RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2008,21:25   

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 29 2008,20:51)
And Rich Hughes - good job my warlocky friend. :)

As all my work is sexi_hawt, you'll have to be more specific and lavish with your praise, witchy-one.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
ReligionProf



Posts: 33
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,07:16   

For your amusement, my latest pseudoscience satire video game. I didn't have time to do a better job, so please do improve on it!

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008....me.html

--------------
http://www.patheos.com/communi....rmatrix

   
factician



Posts: 77
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,09:34   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 29 2008,19:01)
Quote (Annyday @ Mar. 29 2008,17:55)
Checking on the expelled site, I note that fifty of their current theaters are in Florida. I believe this means Florida is getting something like 20-25% of the Expelled theaters in the country, as of now. I am certain this is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the antievolution legislation currently in play in Florida.

I recounted for all states earlier this afternoon - they're up to 496 theaters. I haven't any idea how this stuff works - isn't getting a bit late to add another 500 theaters?

Check out Texas, which has 60. They know where their audience lives.

And where their audience isn't.  No showings in Maryland, home of the NIH, the biotech corridor along route 70, Johns Hopkins and the plethora of U. Maryland branches.

Getting the word out to Big Science!

--------------
conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com

   
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,20:46   

From Kevin's "answers":

Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can see the above being true is if one can experimentally (1)  determine if a molecule is "synthetic" by it's chemical properties (specifically, it's reactivity and 3d shape) alone,  (2) can determine which molecules weren't produced by chemical reactions, and/or (3)the formation of the "structure" in question can't occur in an organism. Nothing these people say make sense.

  
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,21:36   

Quote (raguel @ Mar. 30 2008,20:46)
From Kevin's "answers":

 
Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


hehehehehe thanks for the repost (I missed/ignored Kevins answers) but thats a good one.  Im LUVING how all of IDs predictions sound like they were written by John Edwards/Sylvia Brown/Miss Cleo.

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,21:47   

Bah. You evilushunists claim there's an edit button, but as far as I can tell it's just another missing link.  :(

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,22:24   

That fucker Kevin Miller never did explain why the Expelled site lists a San Diego screening back in October which he claims never happened.  He's worthless for getting any real answers:

Quote

Actually, Kevin, you said he admitted it, and then just assume it. He clearly stated that he's toying with you and giving flip answers:

E.g:
Quote

""Okay, Nestor, you've been busted. There is no Creation Museum segment in the movie, nor was there ever such a segment."

Uh, yeah. Duh.

Why do you think I responded in the tongue in cheek way that I did?
Posted by: Nestor Makhno | March 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM"

and prior to that:
Quote

"I'm a little torn. Do I tell him that I didn't see the movie just to shut him up, or do I let him obssess over getting an answer to his stupid quiz?

Ah, I'll go with the former.

Okay, I didn't see the movie.

Eppur si movie.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | March 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM"

Plus, right before the "answer" to the museum question, was this:
Quote

"I'm guessing it's a trick question and that Stein never went to the museum. At least in the film.

Posted by: mike | March 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM"

so, it's not like it was an impenetrable ploy on your part.

So, Kevin, answer me this ONE question: why does the RSVP page list a showing in San Diego at the AMC on October 11? I don't care whether you care or not what it says, or whether it is wrong or right. Call someone and find out why the information is even listed there in the first place. Please. Thank You. C'thulhu R'lyeh.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 at 04:47 PM


Two days later:
Quote

Alright. Well, thanks for that Kevin. It's all so clear now.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM


Two days after that:
Quote

**silence**


Ah well, I gave it a shot.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Henry J



Posts: 4784
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2008,22:28   

Edit buttons take time to evolve. ;)

Henry

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,00:47   

Nor did "documentary" screenwriter Kevin enlighten us as to from what was R. Sternberg expelled.

Of course, we know from the public record that Sternberg was expelled from nothing, but I was hopeful that Kevin would have an "Ah Ha" moment and put two and two together.

Apparently, in addition to Kevin's ability to write he lacks basic math skills.

  
Damian



Posts: 7
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,06:19   

PZ-away!



