Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career

On May 17, 8:18 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Frank J" <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6802e6ce-e890-413c-a920-6a63f3f4a885@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On May 16, 11:04 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Rupert Morrish" <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:482cb3a8$0$13061$8d2e0cab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Suzanne wrote:
"Glend" <interelectromagne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:583e337f-a9fd-489c-9802-ddb030cdc98f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Glend <interelectromagne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 9, 7:29 am, jspace...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Roger Friedman at Fox Snooze reviews Expelled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­--
PS: Following "The Passion" release pattern, "Expelled" will open
wide
on the 18th but mostly in rural and poor neighborhoods. It's got
just
one theater in all of New York City, in Times Square, none in
places
like Beverly Hills or wealthier, better-educated urban
neighborhoods
where more "evolved" people might live.
According to the film's Web site, the producers are in a whopping
45
theaters in North Carolina, and a mere seven in Massachusetts, 35
in
Georgia, 11 in New Jersey, four in Connecticut and one in Vermont.
And
so on. There are huge numbers of screens in Florida and Texas
taking
the film, particularly seven in San Antonio. If I lived in the Deep
South, I'd boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this
gullible
and unsophisticated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­-----
Read it athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html
J. Spaceman
We hit this giant turd with science and history arguments. That's
our
role.

Friedman, though, does his movie critic's review role right, mainly
pointing out that it's a colossal freak show feeding off of the
ignorant. Unfunny, unconvincing, and something that can't make its
"point" without resorting to ad hominems. And while Fox is neither
as
bad as most critics make it out to be (if I wouldn't be likely to
give
it kudos), nor are its movie reviews beholden to its right-wing
slant,
the fact that it is from Fox is going to hurt Expelled more than
will
the bad reviews from the other news networks.

Friedman. Sounds Jewish. Why do I care? Because it always seemed
that Jews in particular should be offended by misusing the memory of
the Holocaust (and Gulag) victims in this tacky way to promote the
Xian theocratic drive for power. We all should be, but Jews have
cultural and historic reasons for this.

Frankly, these yokels are babes out in the woods, shaking their
fists
at the rain, deer, wolves, and rabbits alike. Are they really stupid
enough to think that having Stein, a Jew, narrate, and then to bring
in a couple other Jews (Schroeder and Berlinski), would save them
from
being criticized for trying to re-write the Holocaust and Communist
oppression? Bye-bye, Stein's career, and any lingering hopes for
respect that Schroeder and Berlinski had.

Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -
"We all should be, but Jews have
cultural and historic reasons for this."

I meant, "We all should be, but Jews have especial cultural and
historic reasons for this."

I'm wondering....how many of you making these comments
actually saw the film? I did. Ben Stein did not just make his
own comments and not allow anyone else to make their own
comments. Dawkins, for example, was allowed to read his
whole description of God. He was allowed to express what
he believed, and his statements were allowed to be in the
film. Of course Stein stated his opinion, too. But he still
allowed Dawkins comments to be in the film and Dawkins
also must have approved of his role in being in the film as
well. Ben expressed how he felt about many things, and
all of them were his opinion. Both Dawkins and Stein seemed
to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, very complicated
structure, far more so than people formerly believed.

Of course cells are complicated. They are the current product of almost
4
billion years of evolution. Early cells must have been much simpler.

I don't think earlier cells are less complicated because
we have evidence that early plants and animals were
huge by comparison with today's. For example, there
used to be dragon flies that had a wingspan of two feet.
Elephants have gotten progressively smaller starting
with mastadon, then mammoth, to modern elephant.
Same with sabre-toothed tiger, to modern tiger. (A
mastadon is really a member of a different species,
Mammutidae, while elephants are of the Elephantidae,
but they are similar. But a Mammoth is an elephant.)

Since all we see now is cellular life, it's easy to fall into the trap
of
thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. Today, that's
true.
Any free-floating autocatalytic chemicals will quickly get eaten by the
cellular organisms that exist almost everywhere on the planet. But
without
such competition, non-cellular life could have existed.

