Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed... A movie review

GenemZ · Apr 25, 2008

NewGuy101 said:
Woah this conversations seems to stray from its original intent. But I'll comment on the movie which I saw today. I like it a lot for most of the part. It strongly discusses the persecution that ID perponents face not only in the media but also in learning instatutions. I really wish Stein didn't try to connect Darwinism with the Holocust.

That was not a novel idea of Stein's. It has been long accepted as what motivated the Third Reich. Apologists for TOE have been trying to find ways to circumnavigate this for years. But its a long standing understanding with the connection not only with Nazism, but Communism, as well.

The flaw I see with this is that this would immediately disconnect any evolutionists from the central message of the movie which is academic freedom.

What are you supposed to do? Lie? It so happens to have been true. Embarrassing, but true.

The one scientist who had his brain tumor return, openly confessed he believed he had no free will , that he looks forward to nothingness after death. Why should someone like that not have made a good Nazi? A good Communist?

We are not going to hide the truth to make TOE's feel better about themselves. Darwinism and Hitler had a strong connection. It was old news to me when I saw the movie. You are first finding this out.

Throughout the movie Stein and ID proponets claim how they are consistanly attacked and misrepresented by the Media as a whole and they turn around and do it to Darwinists.

This was not shaking hands. Why can't some understand that this is war? Its a real war we are in. Minds will be killed if not protected by truth.

I see the point in trying to connect evolution to what in the movie is basically shown as its "logical implications" of exterminating unwanted people (in this case the Jews). But evolution as a whole and neo-evolutionsts as a whole dont push this view...even if they are being inconsistant.

Historically, the Hitler Darwin connection has been documented. Just because good intentioned TOE's find it appalling does not mean the connection should not be made. For one of the scariest tenets of Darwinism is that it will lead to the likes of the thinking that gave both Communism and Nazi ism their foundational justification. Communism denies the existence of the human soul. It sees man as being the superior animal on this planet. You do not know this?

Just do a search online. Many things posted were online long before Expelled was on film.

Here's a few samples:

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/darwinism_materialism.html

Grace and truth, GeneZ

.

ReformedChapin · Apr 25, 2008

excellent post Frisbee

ReformedChapin · Apr 25, 2008

That was not a novel idea of Stein's. It has been long accepted as what motivated the Third Reich. Apologists for TOE have been trying to find ways to circumnavigate this for years. But its a long standing understanding with the connection not only with Nazism, but Communism, as well.

Oh, you are in a fighting mood today.HEHE. Anyways. It was the novel idea of Steins movie, ACADEMIC FREEDOM!. That's what we all want, we want to compare the evidence and let all the arguments be heard. And I agree there is a connection between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism. However those are EXTREME forms of evolution taken as a philosophy not a science. Evolution (better said macroevolution) as it self just presents single celled organisms become more complex through time via natural selection. The philosophical implications vary and can take form in either an atheistic perspctive like Communism, weird mystical perspective like Nazism or even theistic evolution.

What are you supposed to do? Lie? It so happens to have been true. Embarrassing, but true.

Truth depends on what your world view is. Lets people make their own mind, we should just present the evidence.

The one scientist who had his brain tumor return, openly confessed he believed he had no free will , that he looks forward to nothingness after death. Why should someone like that not have made a good Nazi? A good Communist?

Because thats a metaphysical statement. Not to mention he also stated he welcomed varying perspective including YEC.

We are not going to hide the truth to make TOE's feel better about themselves. Darwinism and Hitler had a strong connection. It was old news to me when I saw the movie. You are first finding this out.

I knew about it already, infact I used to use the argument myself. It's just bad arguing and gross misrepresentaion of evolution.

This was not shaking hands. Why can't some understand that this is war? Its a real war we are in. Minds will be killed if not protected by truth.

Sin blinds mind and there will be various philosphies out there. We should let the truth of the Gospel be test along with all the other popular philsophies and the truth will come out. We have nothing to hide !

Historically, the Hitler Darwin connection has been documented. Just because good intentioned TOE's find it appalling does not mean the connection should not be made. For one of the scariest tenets of Darwinism is that it will lead to the likes of the thinking that gave both Communism and Nazi ism their foundational justification. Communism denies the existence of the human soul. It sees man as being the superior animal on this planet. You do not know this?

Again, metaphisics vs science...which one do we want to argue? If you want to argue the metaphysics lets start another thread.

Just do a search online. Many things posted were online long before Expelled was on film.

Here's a few samples:

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/darwinism_materialism.html

Grace and truth, GeneZ

Thanks for the sources brother, it will aid on my further reasearch!

Cabal · Apr 25, 2008

Frisbee said:
Much of the basic chemistry of terrestrial life such as magnesium, sodium, iron, etc. owes its presence to nuclear processing inside earlier generations of stars, whose products were then available to make the Sun and its planets.

Or in other words all this stuff that atheist neo-Darwinsts like to point to to explain how life randomly sprung into life on earth, are the result of at least 2 (more likely 3 or 4) life cycles of stars that formed, contracted, exploded, contracted, exploded and... well you get the point. The odds of all the perfect ingredients on a planet at the perfect distance form it's star, in a universe with a perfectly tuned environment (scientific laws of nature) is so absurd to attribute to random chance, that it is mathematically impossible. Not unlikely, impossible.

The question to ID proponents is much less the ability to explain how, but the study of how itself.

The odds are small, but they are finite and non-zero. Also, could you find me a definition for the limits of mathematical impossiblity? I searched but couldn't find it.