From: http://cectic.com/129.html

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,06:58   

Quote (raguel @ Mar. 31 2008,02:46)
From Kevin's "answers":

Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can see the above being true is if one can experimentally 1)  determine if a molecule is "synthetic" by it's chemical properties (specifically, it's reactivity and 3d shape) alone,  (2) can determine which molecules weren't produced by chemical reactions, and/or (3)the formation of the "structure" in question can't occur in an organism. Nothing these people say make sense.

1) I would LOVE to see this done. It's erm, well ahahaha, I hate to use the word but impossible to all intents and purposes (ignoring isotopic/compositional differences obviously). I look forward to vitalism being proven and Wohler spinning in his grave. On that day I shall cut my own cock off with a rusty pineapple.

The only possible way to know if a molecule is synthetic is by its isotopic composition, to take one example, synthetic/semisynthetic testosterone used in athletic steroids can often have a detectably different isotopic composition from that of the person taking the steroids own testosterone. Ignorning kinetic isotope effects (which IMO is an error, enzyme mediated reactions can be profoundly influenced by subtle kinetic effects like the isotope effect), that testosterone is chemically identical to that of the person who is taking it.

Since there is no such thing as 100% pure anything, the residual chemical impurities that are the legacy of any chemical reaction (biological or otherwise) can also be a clue to the synthetic or natural origins of a specific sample. However if we are talking about some hypothetical, idealised abstraction of a single "synthetic" and a single "natural" molecule in isolation, with no systematic information and of identical isotopic compositions then there is no way to distinguish between them. They are identical and I return to my original cock removal comment! ;-)

2)/3) All molecules are formed by a chemical reaction of some kind, by definition, but given what you said in 3) I see what you mean as being that a chemical reaction in an organisms could not have made molecule X so it had to be a chemical reaction in a lab. This is a bit different.

We can, have and will continue to make molecules and assemblies of atoms that no known chemical reaction from any known biological system could possibly make. We can and do perform chemical reactions that are utterly impossible in biological systems (if only, for example, because biological systems frequently use water as a solvent for many solution phase reactions). However, chemical reactions found in biological systems still do things we cannot yet emulate, and often with an efficiency and selectivity we can only dream of.

More than that, we can also make molecules and assemblies of atoms and perform chemical reactions that are found nowhere outside of a laboratory, be that in space, in some geological process or in some biological process. There are a great deal of things we can make that are incredibly unlikely to be found occuring in "nature".

However any chemical detail of this comment you quote from Kevin the Perpetually Bewildered, is ultimately based on some equivocation of the word "natural". It's chemically meaningless. The thing you quote from Kevin is a pseudophilosophical bit of garbage, it abounts to nothing less than concrete proof of the existance of a deity (or some such supernatural entity) which if it were found would also be concrete proof that such an entity were entirely natural! It's standard IDCist confusobabble, demonstrating yet again that ID is not science but religious wishful thinking.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,09:17   

Quote (Damian @ Mar. 31 2008,06:19)
PZ-away!



From: http://cectic.com/129.html

THAT IS 'N AD HYMENIUM ATTACK ON MY UD BOTHERING homoS :( dT

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,15:08   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2008,06:58)
     
Quote (raguel @ Mar. 31 2008,02:46)
From Kevin's "answers":

       
Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can see the above being true is if one can experimentally 1)  determine if a molecule is "synthetic" by it's chemical properties (specifically, it's reactivity and 3d shape) alone,  (2) can determine which molecules weren't produced by chemical reactions, and/or (3)the formation of the "structure" in question can't occur in an organism. Nothing these people say make sense.



2)/3) All molecules are formed by a chemical reaction of some kind, by definition, but given what you said in 3) I see what you mean as being that a chemical reaction in an organisms could not have made molecule X so it had to be a chemical reaction in a lab. This is a bit different.

