As Ben Stein’s pro-intelligent design documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” soars into history as one of the most successful documentary films of all time, the producers of the film have found themselves threatened with a lawsuit – part of what they claim is the latest in a series of attacks against the film and the message it represents.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Entertainment > Movie
'Expelled' Filmmakers Sued Over Lennon Song
By
Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Correspondent
Mon, Apr. 28 2008 08:20 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Comments
“Are they eternal?”
Not 'they' he/she/it, singular. Depends how they are viewed (matter/energy, then yes), their actions certainly are, but their temporal timely existence no.
“Are they moral?”
Non-factor. Deists and pantheists consider god to be indifferent to the affairs of the going ons in the universe. To be ‘moral’, said god would have to exert this by action actively, or indirectly and favoring certain outcomes and our view of this of course would be viewed according to what we find 'moral'. And since deists don’t accept such notions god can’t be said to be acting morally or not morally with regards to the state of the universes. It just ‘is’.
“Are you accountable to them?”
Like is there some moral debt? No. There is no emotional guilt trip laid on by the notion of deist god, he/she/it simply is the initial mover, I guess you could feel thankful to some extent, but no unwarranted guilt as religions tend to do.
“Are they all knowing? All powerful?”
Knowing, no, at least not in the abstract. Deist consider god to be essentially an initially mover and not much more than that. He’s not some super duper magical proofing thing which acts actively giving preferential treatment to certain people or parties, he is largely (or completely) indifferent of the affairs of what goes on in the universe caused from his action.
“Everywhere present?”
No, essentially initial mover and little else.
“How would you define them?”
‘ natures god’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
agentorange
RE:I define myself as an Agnostic, though if I had to define how I view God, I mostly see the work of god as being a deistic or pantheistic first cause or initial mover whom the work we see before us is all the end result of their initial work, regardless of how it all started.
If there are diestic/pantheistic god(s) that got everything going in the beginning what would he/they look like to you? Are they eternal? Are they moral? Are you accountable to them? Are they all knowing? All powerful? Everywhere present? How would you define them?
I doubt God is or ever was worried about evolution.
"certainly not scripturally based religious gods. It makes no sense to have a supposed ‘revealed word’ which is taken as authoritative dogma, only to have evidence which contradicts the accounts within in."
Agent, let me just say that God doesn't get worried or upset over evolution whether he utilized it at length or not. God doesn't have an ego complex that makes Him stay up all not wondering whether people will believe in evolution and materialism. God is God regardless of what people think. If people prefer to go on in a sensless understanding of reality, it is really their choice. The wonders of God are wrapped up in creation at large, regardless of the method that he used. His laws are written in the human consciousness so that we all stand without excuse. When a man stands before the One who gave his very life for him and he says that God just didn't give him enough evidence to believe...and Oh yeah, what about evolution? God will not be in an apologetic mood. Without a free choice, love is not love at all.
“You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates”
I don’t need to want it; it’s there backed by evidence in the labs and in the wild with one species diversifying into a new species. Does this negate god? Absolutely not, in fact when viewed from the angle of god setting the laws into motion from thee get go one finds the evolutionary process as a credit to the work of god just as gravity is. No one thinks god actively pulls on objects so they work according to how gravity works, rather gravity is something the laws he defined from the get go and is the end result of our universe, and the same can be said of evolution. Evolution is a natural process just like gravity, which in the end indirectly stems from his initial actions.
“Does your process have room for God and where. I am not being flippant now. Are you a Christian”
I define myself as an Agnostic, though if I had to define how I view God, I mostly see the work of god as being a deistic or pantheistic first cause or initial mover whom the work we see before us is all the end result of their initial work, regardless of how it all started. So in this manner, one could say god is indirectly responsible for how/why species become more diverse, but not that he is actively pulling string to have it occur, that much we do know. What is more divine: A) a god who can from the get go set things into motion so the universe built by the laws which he seeded brings forth life OR B) having a god actively monitoring his creation and poofing things into existence as needed? Wouldn’t a god have everything all planned out in advance and not need to look over his creation like a janitor? I tend to think so. To me, it’s more symbolic of divine action when a thing can cause something to build itself as opposed to having the builder self causes all the little things in an add hoc fashion.
“Where does God fit into your natural process that fuses chromosomes?”
Not directly as in the moment that is for sure, but more so indirectly. We don’t refer to God to explain how natural effects of gravity works. If he makes the laws which govern how matter works, ultimately his work is the end stemming cause, and so one could say he is indirectly responsible for it. Is there actual, testable, evidence which can back up this hypothesis? No, not yet and not likely ever as the process of genetic fusions and mutations are entirely natural and need not the interjection of 'god did it' to explain how or why they exist as they do.