I personally don't see this stacking up of low odds necessarily as evidence for ID - as I said before, I believe in the weak anthropic principle, not to disprove God, but more so that it doesn't demonstrably prove him. Of course if you're going to create an environment for life, you customise it to their needs. However, if it weren't customised, we'd either be long dead as our current form can't suit it, or we'd be in the right form required to live in the other environment. It doesn't really prove anything.

Also, I think the odds being "absurd" is again, a subjective quantity - given how large the universe is and how much time there was between the big bang and the formation of the solar system, and given that we have no way of knowing if there is other life in the universe...there are so many other, colossal factors to consider, that for me, ID doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, and many other scientists would agree.

ReformedChapin · Apr 25, 2008

The odds are small, but they are finite and non-zero. Also, could you find me a definition for the limits of mathematical impossiblity? I searched but couldn't find it.

Well you could hold to that position, but the probabily is pretty much ZERO...for all practical purposes its mill. Are we going to hold to the most likely position or hey its possible and I have to deny ID because of it.

I personally don't see this stacking up of low odds necessarily as evidence for ID - as I said before, I believe in the weak anthropic principle, not to disprove God, but more so that it doesn't demonstrably prove him. Of course if you're going to create an environment for life, you customise it to their needs. However, if it weren't customised, we'd either be long dead as our current form can't suit it, or we'd be in the right form required to live in the other environment. It doesn't really prove anything.

ID doesn't prove God, nor does it seek to. It just shows that an intelligent designer developed the world and the complexities of life. This designer could be a number of people or gods. But us Christians would like to argue God..hey it definetely would make sense.

Also, I think the odds being "absurd" is again, a subjective quantity - given how large the universe is and how much time there was between the big bang and the formation of the solar system, and given that we have no way of knowing if there is other life in the universe...there are so many other, colossal factors to consider, that for me, ID doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, and many other scientists would agree.

Hey once you prove how life can come out of nothing we'll start having the real fun! lol. That's besides the absurdy of the odds of everything happening concurently so everything was structured correctly even with the size of the universe it proves that we dont know what could have happened through our own finite pespectives. I would like to argue God but hey I'm a christian.

Frisbee · Apr 25, 2008

Well Cabal that is your opinion then. Personally I can't even begin to comprehend how a person can believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and fail to see that they are in fact a proponent of ID. Do you understand that by agreeing with evolutionists, that you are agreeing that you deny that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? I understand that you most likely disagree with them about the first verse in the bible, but when you agree with them that it is completely random chance, etc, etc, etc, you have stripped God from the equation.

Regarding the limits of mathematical possibility, I got it from William Dembski who is a scientist with Ph.D.’s in mathematics and philosophy. Dembski has set about developing mathematical methods for detecting intelligent design, should it be discernible, in nature who has submitted his work to the scientific scrutiny of his peers. I don't have the book with me, but his website is...

http://www.designinference.com/

Now if you want to read his work online on this particular subject go to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.Math_Inquiry.pdf

Page 19 speaks directly to "Effort and the Possibility of Mathematical Knowledge".

But I warn you, unless you're a math geek, be prepared to read a lot about mathematical probablity. He doesn't give simple answers, he gives very detailed answers. I got the figures I quoted you earlier from his book "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology".

Hope that helps

GenemZ · Apr 25, 2008

NewGuy101 said:
Oh, you are in a fighting mood today.HEHE.

Why should today be different than any other day?

Anyways. It was the novel idea of Steins movie, ACADEMIC FREEDOM!. That's what we all want, we want to compare the evidence and let all the arguments be heard.

The reason the movie was made, is because of the opposite. Its NOT what we all want.

And I agree there is a connection between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism. However those are EXTREME forms of evolution taken as a philosophy not a science.

That science simply begs that such a philosophy "evolve" into what it is.

Truth depends on what your world view is. Lets people make their own mind, we should just present the evidence.

I have a novel concept. Truth depends on having it or not.

Jesus said, few will find it. Did he not?

I knew about it already, infact I used to use the argument myself. It's just bad arguing and gross misrepresentaion of evolution.

Not how I see it. Its the logical progression to where such a theory leads. Cut out God. You get what you get.

Sin blinds mind and there will be various philosphies out there. We should let the truth of the Gospel be test along with all the other popular philsophies and the truth will come out. We have nothing to hide !

We don't?

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

We don't?

.

ReformedChapin · Apr 25, 2008

The reason the movie was made, is because of the opposite. Its NOT what we all want.

huh? So you only want Chiristian instatutions?

That science simply begs that such a philosophy "evolve" into what it is.

The science doesn't address that portion, thats abuses of the "science."

I have a novel concept. Truth depends on having it or not.

LOL. I believe in absolute truth, problem is people will NOT accept it unless God regenerates them. So truth to them is bound to their sin.

Jesus said, few will find it. Did he not

Sure did, hence why we should let people find it, not force it down their throat.

Not how I see it. Its the logical progression to where such a theory leads. Cut out God. You get what you get.

I see we difer on this point, thats cool. However your view will just drive non-belivers away because they will feel misrepresented.

We don't?

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

We don't?

I don't get it, what was the point of the verse and your response.

.

Markus6 · Apr 25, 2008

Frisbee said:
I wouldn't say that they ignored theistic evolutionists Markus, because theistic evolutionists are in fact ID proponents. There are million, billions shades of ID from Theistic Evolutionist to Young Earth Creationist, and if you stop and think about it you too are in the cross hairs of atheistic neo-Darwinists.

