My Mother was an Alien
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by jim— 2008/12/10 @ 06:05 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/12/10 @ 07:36 AM — (Reply)
"Sir (to God), why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
Wow. Ever sleep under the stars at night? Ever look into the face of a child who loves you? Ever dare to admit that you don't know all the answers?
God is not hidden. We're the ones who hide from him.
I heart Ben Stein.
Comment by Pinky— 2008/12/10 @ 06:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2008/12/11 @ 12:00 PM — (Reply)
"Wow. Ever sleep under the stars at night? Ever look into the face of a child who loves you?"
Ever lost your entire family in a tsunami? Ever got polio? Ever been gangraped?
"Ever dare to admit that you don't know all the answers?"
All the time. It's called atheism. As opposed to those who hold up a book of fancy tales by minor Semitic nations and declare that they DO have all the answers. If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins spent much of this interview "admitting that he does know all the answers". Not knowing ALL the answers using cranes is no excuse for declaring skyhooks.
Comment by Sohan— 2009/04/24 @ 03:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/24 @ 05:39 AM — (Reply)
"... but they know the ONE who does"
... CLAIM to know the one who does ... and without a shred of solid evidence. Which is essentially the same thing as claiming to know all the answers.
Goddidit is a cop-out and a pathetic one. Scientists like Dawkins, on the other hand, say "I don't know" all the time. They don't have to posit the existence of someone who does know in order to move on to the next question. They certainly don't turn to the tribal legends and personality cults of the backward minor nations of the ancient Middle East (or anywhere else, for that matter) to fill in the gaps.
Comment by Sohan— 2009/04/24 @ 10:20 AM — (Reply)
and knowing God comes from having a personal relationship. I don't claim to know Him...I do know Him. The problem is my fallen state.
No Hawkins et al don't turn to anything but themselves and their pretentious claims to know what came first. Their faith based system are simply claims to be the sole arbiter of truth and the famed scientific utopia promised by Huxley upon the death of God hasn't come anywhere near fruition. In face man has done nothing more than make matters worse. You can have THAT faith based system.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/24 @ 01:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2009/04/25 @ 08:08 AM — (Reply)
"Ever read Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell. There's evidence. Historical and legal. Need scientific evidence? You can't prove scienfifially what time you got up this morning."
No, I haven't. Yes, I can (7:35 am, when my alarm clock rang and I turned it off). Would you like me to repeat that "scientific experiment"?
"No Hawkins et al don't turn to anything but themselves and their pretentious claims to know what came first. Their faith based system are simply claims to be the sole arbiter of truth and the famed scientific utopia promised by Huxley upon the death of God "
Strawman. I am under no compulsion to defend views to I never claimed to subscribe (or even heard of), and which have no bearing on the matter at hand. There are plenty of Christian crackpot predictions and claims we could look into, but I don't go that low.
And it's "Dawkins", not Hawkins. He never claimed to know "what came first". He can speculate on possibilities, but he does not claim them to be scientific theories (panspermia is at least a plausible speculation given what we know about the composition and sheer size of the universe, compared to the omnipresent omniscient omnipotent deity no one can objectively observe or even demand to observe, until they themselves drink the Kool-Aid). Where he does not find evidence or logically plausible conclusions, and is asked for a scientific answer, he just says he does not know. Unlike people who decide they DO know, based on some tribal semi-legends of a particular minor Semitic people (out of all the tribal semi-legends in the world, to boot).
"and knowing God comes from having a personal relationship. I don't claim to know Him...I do know Him. The problem is my fallen state."
"Nope they turn to themselves, which is an infinitely bigger cop out."
You make it sound like they subscribe to some New Age "Truth is within You"/"Reality is an illusion" mysticism. No, they "turn to themselves" no more than all scientists have "turned to themselves" when studying the universe to develop cures for diseases or take astronauts into space. That is, they turn to reality, and to each other to cooperate and coordinate efforts to observe and analyze the same. They work from the bottom up, verifying empirically and logically at each step along the way, correcting themselves with new information, and not being afraid to accept that they don't know absolutely everything, unlike those who work bass-ackwards from ancient scriptural claims of some ancient low-profile Levantines about the sun stopping in the sky and talking snakes selling fruit. They don't have "personal relationships" with nuclear fusion, black holes, photosynthesis or mitochondria, and they don't need to. I could claim to have a "personal relationship" with Placido Domingo, and there's nothing you can do to disprove me if I say that relaying confirmation to stubborn theists, for example, is beneath Signor Domingo.
"So I would take this to mean you've read all the Bible or some other books some would call scripture?"
Yes, more than a few. Found them to be legend and fantasy sprinked with bits of history. Interesting, even entertaining, but not consistent or plausible.