Hello Agent Orange,
So you’re saying god essentially created the process of evolution to occur naturally, just as it could be said he too setup the laws for gravity to work in such a manner. Well, I have no argument with that. Again, there is a distinction between saying he’s actively pulling strings and if he set up natural laws which dictate matter. This is essentially the manner in which a Deistic god is described, an initial mover and nothing more, but a god nonetheless.
Nope, I did not mean to say that I am a deist. The Bible describes God as both creating processes and pulling strings. That requires Him to be active in the affairs of men. The Bible says that Evil will slay the wicked. You live badly and your badness will kill you. That would be a process. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit acted in Mary and the Son of God Jesus was conceived. I would say that is pulling strings. Jesus healed blind men, men afflicted with leprosy, raised Lazarus from the dead. That is pulling strings too.
Do you believe that God Pulls strings?
Do you believe that God creates Processes?
:-) Runningdoc. Tommorrow I will be running the Indpls Mini Marathon. 13.1 miles of pure why am I doing this?
Runningdoc,
“you dont have to turn to being negative here do you?”
I am not being, nor am I trying to be negative, I am simply stating a fact. Saying ‘god made it that way’ in regards to anything, but for our discussion as it related to human chromosome 2 fusion is entirely unfalsifiable and as such isn’t scientific.
“There, again. I am not saying that anyone is falsifying anything. ( although the guy that made up that ontology recapitulates philogeny did fudge his drawings)”
No, heckles embryos have NOTHING to do with the evidence on human chromosome 2 fusion. We are not talking about ‘deliberately falsifying something’ (or attempting to lie or make something appear as it genuinely isn’t) that is NOT the same thing as saying a proposition is ‘falsifiable’. For something to be ‘falsifiable’ loosely means it has the opportunity, based on evidence and testing, to be shown either false or true, it has nothing to do with a person fabricating drawings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“I would just say that If the chromosomes fused according to a natural law or process, is was a natural law or process designed and governed by God.’
As would I, but this is a stark contrast to saying ‘god by his divine action pulled strings in the moment and actively to bring about such fusions, there lies the distinction.
“You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates”
So you’re saying god essentially created the process of evolution to occur naturally, just as it could be said he too setup the laws for gravity to work in such a manner. Well, I have no argument with that. Again, there is a distinction between saying he’s actively pulling strings and if he set up natural laws which dictate matter. This is essentially the manner in which a Deistic god is described, an initial mover and nothing more, but a god nonetheless.
Hey AgentOrange, Now, you dont have to turn to being negative here do you? :-)
I am capable of comprehending lots of things. Graduate school has a way of improving a fellows reading skills.
You don’t get it do you? You can’t falsify a statement like ‘god fused the chromosomes just so it would appear to make evolution make sense’
Does it make sense to inject a god/super natural agent into something which can be explained by natural laws and processes?
There, again. I am not saying that anyone is falsifying anything. ( although the guy that made up that ontology recapitulates philogeny did fudge his drawings) I am not contesting the idea that those chromosomes are fused.
I would just say that If the chromosomes fused according to a natural law or process, is was a natural law or process designed and governed by God.
We keep circling around the same kind of idea. You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates.
Does your process have room for God and where. I am not being flippant now. Are you a Christian. I dont ask that because you believe in evolution. I am fully convinced that the only thing required to go to heaven is a firm understanding of John 3:16 and the desire to repent of sin and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. So in asking my question, I am not assuming that you are or are not a Christian.
So back to the question. Where does God fit into your natural process that fuses chromosomes?
I am enjoying this conversation by the way. runningdoc
‘So the choice is between a God who can choose to fuse chromosomes or not, or choose to make us stand upright or not, and a random process.”
You don’t get it do you? You can’t falsify a statement like ‘god fused the chromosomes just so it would appear to make evolution make sense’. There is no way to falsify any way the supernatural agent could have fused them, whether they were just 2 chromosomes, 4 chromosomes, or any possible combination, in the end it can’t be falsified and as such isn’t science. Does it make sense to inject a god/super natural agent into something which can be explained by natural laws and processes? No, it most certainly doesn’t, it only adds more that must be explained. IE, if one assumes the ‘designer did it’ and it wasn’t the result of a natural fusion then one must also explain HOW the designer did it, and how he overcame many issues which stem from the fusing of the chromosomes.
Runningdoc,
“Why fuse them if he didn’t have to?”
Yes, exactly! But more to the point, why would he intentionally make more evidence, which reaffirms evolution and common ancestry when he doesn’t have to, especially when such acts contradict his very own supposed ‘revealed words’? It’s not logical to assume A) he inspired such holly books and B) at the same time left evidence which contradicts it. To assume he did such a thing is counter intuitive and not logical from his or our point of view. What’s more is such genetic mutations are totally NATURAL, they occur and are observed in animals all the time, so it again it makes no sense to inject a supernatural deity into a natural occurrence or phenomenon to explain its origins. It would be like injecting god in how to explain how/why hurricanes form when they are the end result of natural causes.