True or false Markus... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

You claim to be a Theistic Evolutionist so I will assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you will answer true. Well, then the difference between yourself and a Young Earth Creationist is in the details of your belief, but at the core you are both in agreement that the first verse of the bible is true.

Again, it all comes down to the definition of Intelligent Design. You seem to be defining it in a way that is basically theism (just belief in an intelligent designer) and by that definition of course I am and yes I do believe Genesis 1v1. However, that definition is not science and has no claim to be taught in science classes. The definition given by the Discovery Institute and this film is more along the lines of "it is scientifically provable that the actions of an intelligent designer are necessary in the origins of the universe and natural explanations are unable to give a full description". For example irreducible complexity is an attempt by Michael Behe to prove that evolution cannot explain the development of species. By that definition theistic evolutionists are not IDers.

The film was clearly antievolution, with sections on how evolution leads to atheism and worse, how it leads to eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. When asked why Ken Miller - christian, prominent molecular biologist and evolutionist - was not interviewed for the movie associate producer Mark Mathis said his views would have confused the film unnecessarily" (read broken down the false polarisation between evolution and religion). Expelled, the Discovery Institute and ID are all demonstrably anti-evolution and therefore do not include the views of theistic evolutionists.

Yes we are under fire from atheistic neo-darwinists but from our point of view this is no reason to embrace bad science. We partake in the debate on our own terms.

Frisbee said:
On the other hand you have a belief system that absolutely requires an explanation of life minus the hand of God. Every single detail must be accounted for. Every process, every cause, every detail, everything bar nothing had to be the result of chance.

Not chance, natural processes. And I'm sure even you believe God is at work in natural processes. Do you believe God formed you in your mother's womb? We don't have to account for every detail, that is clearly impossible. What we don't do is point to gaps in our scientific knowledge and say "God did that by miracle".

Frisbee said:
Personally I find it very odd that theistic evolutionists cozy up to atheistic evolutionists. The reason is that that atheistic evolutionists justify their absence of faith on the very thing that you encourage them with by attacking films like this. Why dont I ever hear theistic evolutionists witnessing to their atheistic counterparts in theory? And to add to the bizarre nature of this, you are in fact an Intelligent Design proponent is you affirm the first verse of the bible. So in essence you are attacking yourself whether you like to see or admit that or not.

How do you mean witnessing in theory? You will certainly here theistic evolutionist witnessing to atheists.

GenemZ · Apr 25, 2008

NewGuy101 said:
huh? So you only want Chiristian instatutions?

With a question like that? To what I did not say? I would shudder at the thought.

The science doesn't address that portion, thats abuses of the "science."

No it isn't. For Darwinism begins with the premise that Genesis 1 and 2, are not telling us the truth. The philosophy that followed was the next logical step in the evolution of where this theory was taking us.

LOL. I believe in absolute truth, problem is people will NOT accept it unless God regenerates them. So truth to them is bound to their sin.

Paul said that many who are regenerate, reject absolute truth. They reject post salvation truth that follows Gospel truth. That is why Paul warned with tears that many live as enemies of the cross. They make their emotions into their god. Paul was speaking of believers. Too many believers assume that they have truth simply because they know that they are saved. That's a deception.

Sure did, hence why we should let people find it, not force it down their throat.

They would accept the truth if they want the truth, no matter how it was given. For the Holy Spirit is the one who opens our eyes to the truth where ever it may be found. Some of the greatest insights I got from the Word came when I was listening to someone opposing the Truth. Their application was evil. But, what they brought out, the Holy Spirit took and hit a target on the bullseye.

Russians under Communism used to get Scripture from reading Communist anti-Bible propaganda. They would ignore the commentary, and see what the Scripture was saying. They wanted truth!

I see we difer on this point, thats cool. However your view will just drive non-belivers away because they will feel misrepresented.

And, you are drawing them? Your way just makes them feel comfortable about themselves in their rejection of the truth. Truth that breaks through is confrontational. Yes, there will be times when sweetness is more powerful than a hammer. Honey draws flies, I am told. I do not want flies.

When Stephen was being stoned for his powerful rebuke of the religious Jews? Paul was standing by and approving. =

God used the WORDS of Stephen in Paul's heart long after Stephen was murdered for the truth. Stephen - IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT - was hyper flaming the Jews listening to him with truth. The truth got through to those whom God granted repentance. Stephen was the antithesis of being nice. Yet, he was loving his enemies in telling them what they needed to hear... in the manner they needed to hear it... even though the immediate reaction, was a powerful rejection of the truth!

Many Christians have this silly notion that we win over people to the truth with our personalities. As if the truth was not the real issue, but how we make someone feel is.

Behind a curtain, Satan is fighting the truth. Truth is what repels the unbeliever because they are enslaved by desiring evil. The smokescreen is to get us to believe we are the cause of truth's rejection.

Think a moment.... If your acceptance of truth depended upon how you were treated? How much truth would you accept? And, add to that? If treated in a way that makes you feel good about yourself? How much false teaching would you accept?

Romans 16:17-18 NASB
"For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting."

I don't get it, what was the point of the verse and your response.

You don't?

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Darwinism begins right off by nullifying that verse amongst others. So? How can one approach one who readily accepts Darwinism in a manner that will win them over? For, their problem runs much deeper than what a personality report can break down.

