Expelled

[Moksha]

There is a sequel to be made of this movie, if only Ben Stein would look into the ill treatment all the flat Earth scientists have received at the hands of their round loving colleagues. These flat Earth scientists have been armed with maps for hundreds of years and all their opponents have is a measly globe. These "so called" globes do not even indicate 'where be dragons', for safety.

[sgallan]

These "so called" globes do not even indicate 'where be dragons', for safety.

And that is just so wrong!

[JohnBirchSociety]

Have you ever even talked to a biologist? Let's start with the simplest example I can think of.

Have you ever been to a doctor, found out you had a bacterial infection (like strep throat) and been given antibiotics? They tell you to make sure that finish all of them and keep taking the antibiotics even if you start feeling better. Do you know why? Because if you don't kill the entire bacteria population there is a chance that since bacteria breed so quickly the mutations in their DNA combined with the strong selective pressure of the antibiotic could create a new strain resistant to the antibiotic you're taking.

Is that not enough for you? Are you one of those people who pretends there is "microevolution" but a magical barrier preventing it from becoming "macroevolution" over millions of years of change and that there is no such thing as speciation? Here, I'll give you more conclusive evidence.

You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into an arbitrary place of the cell it infects. Sometimes, very rarely, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor and it has been confirmed that we (humans) do indeed share several ERVs with chimpanzees.

This is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution I've seen so far and I have yet to hear any theory that offers an alternate explaination for these shared ERVs. We've seen how they get into the gene pool, we've seen how they are transferred from parent to child and we've seen that we share them with other species. I don't see how any intellectually honest scientist can casually disregard this evidence and believe that speciation through evolution is impossible.

If you have an open mind and truly want to learn more about the subject I suggest starting here: Evolution

I eagerly await the re-evaluation of your position.

"Similar DNA does not evolution make..." -Yoda

Living things have DNA, that there are similarities doesn't indicate trans-species formation over eons.

Bacteria mutates based upon its' surroundings, yet it never ceases to be bacteria. It doesn't become another species.

All species were created by GOD. The variation within species is not evidence for trans-species formation.

Think it through friend. Think of the complexity of mutation, etc., necessary to go from simple organisms to even the simplest of creatures, the gnat. If, anyway along the way the mutation was "wrong" the organism would cease to promulgate.

What you asking me to believe is akin to giving a person an immensely complex map (with quintillions of paths) and telling them they need to get "there" without telling them where "there" was, and if they make one wrong turn they're dead. And you expect that over time someone would get "there". And you find this theory more rational than saying that the Creator made us as is, and we (each species) can adapt with that species....

The enormous complexity of just a single cell is beyond the understanding of all of the fields of science combined, to date. Yet you'd have me believe that from inanimate material arose these immensely complex systems that continued to develop in even more unfathomably complex ways, until voila, here we are...

Another hole in the evolution swiss cheese is that no in-between-a-species has ever been found....and this is BIG....you expect me to believe that not a trace exists of the "failures" anywhere in the world, after billions of years of such things going on? Why have we only found the successes in the fossil records?

And on and on we go....

I shy from the (in my opinion) overly simplistic analogy of dropping the parts for a watch from the top of a building and having them assemble and begin to function when they hit the ground, but it is a simple means of showing the utter absurdity of "evolution"...

Our bodies are trillions, if not multidudes of trillions of times more comples than a simple watch, yet we are to believe we got here by happenstance?

NO!

[Misshalfway]

I think anyone with half a brain can see thru all the rhetoric. Living in America, we have all been schmoozed so much with all of the advertising and such. I think that you are right that more people should be responsible about what they choose to believe. I think it is wrong when people are misled because of someones crooked agenda. I feel that way about the church. I wish, at least, that people would dismiss it on its honest merits rather than believing lies and propaganda. I think science is wonderful. I don't know where we would be without it. I think that it has its limits,but on the balance does a pretty good job explaining our planet and our bodies and our varied environments. I think that everyone could benefit by the gift of the Holy Ghost because once you have the gift and you righteously nurture it, you can determine truth as it is presented to you. Often I hear or learn things and I know I am not smart enough to know one way or the other. But the spirit leads me to listen to certain things and dismiss others on a variety of subjects.

[sgallan]

I shy from the (in my opinion) overly simplistic analogy of dropping the parts for a watch from the top of a building and having them assemble and begin to function when they hit the ground, but it is a simple means of showing the utter absurdity of "evolution"...