Put yourself in gods shoes, does it make sense to make MORE evidence FOR evolution and common ancestry, especially when the very acts contradict his supposed revealed words via scriptures? No, it makes no logical sense at all and yet you’re advocating this as an explanation? Regardless, using a supernatural agent to explain the origins of the evidence for Human Chromosome 2 fusion is utterly wrong and not scientific as its not falsifiable. There is no way to falsify how a supernatural agent could have fused them and as such it’s a bogus answer and why it’s not Science.
Seedplanter,
“I doubt God is or ever was worried about evolution.”
In the abstract meaning of a Deistic god, sure, but certainly not scripturally based religious gods. It makes no sense to have a supposed ‘revealed word’ which is taken as authoritative dogma, only to have evidence which contradicts the accounts within in. Of course this too depends on ones interpretation of certain
Good posts runningdoc. Agent, for you to ask: "Does it make logical sense for a designer to leave MORE evidence FOR evolution and common descent when they didn’t have to?" kind of begs the question. I doubt God is or ever was worried about evolution.
Hi Agent Orange, You raise an interesting issue when you say that Sure, hypothetically he could, however it’s not logical for him to do so only for you and others to come along and look away at how the evidence speaks of common ancestry. Why fuse them if he didn’t have to?
Which brings us to the point that God has a free will and indeed in the Bible is described as Sovereign. So the choice is between a God who can choose to fuse chromosomes or not, or choose to make us stand upright or not, and a random process.
What do you think the difference is between the two?
Wow. Having some anger issues are we? :-0
A theory is a hypothosis supported by data but not accepted as fact. Interesting that Webster defines theory as a "belief" and not fact. The closest it comes is the study of facts in relation to one another. Interesting that Jesus never used or solicited blind faith. He would say over and over to those who were the experts "do you not know the scripture?" He explained things in rational and usable terms. Ignorance was never a Christian trait. In fact, the Bible talks about being ready to give a defense (that would be apologetics) for the hope that is in us.
So...we agree...there is no room for ignorance, arrogance or displaced anger in a scientific conversation. As for Youtube...sorry...I live in the country and we are just now getting connetions faster than 56k dialup. The things we give up for fresh air!
runningdoc,
“Why would you say that a designer would not fuse two chromosomes?”
Does it make logical sense for a designer to leave MORE evidence FOR evolution and common descent when they didn’t have to? No, it doesn’t. try to use some reason and logic.
“The pot is definitely in the hands of the potter. If there is a designer, can't he do as he pleases? “
Sure, hypothetically he could, however it’s not logical for him to do so only for you and others to come along and look away at how the evidence speaks of common ancestry. Why fuse them if he didn’t have to? Not fusing them would speak more in favor of ID as it would be hard to explain why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and great apes have 2 pairs. Alas it is fused and shows evidence of once being separate individual pairs.
‘The comparison of boeing to animals has to do with the existence of a designer who started someplace designing and lots of different but similar planes were built.’
Total non-sequitur comparing animals (living systems) to planes (non living systems) again. Elaborate on this one.
“They have two forward facing eyes and have depth perception just like humans and apes.”
But dogs only walk on all 4 limbs, they can’t habitually walk upright like apes can. Dogs don’t have the same body frame as apes do, they are quite different actually. Dogs have tails, apes don’t. Try to compare apples with apples here.
“Why is common ancestery important to evolution?”
It is the very foundation of evolution, it describes multiple lineages arising from an single or multiple ancestral one(s), thus you and your cousin share ‘common descent’ from you grandparents, and in the same manner species of the same taxonomic
“Couldn’t 2 eyed depth perception have developed independently in every species that might find it
useful?”
Sure, there is no reason it couldn’t, but such a feature like 2 eyes, front facing, with binocular vision is unique to primates and the other traits found in great apes are unique and comparatively they are the closest anatomically living animal to us. Essentially the more similar traits and features, genetics and so on a given species has, the closer the common ancestry. Genetics being the key defining method though.
Agent Orange, Why would you say that a designer would not fuse two chromosomes?
The pot is definitely in the hands of the potter. If there is a designer, can't he do as he pleases?
Might He have a motive or a plan? I suppose if He is a designer, He must have a plan.
The comparison of boeing to animals has to do with the existence of a designer who started someplace designing and lots of different but similar planes were built.
Ok, substitute dogs for horses. They have two forward facing eyes and have depth perception just like humans and apes. A common useful design spread over multiple species, all of which are supposed to have come from the same cell?
Why is common ancestery important to evolution? Couldnt 2 eyed depth perception have developed indepedantly in every species that might find it useful?
"As Ben Stein’s pro-intelligent design documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” soars into history as one of the most successful documentary films of all time, "
Soars huh? is this writer kidding us? the move was in 9th place by its first weekend, and that is horrid considering all the publicity it had going for it. How could you honestly say its one of the most successful documentraries of all time, when its opening weekend paled in comparison to Fahrenheit 9-11 and others? Just keep spinning it!
“Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the ‘Imagine’ clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech……… So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'?”
So now the writer is arguing its free speech to use a clip or a section from a song and not worry about copyright infringement or the legality therein? How is it constitutionally protected to abuse the copy right of a writer or publisher of media and use it for your profit film again? To use a short clip under the ‘fair use’ is one thing, but this certainly wasn’t under ‘fair use’ and to boot they are making profit off of it. What part of ‘thou shalt not steal’ can’t you comprehend? Spin it some more!
runningdoc
‘Hello Agent Orange, How does common ancestry explain the origin of life? I”
Easy, it doesn’t, in fact the theory itself has nothing to do with the origins of life, but rather the origins of species. Evolution doesn’t explain how/where life came from, but explain how/why it’s so diverse.
“It occurs to me that apes and horses and humans all have 2 eyes so that we can have depth perception. Does that explain where and when the first cell appeared or how that cell made it to a multicell complicated existence.”
Think of animals in distinct groups according to their genetics of taxonomy. From this view, sure many animals have front facing eyes (horses don’t sorry) but mostly PRIMATES do, and in the group there is a group known as great apes, which relatively are closer to us (and vice versa) as compared when we compare us to other animals (horse).
‘All of us would recognize the similarity of the Airbus to the Boeing”
Oh, you’re going to compare non-living objects with living objects now, ok good luck. It’s too bad planes don’t reproduce, nor do they suffer from habitat loss, attrition, predation, genetic mutations and as a consequence can’t undergo natural selection or evolution. Watches, paintings, planes, etc. can’t be equally compared to living systems which have these unique properties, that is the key distinction.
“Or, does it reflect a common designer.”
Would a common designer create 2 different species (chimps and humans) and then leave more genetic evidence indicating common ancestry than is really needed? No, they wouldn’t. Would the designer make it look like our 2nd chromosome was the result of a head to head teleomeric fusion too? No, they wouldn’t. Such evidence speaks not of a common designer, but of a common ancestry.
Chris
Thanks for the post(s) always a pleasure to read.
You are far too mature for this site...
Regards
Steve
Chriss333, I saw Dawkins say it in the movie. The bottom line I see is that if you hold to a darwinian model the problem of where the first cell came from remains. It becomes more difficult if you open the cell and look at it's parts. Where did the RNA come from? The more ability we have to look, the more complex the design appears. My bias is towards design since a good number of my friends are engineers.
runningdoc,
Did Richard Dawkins actually posit such a theory? Besides, I don't think Watson knew that suggesting life came from extraterrestrial life would really solve the problem, as that life would have had to have evolved in near the same fashion or else have been designed itself.
Hey Steve (Part 1)
Always a pleasure to hear from you and certainly I can explain what I meant by temporary, and I would also like to comment on your remarks if I may.
By temporary, I mean that the affects of saving 1000 lives (while a very good thing in itself), is still only going to last until they do indeed die, as all men and women must die. If Christianity is true (I said if) then the far better thing to do for another, is to give them the power and knowledge of Christ that leads to "eternal life". Basically, of our own efforts we can save people (or ourselves) for at best 80 to 100 years in most cases, some a little longer, but that is the extent of our powers and even then it is largely up to external forces to decide if we are successful, but if Christianity is true, then we can be saved for eternity, and we can bring others to such salvation. This is what I meant by 'temporary'. (One note: I mentioned that saving people was good in itself, there are some who disagree and say that it is altogether meaningless, I disagree, but the argument is often made)
Now I would like to make a brief comment on what you posted,
"It would seem therefore that my goodness is only temporary as I have not been brought to Christ, I think it be best to be honest about it."
Thanks for the honesty, and that is not exactly what I meant. The goodness that any person performs, I believe, is of "eternal" value, being why I say that it is "good in itself". However the 'effect' of that action is temporary at best. Even if you could save the whole world from utter destruction, eventually everyone on earth will die. (Sorry if that sounds pessimistic, I am a realist)
Steve (Part 2)
"To be honest I don't think of myself as good or bad but as person who has to deal with the gambit of human emotions that life brings with it."
Perhaps this depends upon perspective, I am painfully aware that the human heart is a very treacherous thing and even the best of people do, and often do, make mistakes. That being said, some of the best people are also some of the most humble and remorseful about their own difficulties and mistakes (while at the same time learning and changing). Unfortunately I do not consider myself even close, as I am much too arrogant, hahaha. Still, I believe that it is not just an action that separates us from God, but a state of being (granted the two are closely linked to one another).