Yet, you believe the right "approach" is needed to win them over. Will giving gifts to Muslims get them to accept the Jesus? Jews?

Treating Muslims kindly will not get them to reject jihad. Likewise, those who find an ego satisfaction behind the walls of TOE will see a nice Christian as being supercilious.

What one needs is truth that works like a bomb against the lie. A bomb that will break down those walls to leave them standing exposed. That is why others were eXpelled. They did not want even the basic plans to the bomb to be published.

2 Corinthians 10:5 (New International Version)
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Some do. Some can.

Others, who can not.. try and hold them back.

Yes.. We are to present the Gospel in gentleness and kindness. That's Gospel truth.

But? The walls erected by evil to resist God's truth are not to be treated in kind.

Some here, can not distinguish between the two.

They try to make a false criterion the basis of dealing with a lie. So, in that way the lie is placed in safety and the criterion for exposing it becomes the substitute whipping post.

Its a distraction to keep the lie safe.

Neat trick... while it can last.

In Christ, GeneZ

.

flicka · Apr 25, 2008

The reason I didn't like Expelled was because before I even saw it I had read about the people claiming to have been persecuted and saw that this film was not entirely honest about things. And then I read about other professionals who have faced discrimation and lost their jobs for maintaining that ID/Creationism wasn't science. For the record I don't think it is either. But even for those being as open minded as possible the only conclusion anyone can draw is that there are people of all beliefs who use their positions of power improperly againt those who disagree with them. There is no one conspiracy to keep a certain idea down. There are only flawed people.

I also didn't like how it gave no real explaination of ID or Evolution yet lead the audience in one direction without facts to back anything up.

Basically, like all documentary style propaganda pieces, I was insulted that the film didn't expect me to do my homework. And concerned about the majority who never bother.

ReformedChapin · Apr 25, 2008

With a question like that? To what I did not say? I would shudder at the thought.

Good.

No it isn't. For Darwinism begins with the premise that Genesis 1 and 2, are not telling us the truth. The philosophy that followed was the next logical step in the evolution of where this theory was taking us.

Are we still speaking about the science of macroevolution of are you speaking on neo-darwinism which pressuposes only natural causes? Again the two need to be sperated.

Paul said that many who are regenerate, reject absolute truth. They reject post salvation truth that follows Gospel truth. That is why Paul warned with tears that many live as enemies of the cross. They make their emotions into their god. Paul was speaking of believers. Too many believers assume that they have truth simply because they know that they are saved. That's a deception.

Where did Paul say this? The regenerate or better said the elect CANNOT BE LOST.

They would accept the truth if they want the truth, no matter how it was given. For the Holy Spirit is the one who opens our eyes to the truth where ever it may be found. Some of the greatest insights I got from the Word came when I was listening to someone opposing the Truth. Their application was evil. But, what they brought out, the Holy Spirit took and hit a target on the bullseye.

This is a contradictory statement. The holy spirit opens the mind of the elect and even if they stumble cannot be lost.

Code:

Russians under Communism used to get Scripture from reading Communist anti-Bible propaganda. They would ignore the commentary, and see what the Scripture was saying. They wanted truth!

Ok..so what? Abuses like always, this has been happening since the catholic church was the "true" church in the west.

And, you are drawing them? Your way just makes them feel comfortable about themselves in their rejection of the truth. Truth that breaks through is confrontational. Yes, there will be times when sweetness is more powerful than a hammer. Honey draws flies, I am told. I do not want flies.

Dude, you are speaking about genesis, there is so many different models of it including Theistic Evoltion...who cares. You are just being legalistic.

When Stephen was being stoned for his powerful rebuke of the religious Jews? Paul was standing by and approving. =

Irrelavant

God used the WORDS of Stephen in Paul's heart long after Stephen was murdered for the truth. Stephen - IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT - was hyper flaming the Jews listening to him with truth. The truth got through to those whom God granted repentance. Stephen was the antithesis of being nice. Yet, he was loving his enemies in telling them what they needed to hear... in the manner they needed to hear it... even though the immediate reaction, was a powerful rejection of the truth!

Ok, this is irrelevant. The truth about GENESIS is still being discussed. Lets focus on the essentials not obscure passages.

Many Christians have this silly notion that we win over people to the truth with our personalities. As if the truth was not the real issue, but how we make someone feel is.

God wins people over, we just tell people scripture...he does the work.

Behind a curtain, Satan is fighting the truth. Truth is what repels the unbeliever because they are enslaved by desiring evil. The smokescreen is to get us to believe we are the cause of truth's rejection.

You give satan too much Power, Satan does Gods bidding. I hate all the stupid theories of how satan is behind this and behind that...sometimes its not SATAN sometimes its US,, FALLEN SINNERS.

Think a moment.... If your acceptance of truth depended upon how you were treated? How much truth would you accept? And, add to that? If treated in a way that makes you feel good about yourself? How much false teaching would you accept?

Problem is that BOTH are important. Truth and How we treat people. If we fight with them over obscure issues were going to end up fighting over stupid issues. Present your model, showm them scripture and them let God do the work. Simple enough?

<B>

Romans 16:17-18 NASB

"For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting."
[/QUOTE] I agree. Lets keep the quote in context.</B>

You don't?

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Click to expand...

Your model.

Darwinism begins right off by nullifying that verse amongst others. So? How can one approach one who readily accepts Darwinism in a manner that will win them over? For, their problem runs much deeper than what a personality report can break down.

Click to expand...