"Frist, Christianity is not opposed to science
...
The Humanist Manifesto I "
Semi-relevant semi-coherent strawman-laden copy-paste hodgepodge from another thread ( http://elmersbro.bloghi.com/2008/08/18/kicking-the-horse-s-ass.html ). Not going to get you much respect in a debate, if even a response.
Comment by Sohan— 2009/04/26 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
That's called legal testimony. You know when the eyewitness makes a claim. Let me see you wake up again yesterday morning.
You make it sound like they subscribe to some New Age "Truth is within You"/"Reality is an illusion" mysticism. No, they "turn to themselves" no more than all scientists have "turned to themselves" when studying the universe to develop cures for diseases or take astronauts into space. That is, they turn to reality, and to each other to cooperate and coordinate efforts to observe and analyze the same.
Did you watch the scientist collect this empirical evidence? Have you not then place your faith in a system whose batting average is only as good as the next guy to come along. Please don't pretend there are no bias', mistakes made in science and then pretend that it polices itself.
. Semi-relevant semi-coherent strawman-laden copy-paste hodgepodge from another thread ( http://elmersbro.bloghi.com/2008/08/18/kicking-the-horse-s-ass.html ). Not going to get you much respect in a debate, if even a response
You responded. I'm not sure why you think I should repeat myself. This is relevant. You implied that people of faith were believers in some kind of myth. I gave you a suggestion for a counter argument and the best you could come up with is an ad hominem?
Surely you've indicated you've placed your faith in man. Your faith based system has no more relevance than mine.
Strawman. I am under no compulsion to defend views to I never claimed to subscribe (or even heard of), and which have no bearing on the matter at hand. There are plenty of Christian crackpot predictions and claims we could look into, but I don't go that low.
In case you missed it the post was about Dawkins and his answer to Stein's questions about our origins.
And it's "Dawkins", not Hawkins.
You mean nownot low don't you.
It was a typo. Deal with it. Apparently I'm not the only one who can mistype.
And it's "Dawkins", not Hawkins. He never claimed to know "what came first". He can speculate on possibilities, but he does not claim them to be scientific theories (panspermia is at least a plausible speculation given what we know about the composition and sheer size of the universe, compared to the omnipresent omniscient omnipotent deity no one can objectively observe or even demand to observe, until they themselves drink the Kool-Aid). Where he does not find evidence or logically plausible conclusions, and is asked for a scientific answer, he just says he does not know. Unlike people who decide they DO know, based on some tribal semi-legends of a particular minor Semitic people (out of all the tribal semi-legends in the world, to boot).
Like Dawkins and the alien bit. There's plausible for you.
Here's what I'm for. Open intellectual inquiry. I don't claim to know exactly either, the irony here is that the public schools et al...colleges etc indoctrinate instead of educate. How do they do it in Dubai?
Have you read the Bible?
Panspermia (Gk. πάς/πάν (pas/pan, all) and σπέρμα (sperma, seed)) is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
LOL! Again if you understand irony you'll understand why this is completely humorous to those who believe in intelligent design.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/26 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
Nope they turn to themselves, which is an infinitely bigger cop out.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/24 @ 01:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/24 @ 01:42 PM — (Reply)
Wanna hear a bigger cop out? Space aliens did it...
Comment by FJ— 2009/04/24 @ 02:11 PM — (Reply)
I think you may want to read more about your scientific heroes. They make absolute statements all the time. Is this not the same kind of arrogance you so despise?
Science cannot provide a moral compass with which to live one’s life by. It might tell you where someone believes you came from but it won’t tell you where you’re going.
Consider that secular humanists place their faith in humanity and that evolution is a core belief. Then I submit that secularists have also pushed their moral views down other people’s throats.
If God is dead as declared in the mid 20th century then:
Why hasn’t the utopian progress promised by science happened by now?
Why aren't we all communists and atheists?
Where did all these conservatives come from?
Where are the flying cars and moon bases?
These are just examples given by Julian Huxley noted scientist and evolutionary pioneer:
Some day no one will have to work more than two days a week... The human being can consume so much and no more. When we reach the point when the world produces all the goods that it needs in two days, as it inevitably will, we must curtail our production of goods and turn our attention to the great problem of what to do with our new leisure.
"Prof. Huxley Predicts 2-Day Working Week" The New York Times (17 November 1930) p.42
Has this two day work week happened?
The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat, that flies can be spontaneously generated... or that death is always due to witchcraft... The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.
Religion without Revelation (1957) p. 58
Why do such a large percentage of Americans reject evolution? Do you think Christians have that much influence on that large of a population? Why haven’t evoluionists been successful in their indoctrination if what they say is so absolutely true?