I do not know exactly what you mean by not considering yourself as bad or good but merely dealing with human emotions though. Are you saying that while you have made mistakes, those mistakes don't define you as a person (which I would agree). Or are you saying that you are incapable of making mistakes as in reality there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" and we only attribute such things to actions, which would better be termed "negative or positive human emotions/reactions"?
Let me give you a final example with myself. I am by far not the best of all guys, I have done plenty of things I am ashamed of and wish I could change. I strive daily to improve myself and show others greater love (though I fail miserably). I do not consider myself as a "bad" person though, rather I consider myself as a person who needs help, not just to be a better person, but even to have the relationship with God that I desire and have.
God bless,
Chris
Hello Agent Orange, How does common ancestry explain the origin of life? I will look at the second youtube thing you sent, but I wondered how the idea that animals and humans have common features explains where life began or came from. It occurs to me that apes and horses and humans all have 2 eyes so that we can have depth perception. Does that explain where and when the first cell appeared or how that cell made it to a multicell complicated existence. Or, does it reflect a common designer. All of us would recognize the similarity of the Airbus to the Boeing and we would credit the Wright Brothers for the basic design from which both grew. I am not trying to be simplistic here. Common features do not necessarily need a darwin model of origin. They could be explained by a common source of design. Richard Dawkins and Watson of Watson & Crick both resorted this idea when they appealed to Alien life as the source of the single cell. runningdoc
Flagged myself as posted not completed.
Chris
It would seem therefore that my goodness is only temporary as I have not been brought to Christ, I think it be best to be honest about it.
To be honest I don't think of myself as good or bad but as person who has to deal with the gambit of human emotions that life brings with it.
Can you explain what you mean by temporary.
Thanks
Steve
Agent, it may be difficult to explain salvation, but it doesn't negate its reality.
Regardless of how rich one may be, how influential in world powers, how beautiful or how educated one may be. At the cross God leveled the playing field. The rich pompous stock broker has to get there the same way as the homeless derelict – humbling oneself at the foot of the cross in repentance, getting down on your knees in the dust and dirt and confessing your sins. Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion or even so we could build fancy church buildings and write fancy epitaphs on our grave stones. He came to set us free from the sins that we’ve been rolling and wallowing in day in and day out. Many like to play their pious religious games, they throw their money to the priest at confession, when they are no more serious about God then the skeptic who sneers at Him, daring God to strike him down. God need no more reveal himself then the sun itself. When Jesus came his entry was a bit conspicuous to say the least. His life is hailed as the most historically significant of all time, even by atheists. Yet, he was tried for blasphemy and condemned to crucifixion for claiming to be the very light of heaven Himself. While men play games in pretense, mocking and scoffing they do not reckon their trifling is the very treachery of which Christ died in their place for; for when the soldiers cast lots (the basic equivalent of playing dice) for His garment, he prayed Father forgive them for they know not what they are do.
What about You Agent? How long will you spur the grace of God and count it as nothing?
Steve,
The point is not about the change, it is about what kind of change is ocurring. For instance, say I stole a candy bar at a store and got caught. I might be upset, I could react in three ways,
1) Be sorrowful that I was caught, and endeavor not to get caught the next time (happens more often than you might think in the world)
2) Be sorrowful that I was caught and decide my way of life was wrong (a good thing in itself)
3) Be sorrowful about what I did, decide to change my way of life, and devote my life to God.
The first is probably the average reaction (generally speaking), the second is a more profound reaction, but it usually takes mentoring and moral instruction and even then it often fails, the third way is the only way where sorrow and repentance is complete. A sin against your brother is a sin against God.
I can be a good guy and save a thousand lives, but if I don't bring a single one of their souls to know Christ and find salvation from hell, then my "goodness" was only temporary at best. If I bring one to know Christ then I have done more for that person than all the world could have done.
Hello Star
Thats an interesting comment on sorrow.
My experience of life in knowing those who have experienced it ( and I include myself in that) is that in religious and non religious people alike it has the same affect. It causes people to chage their lives, to make restitution, and to endevour to make sure that the same mistakes do not happen again. Sorow is a healthy thing as it brings change after a period of mourning.
Kind reagards
Steve
agentorange
Godly sorrow will lead thee to repentance unto salvation.
World sorrow results in a guilt trip.
star2,
so that's all one must do, ask and thee will be saved accordingly despite all past, current and future wrong doings? how can you not recognize the physcological mind game that is the guilt trip?
agentorange
All who die in their sins (ie, have unforgiven sin in their life) will go to hell.
How do we know? Revelation from God, my dear friend, revelation from God.
When I was 8 yrs old God gave me a revelation of the reality of hell during the sermon one Sunday morning. During invitation time I went forward and asked Jesus to save me.
star2, I thought all non-christians also go to 'hell'? how can we be sure its not a fear tactic or a myth star?
Luke 16:19-31
Jesus speaking:
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
runningdoc, it's agentorange, not danielpaul. Ok, so ERV's don't do it for ya? and what about human chromosome 2 fusion? does this one seem more tenable?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Jerry2 - Hell isn't a myth. It is a reality. All who die in their sins will go there as punishment for having rebelled aginst God.