I'm not theistic evolitionist however they would state that verse isnt literal but insted speaks of how started the whole process.

Yet, you believe the right "approach" is needed to win them over. Will giving gifts to Muslims get them to accept the Jesus? Jews?

Click to expand...

The right approach is to give everyone the chance to speak the truth will come out.

Treating Muslims kindly will not get them to reject jihad. Likewise, those who find an ego satisfaction behind the walls of TOE will see a nice Christian as being supercilious.

Click to expand...

Treating them badly as heretics will?

What one needs is truth that works like a bomb against the lie. A bomb that will break down those walls to leave them standing exposed. That is why others were eXpelled. They did not want even the basic plans to the bomb to be published.

Click to expand...

Again, speak your model and let them decide. What's so complicated about that? Geez

<B>

2 Corinthians 10:5 (New International Version)

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Click to expand...

Yes I love that verse as well...thats nice. Contrary to populaar truth not everything is well defined in scripture yet hence why there is divisions.</B>

Yes.. We are to present the Gospel in gentleness and kindness. That's Gospel truth.

Click to expand...

Excellent.

But? The walls erected by evil to resist God's truth are not to be treated in kind.

Click to expand...

Satan cannot stop God from saving those whom he wills.

.

They try to make a false criterion the basis of dealing with a lie. So, in that way the lie is placed in safety and the criterion for exposing it becomes the substitute whipping post.

Click to expand...

Lie according to you, I got it.

Frisbee · Apr 25, 2008

flicka said:
The reason I didn't like Expelled was because before I even saw it I had read about the people claiming to have been persecuted and saw that this film was not entirely honest about things. And then I read about other professionals who have faced discrimation and lost their jobs for maintaining that ID/Creationism wasn't science. For the record I don't think it is either. But even for those being as open minded as possible the only conclusion anyone can draw is that there are people of all beliefs who use their positions of power improperly againt those who disagree with them. There is no one conspiracy to keep a certain idea down. There are only flawed people.

I also didn't like how it gave no real explaination of ID or Evolution yet lead the audience in one direction without facts to back anything up.

Basically, like all documentary style propaganda pieces, I was insulted that the film didn't expect me to do my homework. And concerned about the majority who never bother.

I checked the claims and counter claims (did my homework as you just stated) and guess what flicka?

The spear tip of the effort to discredit Expelled was a website created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education.

Let's look at their own words on the front page of their own website to see what they are up to...

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out. NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue. We provide:

Reviews of current anti-evolution activity in the United States and around the world

Background to the fundamentally creationist and anti-evolution movement known as "Intelligent Design"

Detailed information on the Creation/Evolution controversy from 1859 to the present

Resources for parents, teachers, school boards, and the general public

See for yourself: Go here http://www.expelledexposed.com/, look at the bottom of the website for who created the smear campaign, and it points you to here: http://www.ncseweb.org/ which says the stuff above.

Hardly anything but a witch hunt, the very thing that Expelled exposes. I have this thread running in several message boards and guess what flicka? The same links get posted to smear the movie, the same message is spewed out to smear the movie, and if I didn't know any better I'd think that it was the same people smearing the movie. Either that perhaps Ben Stein was right. There is a coordinated and widespread effort to smash Intelligent Design. The issue is not, nor should it be ID. The issue is intellectual fascism of sorts, and the line that Stein draws is starting to become very clearly, a very accurate representation of how folks who support ID are being treated. No, we're not being rounded up and thrown into gas ovens, and Stein never made that point in the movie. Thos who watched it know exactly what he said and it was 100% historically correct. Not 99%, 100% correct.

GenemZ · Apr 25, 2008

NewGuy101 said:
Good.

Are we still speaking about the science of macroevolution of are you speaking on neo-darwinism which pressuposes only natural causes? Again the two need to be sperated.

The ploy is this. A scientific theory is raised up that would nullify the Word of God in the minds of men, if accepted.

Yet, when confronted with reasoning that steps outside of scientific principle? Even to reason along the lines of common sense logic? The true-believer scientists insists that the issue only be addressed on terms he is willing to listen to, or he will not consider the argument.

In other words? Its my ball that I threw onto the playing field. If you do not play by my rules? I will take my 'ears' and go home.

We Christians who believe the Bible is God's Word are constantly told that science can not consider God in the equation. That neat ploy keeps a wall well erected that the TOE's conveniently hide behind. That way, they do not have not to consider other realities existing outside of the disciplines of science. Matter of fact. They often times act as if science is on a higher plain than theology. And, the examples of bad theology they always cite? Is used to justify their plugged ears.

Its a tricky devise. And, sadly... well intentioned, nice, obliging, PC Christians, sit on their hands; as their freedoms are slowly pulled out from under them in a tenacious patient manner. These ones are lulled into believing that how they behave will win the day. That they must be loving and kind. Not, shrewd and blunt in exposing pretense. If they do? They are told they are being unchristian.

2 Samuel 22:27 (Today's New International Version)

"to the pure you show yourself pure,

but to the devious you show yourself shrewd."

Where did Paul say this? The regenerate or better said the elect CANNOT BE LOST.

I did not say they will be lost. Why do you think I did? Yet, a very real destruction they will face will be rewards that would have been given for Eternity, will be lost.

Don't you know?

1 Corinthians 3:11-13 (Today's New International Version)

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person's work."

What does that tell us?

That believers will be evaluated after their resurrection.

For what reason?

verses 14-15

"If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.

If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."