Just so that we're clear, I understand the bolded part. What I'm getting at is based on Kevin's statement the only logical conclusion I can think of is that he doesn't. It's why I instantly objected to the whole "information" argument. It didn't make sense the first time I saw it (for the reasons I cited) and worse they pretend it doesn't matter. How are they going to show that a designer is necessary for the formation of a gene (or genes, or organisms for that matter) without a pathway? They try to hand wave this necessity away by saying "oh, we know it took a designer because it has oodles and oodles of information". They might has well say it has oodles and oodles of goobleygook. I was shocked to find out "information" actually had a legitimate scientific/mathematical meaning, but not shocked at all to learn that IDists weren't using that definition.

Now I could be wrong. I've forgotten about 80% of what I learned in college.  My understanding of biology has always been limited, to put it mildly. I still think I'm safe to say that they are full of it.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2008,20:15   

A couple of posts from Pharyngula, involving a statement by Kevin Miller, and his attempt to erase the history of that statement:

 
Quote
 
Quote
Oh, and Kevin Miller (who wrote Expelled with Stein) has this to say about his primary audience:

You'll have a difficult time finding any thinking Christian who believes in a literal ark anymore, Rich.

Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....8899512


To be fair to him, he does back off from that claim:

 
Quote
I'm not saying they're not out there, Cheezits. And despite the fact my original post was somewhat derogatory, I'm not saying people who believe such things are stupid or ignorant. They just have a different perspective on biblical inspiration than I do. So I should probably revise my original statement to say, "Not all Christians believe in a literal ark, particularly those who have done a thorough study of the possible sources for that story."

Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 31, 2008 at 12:34 PM

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....8905852


My response to him:

 
Quote
Actually, Kevin, I'd appreciate you advertising the fact that the literalists aren't "thinking Christians," since they'll likely be your primary audience.

I'd also be extremely surprised if you, say, insert this opinion onto the "Expelled" site.

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....8916890


I'd call this potential ammunition.


And the post noting that he changed his earlier post:

 
Quote
re #12, Kevin Miller has changed what he'd written previously. Instead of:

 
Quote
You'll have a difficult time finding any thinking Christian who believes in a literal ark anymore, Rich.

Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....8899512


It's now:

 
Quote
You'll find that a lot of Christian don't believe in a literal ark anymore, Rich.

Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM


He writes further down in a post: "Glen: I've amended my comment to better reflect my point of view." Uh, yeah, that's why you did it.

Even if that were the case, the dishonesty of the attempt to "change history" is appalling.


Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,03:14   

Quote (raguel @ Mar. 31 2008,21:08)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2008,06:58)
     
Quote (raguel @ Mar. 31 2008,02:46)
From Kevin's "answers":

       
Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can see the above being true is if one can experimentally 1)  determine if a molecule is "synthetic" by it's chemical properties (specifically, it's reactivity and 3d shape) alone,  (2) can determine which molecules weren't produced by chemical reactions, and/or (3)the formation of the "structure" in question can't occur in an organism. Nothing these people say make sense.



2)/3) All molecules are formed by a chemical reaction of some kind, by definition, but given what you said in 3) I see what you mean as being that a chemical reaction in an organisms could not have made molecule X so it had to be a chemical reaction in a lab. This is a bit different.

Just so that we're clear, I understand the bolded part. What I'm getting at is based on Kevin's statement the only logical conclusion I can think of is that he doesn't. It's why I instantly objected to the whole "information" argument. It didn't make sense the first time I saw it (for the reasons I cited) and worse they pretend it doesn't matter. How are they going to show that a designer is necessary for the formation of a gene (or genes, or organisms for that matter) without a pathway? They try to hand wave this necessity away by saying "oh, we know it took a designer because it has oodles and oodles of information". They might has well say it has oodles and oodles of goobleygook. I was shocked to find out "information" actually had a legitimate scientific/mathematical meaning, but not shocked at all to learn that IDists weren't using that definition.

Now I could be wrong. I've forgotten about 80% of what I learned in college.  My understanding of biology has always been limited, to put it mildly. I still think I'm safe to say that they are full of it.

Oh you're definitely safe to say that Kevin et al are full of it. In fact I couldn't think of anything you are safer saying!

Sorry, I was relatively sure you understood the relevant chemistry and that the goobledigook was of IDCist origin, I hope that came across in the post. I was just attempting, in the words of GW Bush, a clarificerisation.