Our bodies are trillions, if not multidudes of trillions of times more comples than a simple watch, yet we are to believe we got here by happenstance?

This is what is known as "god of the gaps" which states that anything not fully understood must be from some kind of God. Historically this kind of thinking was used to explain virtually every natural phenomina, from natural disasters, to outbreaks of disease. Had it continued, without legitimate science advancing, we'd still be dying by the millions from outbreaks of the plague, and would still be "bleeding" one another as a healing method.

[crytsprospect]

I think there is a group that jumps on these shows to back up all their fears. I may be a good sheep but I am not a blind sheep and I ask questions.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I shy from the (in my opinion) overly simplistic analogy of dropping the parts for a watch from the top of a building and having them assemble and begin to function when they hit the ground, but it is a simple means of showing the utter absurdity of "evolution"...

Our bodies are trillions, if not multidudes of trillions of times more comples than a simple watch, yet we are to believe we got here by happenstance?

This is what is known as "god of the gaps" which states that anything not fully understood must be from some kind of God. Historically this kind of thinking was used to explain virtually every natural phenomina, from natural disasters, to outbreaks of disease. Had it continued, without legitimate science advancing, we'd still be dying by the millions from outbreaks of the plague, and would still be "bleeding" one another as a healing method.

Mmmmm, not quite...

I'm not exactly saying that because we can't grasp the complexity of a single cell it must have come from "God"...

I'm saying that there are no "evolution failures" in the fossil record to date. I'm saying that the chances of humans arriving on the scene from inanimate material, with input or design, are probably incalculable. Therefore, it is reasonable to state, at the least, that "evolution" does not adequately address these glaring issues. Scientifically, there is a more rational explanation. Intelligent Design.

[sgallan]

I'm saying that there are no "evolution failures" in the fossil record to date. I'm saying that the chances of humans arriving on the scene from inanimate material, with input or design, are probably incalculable. Therefore, it is reasonable to state, at the least, that "evolution" does not adequately address these glaring issues. Scientifically, there is a more rational explanation. Intelligent Design.

Sorry, I am not biting on arguing the specifics unless you can tell me where you got your Phd in evolutionary biology, and/or what credentials you have to trump everything I mention below. If you do not have those credentials then frankly I am not interested.

Being an educator I think I will go with the science departments of every accredited institution of higher learning (including the religious ones), in the best secondary educational system in the entire world, over the rantings of a handful of scientists who have decided to commit career suicide. As long as the vast majority of the science community, and every viable institution of higher learning - with professionals in the field who are WAY smarter than me and are making this their lifes work - goes with evolution, that is good enough for me. I tend not to argue evolution with them anymore than I argue rocket science with a rocket scientist. I guess I am funny that way.

See, I have the legitimate science world behind my view. Something that has been ajudicated (the Pennsylvania Creationalism as decided by a conservative and Christian judge no less). So I don't really get worked up by this issue. And as far as you go, you can believe whatever you want. Just so long as it doesn't creep into legitimate science education I don't have a problem with it.

[DigitalShadow]

"Similar DNA does not evolution make..." -Yoda

Living things have DNA, that there are similarities doesn't indicate trans-species formation over eons.

I wasn't just talking about "similiarities" in DNA, I was talking about DNA that we know was inserted by a virus at an essentially arbitrary point that serves as a genetic marker passed on only to children. Passing that off as just a similarity in design is an intellectual cop out, ask any biologist.

Bacteria mutates based upon its' surroundings, yet it never ceases to be bacteria. It doesn't become another species.

Given enough time, we have no reason to think it wouldn't become another species.

All species were created by GOD. The variation within species is not evidence for trans-species formation.

There are many millions of species that have existed and then been extinct. Does GOD just snap his fingers and create a new species whenever he feels like it, curiously recycling virus ridden junk DNA from existing species just for fun?

Think it through friend. Think of the complexity of mutation, etc., necessary to go from simple organisms to even the simplest of creatures, the gnat. If, anyway along the way the mutation was "wrong" the organism would cease to promulgate.

I believe it is you that needs to think it through my friend. The vast majority of mutations are nuetral to survival, some are negative, some are benificial. benificial mutations allow the organism to have a better chance at reproduction thus passing on at a greater rate than the negative mutations. This can be seen in organisms that breed quickly like bacteria. The logical extension of these observed changes is evolution and the formation of new species. Calling it "absurd" simply because you can't comprehend the time periods needed for such a system to work does not change the evidence that is for it.