The
animation within the film of the intracies of a single cell was
worth the price of admission, by itself, alone. It goes without
saying that I would believe that a single cell is created by a
Creator, since you all know me to be a Christian.

Most Christians are not creationists.

Most Christians are Catholics. It's difficult to say of they
are creationists. If they read and believe the Bible, as a
rule someone is a creationist. However, the term creationist
usually applies to YEC, which are "young earth creationists."
They believe the world is not as old as billions of years, and
that they have found what they believe is evidence about that.

The next to the largest group in the USA at least are
Southern Baptists, and I am one of those. Most of those
do believe in creation. I'm sure that some don't believe
in creation, but most probably do. An overwhelming
amount of the unchurched people do believe the Bible is
the truth. I've lived all over the USA and everyone I met
usually has a belief in the Bible, to my surprise even if
they don't read it.

Do you believe (as Ray appears to be moving towards) that *every* cell
is
created by a Creator, or is cell division a natural process?

Every cell? I never thought about that before.
I can guess, based on scriptures, that God is
involved with everything that is alive and with
all of what he created. But, I suppose you are
wondering did I think he just created things to
unfold in their various descending forms from
his creating life and then setting it in motion,
or does he actually create with what he's made
each cell and/or life. I don't know the answer to
that, but from what he says to Jeremiah, he did
form him in the womb. I presume that would
mean that with what genetic material he did
program into Jeremiah's ancestors, he chose
which color of hair, eyes, skin, physical
characteristics, nature, and whatever gets
created about someone. The Bible also says that
when John the Baptist was being formed, his
mother was not to touch any alcohol. Somehow
that would have interfered with his life. Whether
that was because alcohol can put markers in the
brain, or not, I don't know. In fact, we don't know
yet a genetic problem with mother's imbibing,
except that a baby can be born an addict because
of the mother's drinking in excess, or maybe at
all. But does God get involved with the cell of a
celery plant when it is being formed? I can think
of a verse that may go along with God's being
involved in the creation of every cell and that is
Colossians 1:17:
"And he is before all things, and by him all things
consist."
...so I suppose that's possible that he is in the
process by which things are formed.

In the case of a child being born out of wedlock, a
child is not evil. Once the process is started by
which a baby is born, I believe that God is invovled
with that life that is forming, and that he forms it
as surely as he did Jeremiah in his mother's womb.

Conceivably, the Lord could be involved with the
cells of a tomato since it will give nourishment to
someone, even if that someone is a rabbit that
invades your garden.

But for
whatever reasons you think about it's origins, don't act as
though a single cell is so simple.

No-one thinks this, as explained above.

Thank you for your explanation.

Suzanne-

Ernest beat me to addressing your confusion about size and complexity.
You have been corrected on many misunderstandings of biology but I
haven't seen any replies other than attempts to cherry pick what you
want to support your incredulity. Nor have I seen answers to my simple
questions regarding your alternate "theory."

I am not intending to "cherry pick," as you say.

It may be unintentional, but you're doing it anyway.

Your
statement "you have been corrected," is not exactly
a friendly statement.

You want a friendly statement? Here's one: "I'll pray for you."

I didn't get many friendly statements from my teachers, but decades
later, I acknowledge and respect that they tried to help me.

And I don't know about having
discussed anything about an alternate theory. Some of
you react like you have been repeatedly attacked. Maybe
you have been.

Well if you doubt evolution, you must have a "second best candidate"
in mind. And I noticed that you still have not answered my simple
questions as to what that might be. Try again. Best guesses will do. I
promise not to ridicule any answer, be it flat-earthism, "Last
Thursdayism" etc. I respect honesty, not evasion.







I personally think that

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... the film, ... to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, ... thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. ... in creation, but most probably do. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, ... thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. ... in creation, but most probably do. ... I can guess, based on scriptures, that God is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, ... thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. ... in creation, but most probably do. ... I can guess, based on scriptures, that God is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... the film, ... to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, ... thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. ... Most Christians are not creationists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... the film, ... to be in agreement that a single cell is a very, ... thinking that cellular life is the only life possible. ... Most Christians are not creationists. ...
    (talk.origins)