"Information", another word that the IDCIsts just fucking LOVE to equivocate over. You've noticed one of the most fun things about playing with IDCists: the ever shifting information definition. It's definitely one of the most fun issues to press them on: "What definition of information are you using?" "Why that one?" "Here's an example of a natural process that increases/decreases that specific type of information (as well as others), this disproves your claim."

If you can shout the message over the grinding sound of them moving their goalposts it's quite an effective way to refute their garbage.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,13:29   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 31 2008,19:15)
A couple of posts from Pharyngula, involving a statement by Kevin Miller, and his attempt to erase the history of that statement:

 
Quote
Oh, and Kevin Miller (who wrote Expelled with Stein) has this to say about his primary audience:

You'll have a difficult time finding any thinking Christian who believes in a literal ark anymore, Rich.

Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

My reply:    
Quote
Kevin wrote: You'll find that a lot of Christian don't believe in a literal ark anymore, Rich.

So, for the third time, what's Ben Stein doing with Ken Ham on the Answers in Genesis website, then? Endorsing his museum, which features Adam and Eve with dinosaurs? ("A Meeting of Minds, Ein Stein + one Ham = a dynamic duo of Darwin-debunkers") Ken Ham believes in a literal ark, his museum portrays the Flood story as literally true, and the website shows Stein exulting in the museum's attendance numbers.

"A meeting of minds"? Is Ken Ham a thinking or a nonthinking biblical literalist, and what is Ben Stein doing with him?

"A Meeting of Minds" here, since Kevin's blog doesn't allow URLs.

"Ein Stein"! Isn't that cute. Süß wie eine Melone. A real nut. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,13:55   

Quote (Kristine @ April 01 2008,13:29)
"A meeting of minds"? Is Ken Ham a thinking or a nonthinking biblical literalist, and what is Ben Stein doing with him?[/quote]
"A Meeting of Minds" here, since Kevin's blog doesn't allow URLs.

"Ein Stein"! Isn't that cute. Süß wie eine Melone. A real nut. :p

Kristine... Don't you actually, you know, HAVE to have a mind, to have a "Meeting Of The Minds"?

Damn the Bush Administration for gutting our Truth In Advertising Laws!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,16:11   

Does the movie even mention Behe?  It appears they left him out.  If so I wonder why.  Did this ID pig stink so much that Behe would not even touch it?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,16:13   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 01 2008,16:11)
Does the movie even mention Behe?  It appears they left him out.  If so I wonder why.

Probably because he hasn't been "expelled" from Lehigh. Can't have your movie sullied by those inconvenient facts...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,16:38   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 01 2008,16:11)
Does the movie even mention Behe?  It appears they left him out.  If so I wonder why.  Did this ID pig stink so much that Behe would not even touch it?

Behe is listed as one of the persons in the movie at ARN's site about Expelled, here.

I assume they know it to be so.  Has anything about ID stunk enough to keep Behe away?

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,16:44   

At the risk of blowing his cover, Behe actually IS on our side. And he doesn't hide it. Whenever he's pushed, he affirms that evolution is an accurate statement of reality and that he agrees with an ancient earth, common ancestry and evolution. In the meantime he milks the creationists every decade with another book that recycles tired old arguments. When he gets pulled in front of a judge, he make a token effort and either takes a dive or carefully points out the flaws in his own arguments.

His faint support is brilliant. He manages to make a career and good money from creationists while subtly castrating them. If he didn't show up someone else might.

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,17:15   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 01 2008,15:13)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 01 2008,16:11)
Does the movie even mention Behe?  It appears they left him out.  If so I wonder why.

Probably because he hasn't been "expelled" from Lehigh. Can't have your movie sullied by those inconvenient facts...

They probably didn't want him to start talking about how much fun he had testifying in Dover. I think they're spooked that if Behe starts blatting about how much "fun" it was to be in Expelled, the whole thing would be jinxed. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,21:53   

Honestly, Behe's one of the sanest IDers so far as I know. Instead of outright, fact-blind rambles a la Dembski, he makes bad arguments from personal incredulity and complains about things we do not yet know. Common descent? Sure. Old Earth? You got it. Between that and his having tenure, he doesn't make a very good Expelled story.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2008,23:52   

I don't know if Behe is in the fillum but he's on the 'Field trip' part of the site
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscie....p_4.php
Quote
Dr. Michael Behe: Lehigh University Professor of Biochemistry

Due to Dr. Behe’s dissenting views on evolution, Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

“While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.”