It says? ... those believers who reject sound doctrine? Will face a destruction by fire. But, it never says they will end up being placed in a fire as their destruction!

Everyone right now is free to believe as they please. Everyone. In the end, which will be the end of ends... all lies and pretension will be wiped away. Those now who find truth... must fight the good fight, for truth... These ones will receive their rewards. Note: It says..."fight."

This is a contradictory statement. The holy spirit opens the mind of the elect and even if they stumble cannot be lost.

I have never said they will be lost.. i.e., the lake of Fire.. type lost.

But rather, these unfaithful believers to God's will for their lives, will lose in other ways. By means of a different fire. As, I just showed you.

verses 14-15

"If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.

If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."

Dude, you are speaking about genesis, there is so many different models of it including Theistic Evoltion...who cares. You are just being legalistic.

The Word of God is always seen as being legalistic by some.

Acts 4:12 (Today's New International Version)

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved."

A Buddhist? He would argue that the Bible is legalistic. He would say that the Christian who believes it, is legalistic.

Irrelavant
Ok, this is irrelevant. The truth about GENESIS is still being discussed. Lets focus on the essentials not obscure passages.
God wins people over, we just tell people scripture...he does the work.

How can one tell another what he does not understand? Apparently, some have no problem with this.

More truth to clarify Genesis will be found by some in any given generation. The others not getting it, will debate what the other finds till they face the fire of the Lord. For they never will get it. That's what makes truth so mystifying.

Those who have truth are oblidged to say what they know, so that others who are also walking by the Spirit's leading will be able to find what is to be passed along. Just like leaven from a prior batch is added to a new. It keeps passing itself on by means of the Spirit.

You give satan too much Power, Satan does Gods bidding.

God's bidding is to expose hearts. Right? So?

Satan is allowed to do many things that we personally would not like him to. For, God is getting believers to face who and what they are. Satan is one of his tools.

That does not mean Satan is not allowed a lot of leeway by God. Just look what Satan did with Job. All with the Lord's permission. You don't know this?

I hate all the stupid theories of how satan is behind this and behind that...sometimes its not SATAN sometimes its US,, FALLEN SINNERS.

Now you are telling me the elect can be lost?

Sometimes its the sinner's own fault. Yes..

And, many times its a representative of Satan's influencing, winning over a believer (and unbeliever) by means of flattery to the ego.

Ephesians 6:12 (Today's New International Version)

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Haven't you heard that before?

TOE has been long trying to take over the secular world view. It has done very well in suppressing the truth of God's Word. Unfortunatley, YEC's have been a great help to their cause.

Where has the power come from to do what they have done? To be placed in such a position of power as to influence education and the media? That is? If we struggle not against flesh and blood?

Dawkins thinks God is a silly myth...

Do you read Dawkins? I make myself aware of what he thinks. His justifications for what he believes I find skewed.... But many so called Christian evolutionists will use his works to feed on.

In Christ, GeneZ

.

Cris413 · Apr 25, 2008

genez said:
Lady! This is a debate! Not church! Your way of thinking has placed more roadblocks to getting to the truth, because you make what should not be the criterion, into the criterion, while the truth gets push aside on a technicality of the law.

That was not very nice of me. But, it was the truth.

In Christ (and trying to get back on topic), GeneZ

And, I know I will get a warning on this.

I'm a Mac. Not "PC"

.

It's interesting gene...you snipped off the most important portion of my my post...

And we should always consider...above all else....Does what we do and say glorify and honor God?

Gene...you are quite right...this is not a church...it is however a "Congregational" Forum....

Main Entry: con·gre·ga·tion·al

Pronunciation: \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ Function: adjective Date: 1639 1: of or relating to a congregation2capitalized : of or relating to a body of Protestant churches deriving from the English Independents of the 17th century and affirming the essential importance and the autonomy of the local congregation3: of or relating to church government placing final authority in the assembly of the local congregation

Kinda like an internet "church" of sorts huh? In the sense that many "Christians" gather here...to um...congregate....

And here's "the rub" gene....

This Congregational Christian Forum...has rules and guidelines...some of which are:

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.

If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.

Harassment of another member is not allowed.

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc.

Which in this case is the ND FSGs which state in the very first item of our statement of faith:

We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's (agape) love, which is greater than differences we possess, and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.

And last...but certainly not least:

Use the brain God gave you. Think before you post. Think about how your post may affect someone else.

Your comment:

Your way of thinking has placed more roadblocks to getting to the truth, because you make what should not be the criterion, into the criterion, while the truth gets push aside on a technicality of the law.

Whose truth? Your truth?

Or this truth:

Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--
Joh 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

And what commandements was our Lord speaking of...could it have been these commandments?

Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Or perhaps this truth...

2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you,
2Th 3:2 and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith.
2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you and guard you from the evil one.
2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, both that you do and will do the things we command you.
2Th 3:5 Now may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of Christ.

Or this truth:

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
1Co 13:4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
1Co 13:5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
1Co 13:6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
1Co 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Now...do the above noted truths...the Word of God contradict these truths as well?..

2Ti 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
2Ti 4:5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

and in case you're not sure what an evangelist is:

1often capitalized : a writer of any of the four Gospels2: a person who evangelizes; specifically : a Protestant minister or layman who preaches at special services3: an enthusiastic advocate <an evangelist for physical fitness>

I'm gonna say...NO...Scripture agrees with Scripture...