Jerry2, Calling someone a Christian antisemite for putting a thumbs down on a post takes the conversation in an offensive direction. It is simple name calling. Might be slander too. It deserved to be flagged. This conversation could be interesting without the name calling.
Jerry2
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "
Daniel Paul, I went and looked at the Retrovirus proof of common ancestry.
I saw some other you tube videos that took a different view of retroviruses proving common ancestry. http://youtube.com/watch?v=A8xqyk0F8IU&feature=related
The retrovirus information does not seem to conclusive.
Jerry2, Name calling is not equivalent to scientific fact. I would assume that the individual who deleted your post on the holocaust was offended by it. You assume he or she is a coward.
Are you out of facts? Or do you not have any?
Theories are not equivalent with facts.
For 50 years, in medicine we thought and theorized that peptic ulcer disease was caused by excess gastric acid caused by worry.
Then Barry Marshall and Robin Warren found helicobacter. That was a fact that changed 50 years worth of medical theory.
I find it amusing that some of the posters here are responding just like the folks at Iowa State and Baylor. Why such a big snit over someone wanting to look for facts?
When you adamantly limit inquiry to the tenets of a theory, you keep people taking maalox instead of antibiotics. They aren't cured either.
Jerry2
I censored only your 8:36pm post because of your ugly and disrespectful language towards Christians. If you had not put that in I would have left it alone.
Come up with some original ideas please.
"Your rejection of Jesus Christ Jerry2 is your one way ticket to hell."
Typical threat from an immoral christian. Christians have no evidence for their childish beliefs, so they threaten people with torture. When threats don't work, the Christians use censorship.
Stop censoring me star2. Grow up.
The censorship continues. The Christians love censorship, so they censored this.
"Genesis is far more scientific than Darwin."
That's a totally ignorant statement. Breathtaking ignorance.
Jerry2 - You sound like a broken record. When are you going to come up with some original ideas?
"Then why, after 150+ years, is it still a theory?"
The same dumb question has been asked a million times by the same know-nothing creationists. The creationists never understand anything because they don't want to understand. For them knowledge equals a one-way ticket to hell.
Christians are afraid to educate themselves. They believe thinking is a sin. For them it's better to know nothing, because that's what their sky fairy wants.
I don't know which is worse. Their total ignorance or their love for censorship.
"Genesis is far more scientific than Darwin."
Wow. The ignorance is breathtaking.
Some coward deleted this:
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust
New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
Daniel Paul,
"Did someone say evolution is sustained by proven facts? Then why, after 150+ years, is it still a theory?"
Uh oh, this one again huh? You want some facts then? Here, I learn you up.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
"I've studied both for about 30 years and see evolution as one of those infinity mirrors."
Sure you have. Well go back and hit he books pal b/c it's apparent you lack the basis on what 'theory' denotes in the scientific context so I doubt you understand science well never mind evolutionary theory.
Daniel Paul,
in science, "theory" does not have the same meaning that it does in the everyday sense. It is a term of honor, reserved for those observations which are so well-backed by the data that they might as well be considered fact. Evolutionary theory takes its place alongside atomic theory, cell theory, and quantum theory. A theory, in the sense you are thinking of, is what a scientist would call a hypothesis. In science, "theory" is as close to fact as you get.
God does not force any man to love Him. We can rebel against Him our whole lives and then spend an eternity separated from Him in hell continuing our rebellion.
Man has been in rebellion against God since the fall. Adam chose to sin and all of us who have followed have chosen to sin. God could have judged us eternally for that sin, but instead judged His Son, who paid the price on the cross and then rose on the third day to purchase us a place in heaven. Between the fall of man and the return of Christ, we have the privilege of free will. We can choose to accept Christ as our Savior or we can rebel. When Christ returns as He said he would, the option to rebel will be gone. Then God will judge those who rebel against Him. That does not mean that God did not love the world of men. Paul tells us in Romans 5:8 that God demonstrated His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. God loves in our rebellion and he witholds judgement. He holds that judgement until we die or until Christ returns.
For many such as Richard Dawkins, evolution is the logical extension of their rebellion against God.
How can there be, peace justice, freedom, love, if people who don't want to bend the knee have too (are forced too?), it's just like me saying my wife loves me because I make her say she does.
Thanks
Steve
Have any of you seen the movie? Just wondered.