What you asking me to believe is akin to giving a person an immensely complex map (with quintillions of paths) and telling them they need to get "there" without telling them where "there" was, and if they make one wrong turn they're dead. And you expect that over time someone would get "there". And you find this theory more rational than saying that the Creator made us as is, and we (each species) can adapt with that species....

There were indeed many genetic "wrong" turns which is why there are so many extinct species.

The enormous complexity of just a single cell is beyond the understanding of all of the fields of science combined, to date. Yet you'd have me believe that from inanimate material arose these immensely complex systems that continued to develop in even more unfathomably complex ways, until voila, here we are...

And you'd have me believe that because we don't yet fully understand the workings of a cell we should all toss our hands up in the air and say "God did it!"

Another hole in the evolution swiss cheese is that no in-between-a-species has ever been found....and this is BIG....you expect me to believe that not a trace exists of the "failures" anywhere in the world, after billions of years of such things going on? Why have we only found the successes in the fossil records?

I have no idea what you are on about, but the fossil record is far from complete and really has not much to do with commonly accepted evidence of evolution. There were trillions of species that existed over billions of years, just because we only have bits and pieces of the puzzle since so few animals are completely fossilized means nothing.

I shy from the (in my opinion) overly simplistic analogy of dropping the parts for a watch from the top of a building and having them assemble and begin to function when they hit the ground, but it is a simple means of showing the utter absurdity of "evolution"...

Our bodies are trillions, if not multidudes of trillions of times more comples than a simple watch, yet we are to believe we got here by happenstance?

NO!

Alright, I'll bite. Let's say for a moment that we are so complex there is no explaination other than that we were created by an even more complex being. Where does that leave us? Who created the being that created us? An even more complex being? Gee, that got us really far. You can say that God just IS and I say that if God just IS then why can't the universe and the set of rules governing it just BE?

[Misshalfway]

I think humans are tremendously and wonderfully complex. What do they say....we only use 10% of our brain capacity??? I just can't believe that we are just the product of an earthy process. I think the idea that we lived before we came to this earth and learned and progressed in that sphere is a much more likely scenerio. I know it can't be proven. Neither can the existence of God. But I think there are evidences that do leave lots of room for the existence of a master creator. I look at my kids. I look....or listen :) to you brilliant people. All the genius and creativity in the world. And I stand in awe at all of it! Scientists included!!! God is a much more logical source of all of that wonderfulness to me. The grand canyon alone! Or wonder of a little bug! Ever watch that DVD "Planet Earth"? This to me is absolutely evidence of divine creation. And then after experiencing the wonder and even magic of experiencing pregnancy and childbirth....I am even more convinced. Evolution, while I see the evidence of it in nature, just isn't sufficient enough of an explanation.

[Misshalfway]

Alright, I'll bite. Let's say for a moment that we are so complex there is no explaination other than that we were created by an even more complex being. Where does that leave us? Who created the being that created us? An even more complex being? Gee, that got us really far. You can say that God just IS and I say that if God just IS then why can't the universe and the set of rules governing it just BE?

Now your talking! This is the fun stuff..... the stuff we most likely won't know until the other side. You are not the first to ask the question. Many LDS scholars and prophets have asked the Lord. Sadly, the answers get us into lots of trouble with our critics. But, from my vantage point the ideas thus far seem pretty fascinating.

[DigitalShadow]

Now your talking! This is the fun stuff..... the stuff we most likely won't know until the other side. You are not the first to ask the question. Many LDS scholars and prophets have asked the Lord. Sadly, the answers get us into lots of trouble with our critics. But, from my vantage point the ideas thus far seem pretty fascinating.

I'm not saying that it "proves" anything, I'm just saying that using our complexity as an argument for a creator is rediculous because it gets you no where since that creator needs an even more complex creator and so on. At some point you have to accep that something just exists and saying it is God is no better logical argument than saying it is the universe and the rules that govern it.

[Misshalfway]

I'm not saying that it "proves" anything, I'm just saying that using our complexity as an argument for a creator is rediculous because it gets you no where since that creator needs an even more complex creator and so on. At some point you have to accep that something just exists and saying it is God is no better logical argument than saying it is the universe and the rules that govern it.

If all you see it as is an argument, then I can see your point. It is more than that for believers. There is spiritual confirmations that help one to look at the creations of the earth and the revelations of science with new eyes.

