KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

The Proof Is In The Pudding

▼

The Proof Is In The Pudding

Not So Sweet, Is It?

from JoeUser Forums

One of my favorite sayings is "The proof is always in the pudding."  I'm sure alot of you say that from time to time.  The problem is the pudding takes a while to cool down and then when it's time no one is around to discuss the results.

I was thinking about that when I read the news release about Ben Stein.  You remember, the guy who was so controversial with his documentary, "Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed" a few months ago?

Many poo-pooed the whole idea that there were Scientists and even Science teachers losing jobs or tenure because of their belief in Christianity and that many were afraid to  challenge the theory of evolution because this fear was so palpable.    

As always the proof is in the pudding. 

Stein was scheduled to be the University of Vermont's commencement speaker but had to recently bow out because of his critical attitude towards the Evolutionary Theory in the making of that movie. 

The President of the University said he chose Stein because he was received very warmly last spring when he had a lecture there.  My, my how the tables have turned. 

The emails started to flood the President's office and Stein bowed out not wanting to go where he's not wanted.  Good for him.  It was his decision not to put the President in a compromising position. 

Stein, however, made it perfectly clear that he is not anti-Science at all.  In fact he said he's probably more Science minded than the religious Darwinists.  He said in an email to the Untiversity:

"I want all scientific inquiry to happen not just what the ruling clique calls science."

He also said all this controversy was "laughable and pathetic."  I agree.  I'm sure his commencement speech had nothing to do with evolution.  He's a Yale graduate with quite an interesting background including that of speech writer for a couple of past Presidents, a comedian and actor.

So without even realizing it, the University of Vermont has proven Stein's theory.  That is, if one dares to speak out against this false religion called Evolution Theory he better be prepared to be looking for another job. 

The proof is in the pudding, afterall.  Anybody want a bite? 

 

5,788 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Darwin's Evolution Theory which is based on Atheistic Naturalism, a religious belief!
End of quote

This is a false accusation.  Darwin's theory was based on observation of evidence.  Creationists bring atheism into the argument all the time, presumably in an effort to either discredit evolution by association or force equivalency of the theory with religion, thinking (dubiously) that so doing will strengthen the argument for creationism, wchich it simply doesn't.

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

It's ok Lula - you repeating yourself is quite expected.

 

If any scientific "theory" is put to use as a thwarting mechanism of a "belief" I find that objectionable.  I have never seen this done *personally*.  I don't find it objectionable because of some principle, but rather because it's just unnecessary.  In other words, it does not further the scientific theory for the discordant belief to disappear.  Put the labels where you wish - belief, theory, science, whatever.  The disappearance of something you feel is wrong does not bestow an effect of making you more right.

 

Maybe someday, ID will provide peer-reviewed work to the extent that it will garner some verisimilitude and acclaim across the sciences, but they're going to have to metaphorically "circumnavigate the globe" to prove the "earth is round" not just sail out to sea 100 yards, turn around, and come back to do it.

 

It reminds me of one of my favorite Firesign Theatre lines "I've just been to Ancient Greece!  Look at this grape!"

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula posts:

Darwin's Evolution Theory which is based on Atheistic Naturalism, a religious belief!

DAIWA POSTS:

This is a false accusation. Darwin's theory was based on observation of evidence. Creationists bring atheism into the argument all the time, presumably in an effort to either discredit evolution by association or force equivalency of the theory with religion, thinking (dubiously) that so doing will strengthen the argument for creationism, wchich it simply doesn't.

End of quote

Darwin observed variety within species, not evolution.

I know that it wasn't Darwin but his true-blue atheistic and agnostic followers who founded Evolution theory, which provided an Origins concept for which a transcendant God was not required. ET has become a world-view, a philosophy and it deals with beliefs not empirical science. ET has influenced politics, sociology, anthropology,  religion and any other field that touches upon questions of existence.

Even though Naturalistic Evolutionists were largely successful in doing away with the need for a Creator they failed utterly to prove scientifically that there indeed was a purely naturalistic "creation".  The theme of descent with modification has failed and naturalistic evolutionists live in hope the elusive mechanism will be found, but nothing so far. Evolution must be redefined as faith in a myth.

 

 

 

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, gosh, lula, willful disregard for the language (not to mention facts) is not gonna win you any friends.

Darwin proposed a theory to explain the observed variety of species as well as the observed variety within species.  No more, no less.

Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top

Even though Naturalistic Evolutionists were largely successful in doing away with the need for a Creator
End of quote

 

The only people that have need for a Creator are the religious, Lula.  The rest of us wouldn't waste our time.  Nice try though.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

it wasn't Darwin but his true-blue atheistic and agnostic followers who founded Evolution theory,
End of quote

Evolution must be redefined as faith in a myth.
End of quote

pope john paul ll clearly saw it differently that you do:


Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
--Pope John Paul ll, 10/22/1996

something else in that same address leads me to doubt he'd approve of the 'angels dancing on pin head" polling you and kfc so frequently indulge.

