Expelled Is Aptly Named

[Steezie]

I rewatched Expelled today and I cannot understand why this kind of stuff is taken seriously.

The documentary is truly horrible. Stein himself stumbles over logical fallicies left and right but says nothing about them. Stein demonstrates zero knowlege and understanding about evolution, even when corrected by other people who subscribe to Creationism.

Saying that "the most popular idea [that "evolutionists" (There is no such thing as an "evolutionist") use to explain the creation of life] is that life emerged spontaneously from primordial soup." Stein then goes on to cite an experiment in 1953 by Stanley Miller who combined various chemical elements and passed electricity through a sample, claiming that this experiment disproved the idea that life could come from non organic matter.

However an article was published in Discover magazine on Febuary 1st 2008 which showed a successful experiment that contradicted the results of Miller's experiment (albeit with radically different methodology) Did Life Evolve in Ice? | Arctic & Antarctic | DISCOVER Magazine

Stein does not mention this in his film. It should be noted that Stein's film was released months AFTER the Discover article.

The entire documentary is an enormous steaming pile of utter garbage that could be, at best, generously described as a propaganda piece based on an abysmally poor understanding of science.

Stein then goes on to either flat out lie or demonstrate truly painful ignorance about the idea of Panspermia, stating that Panspermia was the idea that "aliens did it."

And Stein, Evolution = Hitler? Really? You had to pull the Hitler card? The last part of the documentary is a collection of shots of Stein tearfully walking around concentration camp ruins lamenting how bad the Holocaust was and why Evolution caused it (Demonstrating at once an appauling lack of historical understanding and an extreme one-sided view of history).

Best of all, Stein's meteoric rise to stardom from his film has landed him in such prestigious roles as...

...ouch

 

[Wedjat]

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

life emerged spontaneously from primordial soup."

Do you agree or disagree with that?

Or do you agree with the Darwinist who says that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals?

 

[Psudopod]

Or do you agree with the Darwinist who says that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals?

I'm sure I'm going to regret asking, but what?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I'm sure I'm going to regret asking, but what?

If you've never seen Expelled then why are you commenting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZsND1RIoAQ

 

[Psudopod]

One, how do you know I've never seen it, and two I was commenting on your statement: "Or do you agree with the Darwinist who says that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals? "

I can't watch videos at the moment.

 

[metherion]

I like how both the term Darwinist doesn't actually mean anything, as well as the section between 2:30 and 3:00 where you hear the person Ben Stein is interviewing admit that Darwin's theory doesn't begin until life exists. Also, to the question 'what good is a theory about life that doesn't explain the origin of life', well, what good is germ theory if it doesn't explain the origin of germs? Atomic theory if it doesn't describe the origin of atoms? Electrical theories if they don't explain the origin of electrons? It doesn't have to explain the 'how did it come about' part to be useful in the describing 'how it acts' part.

I also like how he merely mocks the idea of crystal catalysts and continues on with his strawman of 'mud to living cell' and 'lightning striking a mud puddle' without any refutations or acknowledgements of how it doesn't have to be one huge leap, etc.

Metherion

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

One, how do you know I've never seen it, and two I was commenting on your statement: "Or do you agree with the Darwinist who says that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals? "

I can't watch videos at the moment.

Your question is equivalent to going into a Star Wars thread and asking who Darth Vader is. That's how I know you haven't seen it.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I also like how he merely mocks the idea of crystal catalysts and continues on with his strawman of 'mud to living cell' and 'lightning striking a mud puddle' without any refutations or acknowledgements of how it doesn't have to be one huge leap, etc.

Metherion

Can you explain how magic crystals can be enchanted or bewitched to create life?

If a magic crystal is enchanted or bewitched to create life wouldn't that require an intelligent agent and wouldn't that be a form of intelligent design?

 

[Psudopod]

Okay, so enlighten me. Who said that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals and what's his evidence?

 

[metherion]

There is no enchanting or bewitching in catalysts. Some materials are catalysts by the very physical laws that govern the reactions that take place on them. Nothing else needed.

So there is no magic, no bewitching, and no intelligence needed.

Metherion

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

There is no enchanting or bewitching in catalysts. Some materials are catalysts by the very physical laws that govern the reactions that take place on them. Nothing else needed.

So there is no magic, no bewitching, and no intelligence needed.

Metherion

So how do nonmagical crystals spontaneously generate life without magical enchantments and an intelligent agent?

 

[metherion]

They don't. Of course, since it's not been proposed that they do by anyone in the scientific community, I wonder what that line of questioning has to do with anything except the possible erection of a strawman.

Are you familiar with what catalysts are and do?


Metherion

 

[USincognito]

Or do you agree with the Darwinist who says that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals?

Dawkins didn't say that you prevaricator.

 

[USincognito]

Okay, so enlighten me. Who said that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted and bewitched crystals and what's his evidence?

No one. Our resident quote mining prevaricator is trying to knock down a rather flimsily constructed straw man.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

They don't. Of course, since it's not been proposed that they do by anyone in the scientific community, I wonder what that line of questioning has to do with anything except the possible erection of a strawman.

You didn't watch Expelled either?

Darwinist Michael Ruse says that life magically and miraculously generated itself on the backs of enchanted crystals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZsND1RIoAQ

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Dawkins didn't say that you prevaricator.

Why do you think Dawkins subscribes to Michael Ruse's magic crystal hypothesis?

 

[USincognito]

Why do you think Dawkins subscribes to Michael Ruse's magic crystal hypothesis?

I don't think anything about your prevaricating actually. I mixed up who the editors quote mined. Doesn't change the fact that you're prevaricating though.

 

[metherion]

I watched that segment. He said nothing of the sort. He said it might have started off on the back of crystals, and that mistakes on the crystals might have affected the reactions happening on them.

There was no mention of magic or spontaneous generation at all regarding the crystals, much less magic or witchcraft.

And of course the talk of chances completely disregards statistical thermodynamics. I mean, no matter how many possible states a system can exist in, it must exist in SOME state.

And still, there is nothing unscientific about crystalline catalysis, and Ben Stein does nothing but make fun of it with no refutation.

Metherion

 

[Psudopod]

Thanks, I though I didn't remember anything about magical bewitched crystals.