So...I'm thinking...while we consider the TRUTH of 2 Timothy to convince, rebuke an exort...perhaps it should be tempered with the all the other Truths in Scripture as noted above.

So...either the word of God is conflictual...or...your truth and the way you present your truth is in error.

So here's an adeqate thread derailment with TRUTH posted as penned by the Apostles as INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT...GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF.

That's me..."blocking" TRUTH.

Peace

GenemZ · Apr 25, 2008

Cris413 said:
It's interesting gene...you snipped off the most important portion of my my post...

Gene...you are quite right...this is not a church...it is however a "Congregational" Forum....

Main Entry: con·gre·ga·tion·al

Pronunciation: \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ Function: adjective Date: 1639 1: of or relating to a congregation2capitalized : of or relating to a body of Protestant churches deriving from the English Independents of the 17th century and affirming the essential importance and the autonomy of the local congregation3: of or relating to church government placing final authority in the assembly of the local congregation

Kinda like an internet "church" of sorts huh? In the sense that many "Christians" gather here...to um...congregate....

And here's "the rub" gene....

This Congregational Christian Forum...has rules and guidelines...some of which are:

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.

If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.

Harassment of another member is not allowed.

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

Congregational Forums wishing to remain safe havens may choose to limit debate to members of their own denomination, insist that all posts conform to their creed etc.

Which in this case is the ND FSGs which state in the very first item of our statement of faith:

We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's (agape) love, which is greater than differences we possess, and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.

And last...but certainly not least:

Use the brain God gave you. Think before you post. Think about how your post may affect someone else.

Your comment:

Whose truth? Your truth?

Or this truth:

Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--
Joh 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

And what commandements was our Lord speaking of...could it have been these commandments?

Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Or perhaps this truth...

2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you,
2Th 3:2 and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith.
2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you and guard you from the evil one.
2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, both that you do and will do the things we command you.
2Th 3:5 Now may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of Christ.

Or this truth:

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
1Co 13:4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
1Co 13:5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
1Co 13:6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
1Co 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Now...do the above noted truths...the Word of God contradict these truths as well?..

2Ti 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
2Ti 4:5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

and in case you're not sure what an evangelist is:

1often capitalized : a writer of any of the four Gospels2: a person who evangelizes; specifically : a Protestant minister or layman who preaches at special services3: an enthusiastic advocate <an evangelist for physical fitness>

I'm gonna say...NO...Scripture agrees with Scripture...

So...I'm thinking...while we consider the TRUTH of 2 Timothy to convince, rebuke an exort...perhaps it should be tempered with the all the other Truths in Scripture as noted above.

So...either the word of God is conflictual...or...your truth and the way you present your truth is in error.

So here's an adeqate thread derailment with TRUTH posted as penned by the Apostles as INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT...GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF.

That's me..."blocking" TRUTH.

Peace

Thank you! You must be a very nice person.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

.

Cris413 · Apr 25, 2008

genez said:
Thank you! You must be a very nice person.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

.

Grace and peace in Him...to you as well...

Praise God...His word never goes out and returns void...

blessings

Cabal · Apr 26, 2008

Frisbee said:
Well Cabal that is your opinion then. Personally I can't even begin to comprehend how a person can believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and fail to see that they are in fact a proponent of ID. Do you understand that by agreeing with evolutionists, that you are agreeing that you deny that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? I understand that you most likely disagree with them about the first verse in the bible, but when you agree with them that it is completely random chance, etc, etc, etc, you have stripped God from the equation.

I think you misunderstand me - I don't say such things to strip God from the equation intentionally or otherwise, I just honestly don't agree with the idea that using a "limit of mathematical impossibility" (by the way, thank you for the links to Dembski's work) implies a cut-off point where random chance ends and intelligent design begins. It's an interesting idea, and analysing the numbers involved (no. of particles, no. of state changes possible etc) is a sensible place to start. However, I think that stating any probability under a certain value as being impossible falls down when you think about the probabilities of certain things. One particular example would be, when you get into statistical thermodynamics, most of the states a system can enter into can essentially be infinitely improbable.

However, because of our understanding of quantities like entropy we know that a system has to end up in the most probable state out of these, no matter how "improbable" it may be. In a crystal, the odds of one atom in being in a specific location in time and space would be 1/1E27 (for a crystal of a billion,billion,billion atoms). Now, for the next atom, 1/(1E27 - 1). Considering that you've got to combine all these probabilities by multiplication, the number you get out at the end would be pretty nightmarish.

And yet, we see crystals frequently. Now, while I may have the odds of a pebble-sized crystal forming numerically incorrect, I believe this illustrates that the probability argument in many ways is irrelevant - because any system has to, and will inevitably end up in, a final macrostate.

Yes, the odds are tiny. But the odds of anything else happening are even larger. Given a certain set of initial conditions, the universe was bound to end up in this form. And if the universe didn't contain one known planet which could sustain carbon based life, well, we wouldn't be around to know it.

However, I will also freely admit that science does not have all the answers. Quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity - both incredible formalisms that have revolutionised mankind's knowledge and conditions of life. And yet are they compatible? Goodness, no! And even if they are united, does this necessarily give us the tools to understand the origin of the universe? How can one see outside of existence?

For me, all I need to know is, that God created us, because he wanted a loving relationship with us, and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. I know that no matter what science does, it will never disprove God - and because a relationship with God is essentially about faith, rather than empiricism, I do not worry about what science discovers, as a scientific theory is objective, and also man-made.