 It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences

 

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Where's academic freedom in the Univ. of Vermont? Where's all the so called tolerance of alternate viewpoints?
End of quote

that was my point in presenting this article in the first place as well as to show that Stein was absolutely correct in his anyalysis of what's been taking place in academia when it comes to freedom of speech and belief.  When it comes to the Science World there is none....it's the last frontier. 

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”
End of quote

Good one Lula.  At least he's honest and upfront.  Gotta admire that.  So much for Evolution not having anything to do with origins......again.  I actually agree with this atheistic quote when he says he's going to be dead.  The reason he's saying that now is because he's spiritually dead already.....as in "let the dead bury the dead." 

and yet you yourself offer poll results to indicate what? common sense vs the scientific method? popular opinion vs logic? belief in what cannot be proven vs objective analysis of physical evidence?
End of quote

I didn't offer it.  If you were paying attention you'd see that Daiwa offered it with his link to it in reply #15.  I just cut and pasted the beginning part of it to show that I was correct in what I had stated a few replies earlier.  He helped prove my point.

 

 

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

He helped prove my point.
End of quote

Nope, only helped confirm your delusion.

You quote Stein's personal conclusions as to what evolutionary biology tells him, not us.  His opinion proves absolutely nothing.

The theory of natural selection, & subsequently evolution in general, wasn't 'invented' for the purpose of disproving the existence of God (or any god).  That some atheists have attempted to use it, pointlessly, as evidence for their view on the non-existence of a god doesn't change the reality of evolution.  There is simply no scientific evidence of any sort anywhere which proves or disproves the existence of a higher being.  Evolution is nothing more than a club used by both sides in a debate which has nothing to do with the theory itself.

Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top

The theory of natural selection, & subsequently evolution in general, wasn't 'invented' for the purpose of disproving the existence of God (or any god). That some atheists have attempted to use it, pointlessly, as evidence for their view on the non-existence of a god doesn't change the reality of evolution. There is simply no scientific evidence of any sort anywhere which proves or disproves the existence of a higher being. Evolution is nothing more than a club used by both sides in a debate which has nothing to do with the theory itself.
End of quote

Now this I agree with you on except for the fact that I believe, spiritually speaking, the enemy of God (Satan) is using anything he can to disprove the existence of God.  He knows quite well that people are quite willing to believe a lie expecially if they hear it so many times it starts to sound like the truth.  I believe that while God can take anything bad and turn it into good....Satan does quite the opposite, taking the good and turning it into bad. 

So while "some atheists" have attempted to use it, they are the ones people are listening to.  After a while, it's hard to pinpoint what the truth really is.   

You quote Stein's personal conclusions as to what evolutionary biology tells him, not us. His opinion proves absolutely nothing.
End of quote

His opinion was proven correct.  He was first welcomed warmly by the University BEFORE this movie hit the public.  AFTER that all of a sudden he was a pirana because he dared speak out against the Evolutionary System.  To further prove this.....not one Evolutionist Believer here on JU has come out admitting this after making themselves known when I first wrote about the movie Expelled.  They said that Stein was full of balony.  His recent  losing of a position just proved his balony was made of 100% beef. 

Hmmmm I'm seeing some science in this experiement.  In this case Stein's hypothesis was proven correct.  

A little bit of bible can be seen here too.  The crowd that first followed JEsus because he fed them and did miracles (food and entertainment) then turned on him willing to see him crucified.   Just shows there's nothing new under the sun. 

Nope, only helped confirm your delusion.
End of quote

Well I guess that depends on which side your bias is on.  >_>

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Perhaps I'm ill-informed, but I thought Stein voluntarily withdrew.  And, no, Stein's hypothesis wasn't proven.  The only thing demonstrated was intolerance to differing views, just another of many things which have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top

Perhaps I'm ill-informed, but I thought Stein voluntarily withdrew
End of quote

He did but not for no reason.  The backlash was such that it made no sense for him to continue to prepare for this speaking engagment.  The outcry was such that he had no choice. 

In the movie Expelled Stein went about to show that there was no tolerance to differing views as you said, true.  The question remains tho, why such animosity? Especially, here in Stein's case.  His commencement speech I'm sure had nothing to do with Evolution.  I mean if he was coming to speak about Creation to a bunch of non-believers than I would understand but that wasn't the issue. 

Usually if one knows the truth and is comfortable with it, there's no need for such tantrums and antics.  The truth always comes out eventually anyhow. 

Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top

The question remains tho, why such animosity?
End of quote

 

Do you seriously not know?  After all the conversations on this subject, you still don't know why the animosity?

 

I think you do.

Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

*crickets*

 

Well, here it is again for your readers.  First some backstory:

 

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
End of quote

~Russell

 

Now, as to why the animosity:

 

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
End of quote

 

Get it yet?