Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

The theory of evolution, all variants involving claims of anything beyond simple microevolution, is a total crock of **** which has been thoroughly debunked over a vey long period of time, in ways too numerous to count, and is at present only being defended by academic dead wood and losers. No body with any brains or talent believes in it any more.

III. A TYPICAL YEARLY COURSE SEQUENCE
This is a suggested program of study for you. Other refinements to your program can be made when you consult your faculty advisor at the time of your enrollment.
You will notice that some courses are listed as electives. These electives give you the opportunity to tailor your program by selecting courses you would like to take for your own personal enjoyment.
Freshman
Orientation ........................................................ 1 Orientation ........................................................ 1
General Biology I .............................................. 4 General Biology II ............................................. 4
College Algebra ................................................ 3 History of Civilization........................................ 3
History of Civilization....................................... 3 New Testament Messages ................................. 1
Old Testament Messages ................................... 1 Fundamentals of Speech .................................... 3
English Composition.......................................... 3 English Composition.......................................... 3
Minor or Electives ............................................. 1 Minor or Electives.............................................. 1
Total...................................................................16 Total ................................................................. 16
Sophomore
Essentials of Cell Biology ................................. 4 Botany ............................................................... 4
General Chemistry I .......................................... 4 General Chemistry II ......................................... 4
Sophomore Bible Elective ................................. 1 Science: Impact on Society................................ 3
English Literature............................................... 3 Sophomore Bible Elective ................................. 1
Minor or Electives ............................................. 4 Minor or Electives ............................................. 4
Total ................................................................. 16 Total ................................................................. 16
Junior
Invertebrate Zoology ......................................... 4 Christian Family Forum .................................... 1
Elementary Statistics ......................................... 3 Bible Doctrines .................................................. 3
Bible Doctrines.................................................. 3 Biology Elective ................................................ 4
General Psychology........................................... 3 Psychology Elective .......................................... 3
Minor or Electives ............................................. 3 Social Studies Elective ...................................... 3
Total ................................................................. 16 Minor or Electives ............................................. 2
Total ................................................................. 16
Senior
Biology Seminar ............................................... 1 Oral Communication for the Professions .......... 3
Upper-Level Bible Elective ............................... 2 Upper-Level Bible Elective ............................... 2
Biology Elective ................................................ 8 Biology Elective ................................................ 4
Minor or Electives ............................................. 5 Minor or Electives ............................................. 7
Total ................................................................. 16 Total ................................................................. 16

I'm taking a class called Feedback Systems right now and one of the professors on the staff gave an interesting lecture on feedback used by the body to help the brain control the eye. Without going into too much detail, there's a delay of about 130 ms between the time a signal is sent from the eye and the time it reaches the brain -- so apparently the brain models the "eye plant" (the system which takes brain signals as input and causes the eye muscles to move appropriately) to predict what the eye will do given the signal it just sent and thus reduce the effective delay between the eye and brain to about 50 ms. This is the case for other systems throughout the body as well.

My point is that I find it highly unlikely the brain managed to develop such a clever system by mutations alone -- to me, it's evidence that we were intelligently designed.

From a thread in another forum:

Quote:

My point is that I find it highly unlikely the brain managed to develop such a clever system by mutations alone

gungasnake wrote:

From a thread in another forum:

Quote:

My point is that I find it highly unlikely the brain managed to develop such a clever system by mutations alone

The classic "I can't comprehend it, so it must be impossible" argument. A thought process resulting in "I give up, it must be magic". How pitiful.

If thought processes like that had been the best our ancestors could do, our civilization wouldn't even exist and we would still be wandering around gathering fire from magic lightning strikes from from heaven.

Thank god some humans possess the desire to actually explore the world and understand things, or we would still be animals.

Any part of biology that doesnt have evolution as a keystone?

neologist wrote:

"He who causes to become"...

... is limiting to the concept of God.

God should not be limited to being a "He" or a "Who", so a better phrase might be "That which causes to become".

And God should not be limited by causality, so "causes to become" also doesn't really do the concept justice.

The phrase really should be "That which is".

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:

"He who causes to become"...

... is limiting to the concept of God.

God should not be limited to being a "He" or a "Who", so a better phrase might be "That which causes to become".

And God should not be limited by causality, so "causes to become" also doesn't really do the concept justice.

The phrase really should be "That which is".

The Hebrews referred to Jehovah as 'he' not only to show his position of headship (as in the Jewish family arrangement), but also to identify him as a person.

Your distillation, although cute, fails to identify God as one having free will.

The classic "I can't comprehend it, so it must be impossible" argument. A thought process resulting in "I give up, it must be magic". How pitiful.

If thought processes like that had been the best our ancestors could do, our civilization wouldn't even exist and we would still be wandering around gathering fire from magic lightning strikes from from heaven.

Thank god some humans possess the desire to actually explore the world and understand things, or we would still be animals.

"The classic "I can't comprehend it, so it must be impossible" argument... Do you mean the same way you view the possibility of God?

I don't consider God to be impossible, at least not my version of God Describe your version of God.

I do consider the biblical version of God (old man with beard who behaves like a person) to be too nonsensical and cartoonish to be possible. Right - you've made your position clear about God. It's the same general position (as shared by the science community and the position that Stein is calling out.)

Which version of God are you talking about, mine, yours, the bible's, or one of the billions of other versions out there? Billions? My choice is God of the Bible.

The classic "I can't comprehend it, so it must be impossible" argument is no more sensible than the "I have a comprehension of a God ERGO it must be possible."
To me the theistic conception of God is personally incomprehensible. Ergo I ignore it. But I do so not because I have or can prove its lack of merit; I ignore it only because it does nothing for me. It is a waste of my intellectual and spiritual time.

The classic "I can't comprehend it, so it must be impossible" argument is no more sensible than the "I have a comprehension of a God ERGO it must be possible."
To me the theistic conception of God is personally incomprehensible. Ergo I ignore it. But I do so not because I have or can prove its lack of merit; I ignore it only because it does nothing for me. It is a waste of my intellectual and spiritual time.

Likewise Canis are all dog-like animals, yet are you saying that the wolf and coyote aren't different species? They both have muzzles, pointed ears, tails, four legs and fur. So they must be the same species.