• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Expelled - Why does Ben Stein hate America?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not disagree with what you are saying here. :)
Click to expand...

So, then, you ARE asserting that the enlightenment movement was not in fact popular among the founders and framers of the USA?

You claimed that every fact in the OP was false. You have yet to show that any was. It's time for you to retract your claim, and stop what looks like intentional derailment.

While you're at it, it's time to admit that you have no evidence whatsoever to counter evolution.
 
Elind said:
:shrug: He has no case, but he does have a lot of morons. That's as it always is.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about here? Ben Stein? Or Norman Finkelstein?

Finkelstein has a much better case than any of the clowns in Ben Stein's movie. For one, Finkelstein was actually expelled (see expellexposed.com to see that most of the expelled poster children were never even expelled from anything) and it was because of his viewpoint (as opposed to, e.g. Gonzalez who was expelled based on performance or lack of it). Finkelstein was actually approved for promotion by his department and college, and was described, by his university as "an excellent teacher and scholar." However, he got zorched by the Board of Trustees because he got into a pitting match with Alan Dershowitz over his anti-Israel position.

Now, I'm not defending Finkelstein in any way, but I'm not the one claiming to be bothered by "viewpoint discrimination," either.
 
BPSCG said:
Pardon me for using inexact language in the service of an analogy. The IDers obviously haven't seen how evolution works (except v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y...), but they've certainly seen the overwhelming evidence for it. And yet they still cling to their ghost in the machine mythology.
Click to expand...

I am not an advocate for ID. I am an advocate for scientifically derived data being used to further human knowledge, not used to draw incorrect faith based conclusions.

:gnome:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not an advocate for ID. I am an advocate for scientifically derived data being used to further human knowledge, not used to draw incorrect faith based conclusions.

:gnome:
Click to expand...

The above is only true if you strongly, enthusiastically support the Theory of Evolution.

Do you? Yes or no.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not an advocate for ID. I am an advocate for scientifically derived data being used to further human knowledge, not used to draw incorrect faith based conclusions.
Click to expand...
This statement would be laudable if you had a good knowledge of how science works. From the limited exchanges I've had with you, I'd have to conclude that this is not the case. I wish it were otherwise.
 
Tricky said:
This statement would be laudable if you had a good knowledge of how science works. From the limited exchanges I've had with you, I'd have to conclude that this is not the case. I wish it were otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is a weak argument: "You just don't understand how science works".
 
Jerome, how in the world can the argument be anything but weak when you never, never as far as I know, ever take a stand on anything scientific and state that, with support, on your thousands of posts? It is very clever to stand on sheer logic and never explain how you derivethe position you hold, or even state your position, except as a logical referent ("I am an advocate for scientifically derived data...") but you never say what you think such data is, or was in the past, or what it might be in the future. As far as we know, you know nothing about anything except syllogistic logic because you never commit to such knowledge. You demonstrate the depth of Weizenbaum's Eliza therapist program of the 60's. You ridicule, you deride, you are always three levels deep in abstractions, but you never say, "I believe in this:" and the, in simple declarative sentence state what you think is true.

It is a clever position, it will only rarely "loose", especially if you ignore problems that arise, but it does not make for satisfying debate, win or loose. I'm well aware that you'll nitpick some small part of what I'm saying, and mark another win on your hidden score card.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is a weak argument: "You just don't understand how science works".
Click to expand...
It is just a comment. I don't feel that it is necessary to rehash the old threads, but speaking as a scientist, it is my opinion that you don't know how science works, nor do you show any particular inclination to learn how it works. I like you and I do not wish to get into a mud-slinging match, so I will leave it at this. I hope that some day you will study science and find some of the many places where you have made errors in scientific fact and philosophy (or else you will fail your science courses). If you do decide to really learn science, you will likely feel a bit embarrassed by some of the things you've said. That's okay. Everybody makes mistakes.
 
shadron said:
Jerome, how in the world can the argument be anything but weak when you never, never as far as I know, ever take a stand on anything scientific and state that, with support, on your thousands of posts? It is very clever to stand on sheer logic and never explain how you derivethe position you hold, or even state your position, except as a logical referent ("I am an advocate for scientifically derived data...") but you never say what you think such data is, or was in the past, or what it might be in the future. As far as we know, you know nothing about anything except syllogistic logic because you never commit to such knowledge. You demonstrate the depth of Weizenbaum's Eliza therapist program of the 60's. You ridicule, you deride, you are always three levels deep in abstractions, but you never say, "I believe in this:" and the, in simple declarative sentence state what you think is true.

It is a clever position, it will only rarely "loose", especially if you ignore problems that arise, but it does not make for satisfying debate, win or loose. I'm well aware that you'll nitpick some small part of what I'm saying, and mark another win on your hidden score card.
Click to expand...


I believe that life has always existed. Science so far has only evidenced such. Unless you can present science which evidences that life comes from non-life your arguments are nothing more than your accusations of mine.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I believe that life has always existed. Science so far has only evidenced such. Unless you can present science which evidences that life comes from non-life your arguments are nothing more than your accusations of mine.
Click to expand...
Define always.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I believe that life has always existed. Science so far has only evidenced such.
Click to expand...
Show me the evidence for the existance of life before the coalescence of the planet earth.
Unless you can present science which evidences that life comes from non-life your arguments are nothing more than your accusations of mine.
Click to expand...

Science does not prove negatives. You are shifting the burden. You have made the statment quoted above, and the burden of proof is entirely on you. Until you show testable, verifiable evidence, you have nothing but trollery.
 
jj said:
Science does not prove negatives. You are shifting the burden. You have made the statment quoted above, and the burden of proof is entirely on you. Until you show testable, verifiable evidence, you have nothing but trollery.
Click to expand...

Until you show life coming from non-life than you have done nothing but name-call.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Until you show life coming from non-life than you have done nothing but name-call.
Click to expand...

I have asserted nothing.

You must provide the evidence for each and every one of your positive assertions, or they are valueless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom