On May 10, 1:23=A0pm, Tyler Trafford <ttrafford+use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ken McElhaney wrote:
> > Truth is, the chances of the first living organism forming randomly
> > are so fantastic that the odds are essentially ZERO given what we
> > know. Perhaps another unknown element is needed or something that
> > existed then acted as a catalyst and is no longer present or
> > perhaps...who really knows?
>
> I have no idea what the odds are, and I like to think I otherwise know
> everything. ;)
Well then, the odds are essentially "zero"...now you know
everything...:)
> > Third, the film does not dispute but embraces "evolution" as it
> > applies to all living things AFTER the formation of the first living
> > cell. So there is no disagreement for about 3.5 billion years, just on
> > the first day.
>
> In this context I assume you mean natural selection (right?) which is a
> totally separate topic from *genesis.
It means what it means, the movie does not dispute Darwin AFTER the
first living organism appeared. The clamor from some scientists is
that to question any part of Darwin's theory is to question the whole
thing.
> > The "Hitler/Darwin" connection Miller makes is another flat out lie,
> > in the film Stein clearly states what could happen when scientific
> > theories as crackpot as "Eugenics" are exploited in a society lacking
> > in moral & ethical boundaries, such as existed in Nazi Germany.
>
> How is this even vaguely in keeping with the topic of the movie?
Well, see the movie.
> Were the makers of this movie even aware of how this would, at the very
> least, *appear* to be an invocation of Godwin's Law?
So you are saying you have seen the movie?
Basically, the "Hitler/Darwin" connection as cited by the Boston Globe
article is false, but then again the author wasn't so much reviewing
the film as pu****ng his own agenda.
> > Also...noted athiest Richard Dawkins is in "Expelled" and he flatly
> > states that "Intelligent Design" could have played a role, which left
> > both Ben Stein and myself rather stunned at such an admission. =A0Of
> > course, "God" could not be involved but another advanced race
> > could...amazing...
>
> Err, did you read what Dawkins has to say about this?
>
> Same article I mentioned earlier:
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
>
> Search for "Toward the end of his interview with me".
Seems Dawkins memory is different that what he presented on film.
Since it was a continuous shot from when Stein asked the question and
all through Dawkin's answer, there was no cutting or "tricks" (I've
been a videographer for more than twenty years, I've seen all the
tricks and used them myself on occasion). Dawkins gave an answer not
prefaced by any "I must have been feeling magnanimous that day" tone.
Since all he had to say was "No, I cannot imagine how any form of
Intelligent Design could play a role." and that would be that.
Instead, he gave an answer that certainly seemed serious to the point
where he virtually backtracked towards the end by stating that this
"alien race" must've began by some non-Intelligent Design means.
Hardly the tone or substance Dawkins cites in his article. He
certainly appeared to realize that to give such an answer would blow a
big hole in his belief (or non-belief) system...or perhaps he just
isn't as smart as he thinks he is...I'm willing to believe the latter.
Ken
|