[erichazelle]

Touche' to digitalshadow's last post. We don't have the full scriptural account; we don't have the full scientific account. The test God hands us in these matters is to keep an open mind, avoid contention, and continue to learn . . . rather than sit back with a lemonade and watch others argue. My library consists of many gospel books, plus 9 books from Stephen Gould, "America's Evolutionist". Both sets have greatly enriched my life. In a nutshell: "Why God created the earth is written in the scriptures. How God created the earth is written in the crust of the earth." It behooves us to learn to read both books.

As to "Proof". The virus thing is a new one on me, but sounds intriguing, though complicated to my rather simple mind. Here's another one: Evolution predicted that whales came from terrestrial mammals; creationists laughed them to scorn. Now, at a site in Pakistan, successively deeper digs have found fossils of ambulo-cetis, a walking whale, that started as a land mammal, then a swamp dwelling mammal, then a sea creature. The fossil evidence backs the evolutionary prediction. My bottom line: God is just science we don't yet know, coupled with an overwhelming love for His children.

[Misshalfway]

Touche' to digitalshadow's last post. We don't have the full scriptural account; we don't have the full scientific account. The test God hands us in these matters is to keep an open mind, avoid contention, and continue to learn . . . rather than sit back with a lemonade and watch others argue. .

I think you missed my little joke. Whoosh! Right over your head. :::rolling eyes::::

I do agree with the rest of your statement though.

[sgallan]

As to "Proof". The virus thing is a new one on me, but sounds intriguing, though complicated to my rather simple mind. Here's another one: Evolution predicted that whales came from terrestrial mammals; creationists laughed them to scorn. Now, at a site in Pakistan, successively deeper digs have found fossils of ambulo-cetis, a walking whale, that started as a land mammal, then a swamp dwelling mammal, then a sea creature. The fossil evidence backs the evolutionary prediction. My bottom line: God is just science we don't yet know, coupled with an overwhelming love for His children.

If you ever come across a smart little girl..... she could be mine for example..... use this rationale with her. She may continue to be a God believer because you are not disputing the legitimate science.

On the otherhand, if the basically anti-science argumentation of the creationalists is used on her, she will roll her eyes, think poorly of you (though she is too polite to say it) and probably continue her drift towards athiesm/agnosticsm...... and in the case of my family.... like dear old dad.

Religion and legitimate science do not 'have' to be at odds with one another. There are a lot of legitimate scientists who also believe in God. Some of them are even LDS. If on the otherhand you stay with a dogmatic anti legitimate science view, and have a smart kid who studies the legitimate science, you may throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were. Sort of like some well-meaning, but misguided Southern Baptists did with me way back in 1973. Now look at me..... a nihilist godless heathen under the guiles of your Satan raising another heathen.

[Hemidakota]

I haven't heard any concept in proving that DNA can progess to an higher state without outside help. DS, is this correct?

[DigitalShadow]

I haven't any concept in proving that DNA can progess to an higher state without outside help. DS, is this correct?

Then you should probably talk to more Biologists.

[Hemidakota]

As I stated, DNA simply cannot advance itself into a higher lifeform. To help with the term 'higher lifeform', Humans are at the top of the chain while the basic atom is the bottom.

[DigitalShadow]

As I stated, DNA simply cannot advance itself into a higher lifeform. To help with the term 'higher lifeform', Humans are at the top of the chain while the basic atom is the bottom.

'Higher' is an incredibly subjective term and really doesn't have much meaning in this context. Is a duck a 'higher lifeform' than a squirrel? Evolution is not a ladder to 'advancing' lifeforms, it is a mechanism for lifeforms to change based on the pressures of their environment. In the process, some branch off and take different evolutionary paths but to say that one is a 'higher' lifeform than another is a meaningless judgement call probably driven by ego.

I've already explained some of the evidence for evolution to the best of my ability. If you really want to ignore it all and ask strangely worded questions, I suggest you take it up with a biologist who would probably do better at correcting your misconceptions.

[Hemidakota]

I already did and that is the response. This is where evolutionist fails. Simply put when looking at Darwin’s findings from the single cell to the latest humanoid is not going to work. Not even the environmental conditions will help to progress DNA coding to a higher state. Like a computer program, it requires a outside coder to make changes.

If I place a software app on a computer today and come back in another 20-million years, the software will not advance itself without my input. As I place a single cell living organism in some cesspool pool, it will not develop into a fish or land animal; a land animal will not develop into a humanoid. Simply put, DNA only degenerate or mutate overtime through blending of creatures and the environment places on that element.