With regard to the statement that Genesis is not a scientific expose of the beginning of the earth, Genesis is far more scientific than Darwin. Darwin was a witness to nothing that happened on the day that life began. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, then it is a first person account of the beginning of the universe and the life that is in it. That is what it comes down to. What do you think the Bible is. If you think it is a book written by man with some of God's words in it, then you can easily arrive at the conclusion that Genesis is a mythological representation of how things started that is geared to people who can barely understand anything. If you believe that the Bible is inspired and internally consistent, then Genesis takes on a whole different meaning. If God said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and you believe it, then you also may think that the rest of the book is just as important. If you believe that Genesis is mostly myth geared to our feeble brains, then you might look at the rest of the Bible in the same way. The Bible becomes a cafeteria and we get to choose what we believe. That gives us wiggle room on all kinds of moral issues like lieing, cheating, stealing, sexual immorality, and abortion.
The question is do we believe that God is and do we believe that He has spoken to us through His word.
I am waiting for the day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. On that day their will be peace, justice, freedom and love. On that day we will all agree with what God says about how He created the heavens and the earth and all the life that is in it.
genesis is not a scientific expose on the beginning of the earth, but rather a spiritual expose about darkness and light and gods relationship to man. why some would try to make it an explanation of science out of iit is like trying to make the bible a history book.
the eastern mind had no problem in believing in things that appearred to contradict each other. western mind says it has to be either this or that and cannot live with 2 appearing contradictory truths.
im waiting for the day when in regards to war it will become common knowledge that god is on both sides.
because of evidence of extra terrestials it is quite possible that they are responsible for the evolution of man.
but, that merely broaden the understanding of genesis. and does nothing to diminish belief in god. we have an eternal life ...........................life on this planet in comparison is the mere blinking of an eye.
Dear dp
"If creationists are right then evolutionists will have an unhappy eternity with no recourse. Sounds like my way of life wins!"
Where does your statement leave the many Christians who accept evolution as a good explanation for the bio diversity found on our planet? Will they have an unhappy enternity with no recourse beause of their belief in evolution? I ask this because you seem to equate the belief in evolution with a lack of belief in God.
Kind regards
Steve
It's interesting I haven't seen any posts on the hypocritical position of Yo Ko. It's all about the money! Ben is right about giving the song to the world. I guess hypocracy is simply limited to Christians, eh?
Did someone say evolution is sustained by proven facts? Then why, after 150+ years, is it still a theory? Theory is not fact. Evolution is simply not provable by science. It requires a great deal of faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evolutionists believe there will be facts discovered that will prove evolution. Creationists believe we all all stand before the creator and that will be fact enough. If evolutionists are right (just for the sake of conversation) then I have lived a happy life helping other people because of my faith. If creationists are right then evolutionists will have an unhappy eternity with no recourse. Sounds like my way of life wins!
It's not about faith. It's about what you choose to believe. I've studied both for about 30 years and see evolution as one of those infinity mirrors. It appears to have more depth then it actually does. It does make for interesting discussion.
Heh;"no lie can last forever" shoot the lies created by Christians after Origin of Species was published are still with us strong as ever. To call all "darwinists" athiest because of how one R. Dawkins describes how he became an athiest is nothing more than opinion.
Darwinism, as the posts seem to be identifying it, isn't science, but philosophy and some interpretation of data. The data for darwinian evolution is mixed at best, most neo-darwinists realize that. The movie does a good job revealing the inherent bias of the scientific community in general, based upon the supposed scientific merits of the darwinism. The bloggers here are not likely to change many minds, least of all each others, which is the point of the movie. Philosophical bias is not a scientific choice no matter how loudly the darwinist screams that it is. There are many intelligent scientists who disagree about a great many things, but that diverts from the key point, darwinism is very much a belief system, and intelligent people do believe it. Design theories are also about belief, and intelligent scientists believe design is a valid interpretation of the vastness of the data. Many scientists have dismissed design theory because of its philosophical conclusions about God, not because there isn't any "good science" or "intelligent scientists" involved in researching intelligent design.
truanser asks: There seems to be a real fear of any debate concerning darwenism verses intelligent design WHY ?
It's not that scientists are afraid of dissenting views. Dissent is indispensable to scientific progress. But in order for a new hypothesis to be taken seriously, it has to be backed up with evidence. Proponents of intelligent design have not even formulated a testable hypothesis yet. In order to qualify as a scientific theory, ID would have to make predictions, which could be tested. Till then it's not a scientific debate because there is NO science to debate.
Richard Dawkins describes the process whereby he became an atheist after he became a believer in Darwin in the movie. I dont suppose you exactly have to be an atheist to accept the premises of evolution. It did seem to work that way for Dawkins though. He seemed to say that learning about evolution released him from his need maybe fear of life without God. Another fellow said that when he discovered the "facts" of evolution he began to doubt Christianity because if the Bible was wrong in Genesis, you did not have to believe it in John 3:16 either. I think that is what the process is. Poster Jerry2 seems to offer that choice. Religious superstition or the "facts of evolution." Maybe he could tell you more about it.
i still dont understand how becoming a darwinist makes someone into an atheist. being a believer is about a relationship. darwinism is a scientific explanation of the process of species evolvement right or wrong. darwin never attempted to explain the origin of life.