In the evolutionary pattern of thought, there is neither need nor room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.
The Humanist Frame (1961) p. 18
Do you believe this to be a faith statement? I wish I could ask Huxley what his definition of a soul is and just when during the evolutionary process mindless natural selection and chance gave us one?
I assume you would consider yourself a materialist, it's the basis of much of evolutionary thought.
From Wikipedia:
In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. In terms of singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism stands in sharp contrast to idealism.
Monism: A metaphysical/theological view that believes in a universal underlying principle in nature
With this being said I really think you should change your statement to a different font and hang it in a frame. It’s beautiful as a statement of faith.
It is my opinion that good experts will try to warn us to use our own baloney detectors and to watch out for their own bias.
Richard Feynman a well known physicist said at a commencement speech in 1974:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. I would like to add something that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is more than not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, to other scientists and to laymen”
Carl Sagan himself said that we should not be impressed by invocations of authority and to insist on asking whether claims put forward in the name of science are really testable and then he turned around and wants to browbeat people with a snow job.
“I meet people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God……Evidence has little to do with it. Only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings have slowly evolved by natural processes from succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.”
Somewhere along the line science has either failed to make the case, been poor communicators or they have used indoctrination versus education. People will tend to believe something if they know all the objections to it. Why is it that they want students to turn their baloney detectors off? Unfortunately for evolutionists one of the few places where the baloney detectors are still on is in Christian colleges and universities.
A democratic education system would aim to produce citizens that can think for themselves. Yet objections and and scientific evidence that calls evolution into question is not permitted. In some cases even the ACLU and the Supreme Court have gotten involved. Even Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in the 1987 Louisiana case said,
“The people of the state including fundamental Christians are quite entitled as a secular matter to be presented with evidence that may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it”
Apparently only Darwin may be taught in schools. In my opinion this is bad for science and is bad science. (something must be refuteable to be good science)
In my opinion I don’t believe creation science should be taught in public education, but would you agree that if there are scientific objections to evolution shouldn’t it be taught in school? Do you think it’s an absurd situation where scientists, educators and students are not allowed to ask questions about which they are most concerned?
Stating “Evolution is a fact” etc. is a bullying tactic. How can one validate the truth if one is unable to explore the objections to that truth? People object to the materialist philosophy that it presented in the name of science.
I like what Philip Johnson suggested in one of his books:
“We have to learn to distinguish the difference between what evolutionists assume and what they investigate.
e.g Scientists assume that naturalism is true and therefore try to give purely natural explanations for everything including our existence. It could be it’s the best explanation they have at the time, whether it is true is another question. Biologist have authority over biology but they have no authority to impose a philosophy on society. That is why it is so important for them to insist that “evolution is a fact”
Change that to “evolution is a philosophy” and the game is over.
If scientists decide that the cause of that pattern is only a purposeless material mechanism than they have now made a philosophical and religious argument. Evolutionist argue with each other about the relative importance of chance and natural selection but some combination is about the only game in town.
That mechanism has to be able to design and build complex structures like wings and eyes and brains.
I’m sure you understand the difference so I won’t belabor the point.
Do I think scientists purposely mislead people? No. There have been occasions (Piltdown man for e.g. ) but I don’t think it’s committing deliberate fraud.
Remember the words of Richard Feynman, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Critical thinking is good for religion too. Other Christians have suggested that students be handed the objections to Christianity along with the Bible. Dealing with tough questions is a lifelong process. There are many Christian colleges that do this.
One of the illusions of scientific materialism is that materialists don’t have faith commitments. Faith isn’t opposed to reason. Faith is something everybody needs in order to get started in any direction and to keep going. In my opinion reason builds on a foundation of faith.
For e.g. scientific materialists have faith that one day they will discover the origin of life. Niles Eldridge (an evolutionist) says for e.g. that he believes despite the invertebrate record that the theory is true. That’s a faith statement.
Every position has its difficulties. The evidence satisfies neither.
A lot of people don’t feel qualified to judge scientific disputes. Even Richard Dawkins says that he is not qualified to answer questions of a biochemist for e.g.
So the question is do scientists find it possible to explain evolution through the evidence or through their materialist philosophy that allows no alternative?
Even scientists such as James Shapiro of the U. of Chicago has said in response to Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” (if you’re not familiar you may want to read this book about the complexity of organisms)
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject – evolution- with sol little rigorous examination of how well it’s basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity”
Shapiro is not a creationist and he blasted Behe for arguing that those unexplained biochemical systems might be designed. It does however illustrate how strong the hold of materialist philosophy is on contemporary biologists.