How shocking.  They - gasp - disagreed with him - publicly.  Clearly raging, dogmatic persecution.  Professors must be given the right to express inane opinions without fear of hearing discouraging words.

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
ReligionProf



Posts: 33
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,07:47   

I've posted the latest promotional image for the movie Expelled, which I received in an e-mail, at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/freedom-friday.html

I don't have photoshop here, but I suspect that many of the regulars here will have even better ideas than I would for how to make the image more entertaining. I'd be delighted if you'd share your results on my blog, or allow me to...

--------------
http://www.patheos.com/communi....rmatrix

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,09:30   

There must be some pop culture reference in this image that I don't get.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,10:37   

Here's what's ironic about this pig from Ben Stein.  Had he made this movie as a parody of how creationists attack science it would have been a howler.  Funnier than all get out.  Probably put him back on the map as a funny guy worth watching.

But as is in 10 years Expelled will be just another "Reefer Madness" that people watch to laugh at and make fun of and Ben is already being recognized within his own industray as a wingnut who's lost any hope for rational thought.

Now THAT is funny.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to buying a used DVD copy off of Ebay and putting it right next to my copy of Reefer Madness where it belongs.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,10:46   

Quote (ReligionProf @ April 02 2008,06:47)
I've posted the latest promotional image for the movie Expelled, which I received in an e-mail, at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/freedom-friday.html

I don't have photoshop here, but I suspect that many of the regulars here will have even better ideas than I would for how to make the image more entertaining. I'd be delighted if you'd share your results on my blog, or allow me to...

I have this one, but I think it's a bit wordy.


--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,11:08   

Quote (Annyday @ April 01 2008,20:53)
Honestly, Behe's one of the sanest IDers so far as I know. Instead of outright, fact-blind rambles a la Dembski, he makes bad arguments from personal incredulity and complains about things we do not yet know. Common descent? Sure. Old Earth? You got it. Between that and his having tenure, he doesn't make a very good Expelled story.

Speaking of Behe:
Quote
I had totally missed this in my first quick read-through of the ruling in the ACSI lawsuit against the UC. As in Dover, Michael Behe was brought in as an expert on one side. And as in Dover, he managed to score points for the other side instead. John Pieret caught it, though, and has the details. It seems that Behe was trying to argue that it was pedagogically bad for a school to tell kids that they must believe in any particular idea.

I’ve seen him speak in person, and I think he does considerable damage to young minds with his deceptive Power Point and outright distortions, which he has taken on the carny circuit just like Ben Stein. Michael Behe comes off as very smug, smiling like some street urchin who’s persuaded the kids to steal for him when he’s in complete control of the situation, for example speaking as a guest of the MacLaurin Institute, which has a conservative religious agenda, and speaking to young people who are easier to manipulate. I watched PZ go at him after his speech, and he became jostled. I think he’s absolutely convinced that he’s the Einstein of ID – I just don’t think he’s very smart. I didn't like him.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2008,11:46   

Philip Johnstone is the latest IDer to visit Ham's creation museum:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....johnson

Quote
Mr. Johnson also gave some insights into the efforts by some ID proponents to influence public school science teaching. He talked about the state of the ID Movement today and observed that ID scientists are now devoting more time to scientific research into design in nature and other fields (e.g., cancer research).


 
Quote
At age 67 and slowing down somewhat after two strokes, Mr. Johnson was very glad he could fly from California to pay both CCU and AiG a visit. He had heard so much about the museum and partly accepted the invitation to speak at CCU so that he could tour the Creation Museum. So, we were honored to have him visit, since he does not travel as much and also because AiG is not a part of the ID Movement (we have some important differences)—it showed what a gracious gentlemen he is despite some differences of opinion


Now where would cancer research be without ID !
:O

  
  3612 replies since Aug. 12 2007,07:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (121) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]