Dean, I am not afraid of any scientific fact that you could produce that would explain the origin of life on this planet. I said, fact, though. And there you go, instead of producing a fact, you call Ben Stein a liar, those who liked the movie, extremists, superstitious, and ignorant.
Then of course we have to chose between your evolutionary facts ( which are not produced) and the God who has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. I am a scientist. I demand facts. You don't have any. So you scream at us like the dark seekers whenever we say intelligent design.
Produce some facts. Charles Hodges MD
I'm not surprised the professional liars who produced the anti-science propaganda movie "Expelled" did not have the decency to ask permission to use Lennon's famous song. How hard would it have been to ask first? Perhaps they knew they would never get permission to have Lennon's anti-religion song be used for a dishonest anti-science movie.
Expelled is a religious movie. Only religious extremists like the movie, because Expelled attacks the scientific fact that religious fanatics are most afraid of, the common ancestry we share with all other creatures.
"Religion is a cruel hoax sustained by miracles, fear, superstition and ignorance. Evolution is a science sustained by proven facts. Take your pick."
— Dean Carson, Murphy, North Carolina http://tinyurl.com/5brma5
Pehaps they should just all " Let it be" ?
The reason why darwinists fear any debate, no even any mention, of intelligent design was given by Ben Stein last night on Glenn Beck. In general we humans don't want a God to which we must be accountable. Lies, theft, abortion, immorality in general will be judged by the God who created. So, if you don't want to be judged you must either submit to His Son and His word, or deny God exists. The darwinists view intelligent design as the skinny edge of the wedge that would open the door to a wider recognition of God in the public square. So they act like the dark seekers (I am Legend) striken by the sun whenever they hear the words intelligent design.
I saw Expelled this past weekend and it is great. The best lines were last. "Truth crushed to the ground will rise again." "No lie can last forever." The darwinists have real reason to fear. There is a God and He has spoken to us through His word.
Expelled was very well done a great documentary.
Exposed the liberal bias in the university, education should be a free thinking arena all sides of an issue being open for debate. Let the students decide after weighing the evidence what they believe. There seems to be a real fear of any debate concerning darwenism verses intelligent design WHY ?
.....to say nothing of the amount of advertising dollars expended on behalf of each film.
According to the figures on BoxOfficeMojo.com - one of the most complete and widely sourced databases of box office figures - lists only Fahrenheit 9/11 as having a larger opening weekends among documentaries. I would like to compare these films through the first 10 days and $/screen but alas I do not have the premier pass.
Film - Film Total - Opening Weekend (US Gross)
Fahrenheit 9/11 - $119,194,771 - $23,920,637
Expelled - $5,297,860 - $2,970,848
Bowling for Columbine - $21,576,018 - $209,148
Super Size Me - $11,536,423 - $516,641
March of the Penguins - $77,437,223 - $137,492
Sicko - $24,540,079 - $68,969
An Inconvenient Truth - $24,146,161 - $281,330
Let's also keep it apples to apples - Omen mixes apples and oranges by throwing in the worldwide gross and Expelled hasn't opened overseas. So let's be careful before you go calling people sloppy, blue.
And the claim of it being biased is funny. According to my old freshmen film textbook: "Documentaries use a rhetorical [film] form in an attempt to persuade the audience to a particular viewpoint. - Bordwell & Thompson" By their very nature, documentaries are biased!!!
Disclaimer: haven't seen Expelled and don't know if I will. But I do live in a Town and Gown community and work for a major research university.
Christianpost, omensign is completely right. this is not one of the 'best' or 'most successfull' documentaries. secondly, the movie was horrible; biased, not scholastic, and certainly not among the greatest documentaries. while people may agree with the content of the movie, the approach, interviews, and relation to nazi germany were a disgusting example of sloppy journalism.
Ono and Company are hideously hypocritical.
Ha - the irony is rich.
Praise the Lord - the additional publicity will no doubt draw more people to the theatre to see what all the fuss is about.
Don't you just love it?
*Since its release on April 18, the film has generated over $5.2 million, placing it among the most successful documentary films of all time. *
- Fahrenheit 9/11 generated 220$ million worldwide and 120$ million in US box offices.
- Bowling for Columbine generated 40$ million worldwide and 21$ million in US box offices.
- Super Size me generated 28$ million worldwide, unknown in US box offices.
- March of the Penguins grossed 77$ million in the United Stateds and Canda
- An Inconveneint truth grossed 24$ million in the US and over 49$ million worldwide as of June 2006
- Sicko grossed 24$ million in the US and an additional 11$ million in foreign markets
Opening weekend for expelled: 1.2$ million ( # of screens 1050 ? )
Opening weekend for Fahrenheit 9/11: 23.0$ million ( # of screens 868 )
(Flagged myself for typo)