If one were to place their trust in evolution than I believe you will have to admit that there is an inherent philosophy or religion that belongs with it. So claiming some moral high ground because it is amoral and non religious in my opinion is bunk. The fact that Huxley declared that the supernatural was being swept away means that science has not divided the two (religion and science). I also think that choosing to place your faith in evolution and declaring “evolution is true” is a means for one to live their life with no accountability and that perhaps this would give one motivation for believing in evolution. One can eat drink and be merry if there is no one to be accountable to.
I’m also curious to know if you apply the same scientific standard to all the works you read? Can you tell me how science can say for example prove Washington crossed the Delaware.
References
Darwinism by Philip Johnson
The Internet – Julius Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman
Wikipedia
The Humanist Manifesto I
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/24 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
Ah, Sohan is just mad 'cause Dawkins got thoroughly spanked.
Comment by Brooke— 2009/04/25 @ 03:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by sooner blow— 2009/04/25 @ 03:40 AM — (Reply)
Comment by sooner blow— 2009/04/25 @ 10:08 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Burns— 2008/12/11 @ 06:05 AM — (Reply)
HIDDEN? My brother was wearing a ball cap with [Mark 3:17 Fisher of Men] on it when he pulled me out of the water onto my kayak that I had all but given up on and was floating helpless in the lake... well apparently not completely helpless.
Thanks for the video EB. I like Ben Stein that much more now. It's funny how the most inteligent people in the world beleive in God. And the ones who don't?..."well I don't have any proof but there just can't be because it would't support my book.. uh I mean..." Ah hahahahhahahaah
Comment by 48 miles— 2008/12/11 @ 09:59 AM — (Reply)
oh boy.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/12/11 @ 10:01 AM — (Reply)
He has no clue as to how it did come about, but he's almost certain he knows how it didn't come about. Interesting.
Comment by FJ— 2008/12/11 @ 02:19 PM — (Reply)
My mother was an alien, too... Except the hissy, chest-bursting type.
Seriously, GREAT video.
Comment by Brooke— 2008/12/11 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
"Chest bursting"? Sounds interesting !!!
Comment by Ed— 2008/12/12 @ 02:11 AM — (Reply)
David and I watched this about a month ago when it released on disk.
The interview Ben had with that crackpot had our jaws in our laps the whole time, along with a few WTF?!?'s being issued. ;)
Comment by Brooke— 2008/12/14 @ 02:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2009/04/24 @ 02:32 PM — (Reply)
unfortunately 'following God' has way too many meanisng these days.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/24 @ 03:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2009/04/25 @ 08:15 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2009/04/26 @ 07:24 AM — (Reply)
Is it the strawman argument that really bothers you?
As opposed to those who hold up a book of fancy tales by minor Semitic nations and declare that they DO have all the answers. If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins spent much of this interview "admitting that he does know all the answers". Not knowing ALL the answers using cranes is no excuse for declaring skyhooks
Speaking of strawman, Stein never declared that he had all the answers. Nor does he claim any allegiance to middle eastern myths or legends. AND Stein used words like "Is it possible...etc" He's asking questions...never declared he had all the answers.
AND as I said most of the people of faith that I know do not claim to have all the answers either.
As I understand it, it was implied in your statement that you take umbrage with those who make absolute statements. Those who claim to have all the answers. This was the reasoning behind my reiterating what I've said in a previous post. The citations I provided are an illustration of those in the scientific and secular/religious community (Dawkins) who make absolute statements. (I believe Dawkins was the one in the clip who said he knows how the earth didn't come about).
Huxley declared that God was dead and that a scientific Utopia would ensue. AND if so he's a poor prophet.
I find it interesting that those telling me to not turn my baloney detector off are people of faith.
I believe the real hindrance to open intellectual inquiry are not religious but those in academia and the scientific community. They fire teachers here for not towing the line. This is why evolution fails to be more accepted. It's indoctrination..Scopes in reverse.
Mitochondria et al....have revealed thenselves, the scientist knows the makeup, the behavior and character qualities of those things you mentioned because they've been able to verify their attributes and behaviors.
The God I know...I know His attributes, and His character.
He's revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and through the Bible. Just like anyone else in my life.
Of course you can't deny that I have a relationship with God.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2009/04/26 @ 10:47 AM — (Reply)
Just ask him to prove God does NOT exist.
I think that's tougher to do.......
and nobody has.
It takes a LOT of faith to believe the Bible's written by a bunch of people that many years ago with no education; writing oftentimes better than Shakespeare, prophecies in the Old Testament exquisitely played out in the New, as if someone had a 12 year graduate degree in drama from NYU. And then you've got 11 guys who died martyr's deaths for someone they REALLY didn't believe in. THAT takes faith!
Comment by Z— 2009/04/27 @ 03:07 AM — (Reply)