Even, we looked at the pure DNA strand from Adam, from him to us will degenerate and muted as it is today; you pointed out. The correction comes from outside source to bring back the original pure DNA coding.

Sorry for the pushing this topic. People need to step back and think it out rationally.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Touche' to digitalshadow's last post. We don't have the full scriptural account; we don't have the full scientific account. The test God hands us in these matters is to keep an open mind, avoid contention, and continue to learn . . . rather than sit back with a lemonade and watch others argue. My library consists of many gospel books, plus 9 books from Stephen Gould, "America's Evolutionist". Both sets have greatly enriched my life. In a nutshell: "Why God created the earth is written in the scriptures. How God created the earth is written in the crust of the earth." It behooves us to learn to read both books.

As to "Proof". The virus thing is a new one on me, but sounds intriguing, though complicated to my rather simple mind. Here's another one: Evolution predicted that whales came from terrestrial mammals; creationists laughed them to scorn. Now, at a site in Pakistan, successively deeper digs have found fossils of ambulo-cetis, a walking whale, that started as a land mammal, then a swamp dwelling mammal, then a sea creature. The fossil evidence backs the evolutionary prediction. My bottom line: God is just science we don't yet know, coupled with an overwhelming love for His children.

A walking whale? That's a good one...lol....

Friend, what you point to is a record of species now extinct. It isn't a record of trans-species mutation.

The fossil "evidence" backs the proposition that GOD created all creatures, and many, through time, have become extinct.

Futhermore, if we follow your premise, then where is the "almost-walking-whale" fossil record? There are no intermediary fossil records anywhere that are "in-between-species".

Each species was created by GOD. Then the environment caused great variations with those species.

There simply is no record of single cells becoming anything other than single cells.

[Hemidakota]

We must remember, that it was Joseph Smith said the previous modeled creation - this earth - failed during the period of the animals. Their skeletons still remain.

[DigitalShadow]

I already did and that is the response. This is where evolutionist fails. Simply put when looking at Darwin’s findings from the single cell to the latest humanoid is not going to work. Not even the environmental conditions will help to progress DNA coding to a higher state. Like a computer program, it requires a outside coder to make changes.

If I place a software app on a computer today and come back in another 20-million years, the software will not advance itself without my input. As I place a single cell living organism in some cesspool pool, it will not develop into a fish or land animal; a land animal will not develop into a humanoid. Simply put, DNA only degenerate or mutate overtime through blending of creatures and the environment places on that element.

Even, we looked at the pure DNA strand from Adam, from him to us will degenerate and muted as it is today; you pointed out. The correction comes from outside source to bring back the original pure DNA coding.

Sorry for the pushing this topic. People need to step back and think it out rationally.

I am looking at it rationally, and I think you really need to take your own advice. Claiming to have the "rational" highground while disagreeing with just about every biologist on the planet is a pretty big red flag to begin with. I have presented evidence for evolution, but instead of addressing it, you go off on a tangent about 'higher lifeforms'. I answer your question to the best of my ability and you seem to have completely ignored the answer.

First of all, modern evolutionary theories have absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's original research. Darwin merely proposed the idea and really had no idea at the time the mechanisms involved in it. Now I will try again to explain this to you in a simplified manner.

-DNA has a chance to contain mutations when it is transcribed

-Mutations that are beneificial give the organism a higher chance of reproducing

-Neutral mutation (the majority of them) do not affect chances of reproducing

-Negative mutations give the organism a lower chance of reproducing

Over time, the genes of the organism become more "complex" through this method with no outside hand guiding it.

To address your example, a computer program lacks the complexity of a living organism and the means to reproduce. As computers become more and more complicated, we could come closer to creating a true AI and give it hardware capable of creating versions of itself with modifications. Leave that alone on a planet for millions of years and it could very well be a race of sentient machines nothing like how you left them.

[Hemidakota]

Actually, being a former programer and system engineer, you conclusion is incorrect in regards to your last statement. It is not AI programming for self-learning is the issue, anything that remotely uses digital type application, will not work. Try analog type programming, along with organic computing, with the ability for self-learning, as experiemented in NM lab, still limited and does require high source for additional input. No offense, think again. As to following the world for the world sake because someone claiming something that is not even remotely proven currently, just not happening. Perhaps for you. However, if I am wrong, I will be corrected. Like you, I was wrong...as I pointed out, was corrected. Food for thought.

Now I am curious, what church do you belong too?

Perhaps, if you have that strong desire to know the truth of 'what was', ask Deity for the given truth or lead you in the right direction.