How have you validated that I have no idea what I'm talking about? Simply because I won't engage over silly minutiae about evolution? That makes sense.

No one ever said it did, one is law, the other is a theory. You're the one that got them confused. And just so you know, Newton's laws only apply in special cases. Einstein's theory on gravitation covers every case.

If Einstein's theory covered every case, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be law. Pretending that evolution is remotely akin to either is an out loud joke, regardless of your semantics.


The problem is yours if you are deciding to dismiss a theory because it doesn't address a question it was never meant to address. That stinks of an agenda.

I'm not dismissing the theory. I'm pointing to the holes in it. I have never dismissed the theory, just the idiots who pretend that it isn't fraught with atrocious assumptions and WAGs. It is. It also doesn't very well account for origins of the species, which Darwin was trying to do when he initially brought it forth.

And if you bothered to understand the theory on how new species arise from ordered selection of random gene mutations, the billions of years argument is more than enough time to account for the variety of species we see today. Look at the wide variety of dog breeds we see today...all done with artificial selection over the last couple hundred years. Given natural selection and more time, new species arising is perfectly reasonable, and can be done in relatively short periods of time. Heck, new strands of medication resistant bacteria come along every cold season.

I guarantee you that I know more than you presume. I get random gene mutations. The problem is the origination of gene sequences that formed the creatures. 4 billion years doesn't account for the formation of the absurd number of gene sequences that had to exist in the beginning. The remote odds of it happening at all is absurd and the odds that it wouldn't happen on any other planet in our solar system is ridiculous. They've been here forever too. We have animals living in the harshest of climes here, they could do it there too.



Who's being silly here? I am simply using the rationale you guys are using. I don't care if you guys listen to me or not, but you are absolutely wrong about your understanding of basic scientific theory and what Evolution is postulating. I refuse to sit here and read these posts that paint my line of thinking similar to what you guys are peddling and as trying to push some sort of an agenda. It is two completely different things.

You're just being arrogant here and it only serves to undermine your agenda. The basic scientific theory isn't remotely tough to grasp. The leaps in logic and holes in proof are the problem. The odds driven origins are garbage. I know you think you're the only one right, but there are many much brighter than you who know fully well you can't substantiate your theory. You also can't substantiate that a greater being did not make all of this happen, however hard you might want that to be the case.

I'm sorry you have no idea what you are talking about here. Maybe you should give a rat's ass if you want to act like you do.

I genuinely don't give a rat's ass what you think about what I know. Just imagine that the feeling is mutual.

 

[rjd970]

How have you validated that I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Your following statements in this thread a good place to start:

Gravitation would be empirically provable right now and relies upon no assumptions in measurement....Pretending the two are at similar points in the scientific realm is absolute trash

Evolution answers none of the fundamental questions about how it started and that's a problem with the entire premise.

The first is flat wrong. And the second is confusing two completely different ideas.

If Einstein's theory covered every case, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be law.

Nope. Wrong again. We can add this statement as an afterthought to the above list.

The main way a theory becomes law is when it becomes a reliable predictor of physical phenomenon...to the point where it can be calculated.

Newton = Law. Entropy calculations = Law. Einstein = Theory. Evolution = Theory. Newtonian physics is limited to reality. Einstein covers every case, but every case can't be reliably predicted because we are dealing with space-time and it's relationship to mass. Einstein, Evolution, etc...provide utility to addressing scientific phenomenon and has mountains of data supporting their basic tenants. They are far from predictors. Given an objects' mass, height, and starting velocity...I can predict it's time of freefall using Newton.

I'm not dismissing the theory. I'm pointing to the holes in it. I have never dismissed the theory, just the idiots who pretend that it isn't fraught with atrocious assumptions and WAGs.

It looks like to me you are considering the fact it doesn't explain how life began and a trying your hardest to explain a complete misunderstanding of how gene mutations and gene sequences work as pretty dismissive.

The remote odds of it happening at all is absurd and the odds that it wouldn't happen on any other planet in our solar system is ridiculous. They've been here forever too. We have animals living in the harshest of climes here, they could do it there too.

This is patently absurd. You need to do a search on the "Goldilocks Zone" before you take yourself serious with this claim. Wiki has a nice page explaning it.

And taking the size of the universe into account, along with the magic of large numbers, and it is very probable this has happened more than once, on other planets somewhere.

I know you think you're the only one right, but there are many much brighter than you who know fully well you can't substantiate your theory. You also can't substantiate that a greater being did not make all of this happen, however hard you might want that to be the case

You guys love to harp on this point over and over and over again at nauseating length. Let me make this as clear and simple as possible so everybody can understand it:

I am not saying I can prove a higher being didn't do all this. I am saying the reasons supporting it are weaker than the alternative.

That is all I am saying about any of this. The reasons for evolutionary theory far outweigh the reasons against. If another theory comes along and makes more sense than Evolution, I will happily change camps. It would, however, have a lot of explaining to do for the mountains of evidence in support for evolution. I can sit here and say Evolution may be completely wrong...but given the data supporting it, the chances of it not happening in some form, is effectively zero. Sure I could be wrong and you could be right, but it doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe your claim over another.

The argument I am seeing on this thread is the faith-based default one. You have faith, I can't disprove your position, therefore I am wrong. Not all assertions are on equal ground when the reasoning behind them are compared.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

This is why I hate science......