Yes, there are extreme people like Dawkins who use evolution as one of their (many) tools to justify their viewpoint. But the fact is, evolutionary theory was and still is a useful tool for understanding how life has developed over the ages and is worth knowing, despite the fact that it has been co-opted by atheism and fascism.

GenemZ · Apr 27, 2008

Cabal said:
And yet, we see crystals frequently. Now, while I may have the odds of a pebble-sized crystal forming numerically incorrect, I believe this illustrates that the probability argument in many ways is irrelevant - because any system has to, and will inevitably end up in, a final macrostate.

The Lord created the unique attributes we find with the crystals you mentioned.

Now? If you could cite many other substances doing the same thing? And, also of new ones on record of spontaneously having appeared down the corridors of time? Then I may agree with your premise.

Interesting point to consider.... We only see such creatures as mice and elephants having been around a relatively short time compared to the rest of prehistoric biological life.

Yet? By the very nature of how the elephant and mouse are designed? Sharing the same basic biological schematic of having a heart that pumps blood. A liver ... lungs... ears.... being warm blooded.... feet... hair... skin.... bones... ligaments.... eyes... nose...teeth... able to chew.. swallow... digest food... circulate the digested nutrients... filter out the waste....and have a means to eliminate feces and urine through a separate paths of disposal?

Now? What was the common ancestor was for both the mouse and elephant? That creature could not have been around since the beginning of time. It had to come into being after the age of reptiles began to die off as being the exclusive model for life. I would think so.

But? If not a common ancestor? It would mean that many varieties of reptilian creatures somehow all began mutating in the same direction... hair.. warm blooded... etc.

What a coincidence that would be for that to happen to so many different types of reptilian creatures simultaneously. Matter of fact. Its down right odd.

It was by chance that they all took off in the same point of direction as the great mass mutation took place? One would have to think God was in Heaven hitting a master button to bring about this en mass transformation of the biological cosmos that had dominated this planet as reptilian in function...

What are the odds of a single small reptilian creature mutating into a mouse? And, a large reptilian creature mutating into a elephant? And, a vast number of reptilian creatures all branching off into creatures like cats, horses, pigs, sheep, etc? The odds of just one reptile transforming in the direction of mammalian function is staggering. But a wide variety of species all moving in the exact same direction? By chance? And? Still having reptiles remain existing?

I am not the smartest person in the world. Far from it. So why aren't the truly smart ones questioning the impossibility of life as we know it being here by chance?

When it comes to TOE'rs supplying answers to such questions as that one? I have developed a specialized compartmentalized cynicism reserved just for what I expect in regards to the response. For, they have no real answer. At best, the cleverest of them can create an appearance to having an answer.

TOE has caused me to evolve into a cynic...

Come to think of it. So have many politicians running for office over the years.

In Christ, GeneZ

.

Cabal · Apr 27, 2008

genez said:
The Lord created the unique attributes we find with the crystals you mentioned.

Now? If you could cite many other substances doing the same thing? And, also of new ones on record of spontaneously having appeared down the corridors of time? Then I may agree with your premise.

Hey Genez - I'll not go into specifics on the mammal/sauropod divergence as I don't know too much on that.

As for the crystal example, and you asked if many other substances do the same thing - well, the point I was trying to make is that all systems operate this way. The only variation on the above theme is that for a particular closed system, substances in one region may use energy from a source to locally decrease entropy and enter an excited state and from there into new and different final states. An example of this would be a green plant in the Sun-Earth system absorbing solar energy in order to create nutrition for itself via photosynthesis.

But from there, the outcome is the same - whichever final state is the most probable, no matter how improbable it is, the system has to end up in a final state. The other factor to consider is that the most stable state of a system is the one which maximises the entropy, and it is this state that usually ends up happening.

A couple more examples (bear in mind these are the usual ones taught in thermodynamics class, so they're a bit more thought-experimenty than the crystal one, but I'm sure I can dig more up) would be:

If you have a box with a barrier inside it dividing it into two compartments, and in one compartment is a gas - upon removing the barrier the gas would diffuse into the second half of the box. Now, it is theoretically possible that the gas molecules at a later point may all be back in only the first half of the box again, but the odds of that happening are much smaller than the odds for the gas uniformly filling up the entire interior of the box. And yet the odds for the latter happening would still be very small, for a decent measure of gas.

Another example would be smashing an egg. You drop an egg on the floor, and its kinetic energy obtained during the fall is rapidly dispersed into the surrounding air and floor particles. Now, while it is theoretically possible for the random thermal motion of the floor atoms to suddenly sync up and return all the energy to the egg again, we're never going to see the egg reassemble and jump back up into the air again, as that is so much less probable than its stable final state of just...well...sitting on the floor.

The thing with this idea is, it applies to ALL systems (hence the slightly random examples). Despite the tiny probabilities involved, when it occurs it can create some truly astounding ordered systems, like crystals. Now I'm sorry I couldn't give any more specific examples in that vein, complete with probability summaries, as the crystal's one of the few I'm familiar with. But for any macroscopic system, it will all obey the same rules of maximising its entropy (by turning into the most probable final state, whatever it may be) for greatest stability.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed... A movie review

Well-Known Member

Chapin = Guatemalan

Chapin = Guatemalan

Well-Known Member

Chapin = Guatemalan

Born twice, die once. Born once, die twice

Well-Known Member

Chapin = Guatemalan

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Chapin = Guatemalan

Born twice, die once. Born once, die twice

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency