I saw the film EXPELLED today and it was interesting ...

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius.	12.7%	[ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant!	28.3%	[ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis.	6.4%	[ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore.	14.6%	[ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball.	37.9%	[ 119 ]
Total Votes:			[ 314 ]

[mrsculedhel]

Redem

mrsculedhel

I suppose it would be falsifiable if there was no evidence of a designer meaning that everything was too random to be predictable or that something makes no sense based on the designer theory. I cannot concede or deny anything. I will concede that I am not a scientist and therefore have no expertise to offer to this thread other than I was convinced by the film that it is a science.

Falsification means that it must be able to be proven false in some specific way.

Rabbits in devaronian rocks would falsify evolution, geology, much of physics, and a few other parts of science. Not simply that specific case, but essentially anything of that kind.

Despite the millions of fossils we have found, none of them falsify it, all agree with it.


With ID, nothing can falsify it, because no matter what we find, the "designer" could have designed it that way. It cannot predict anything, as it can predict everything. It cannot be tested, as there is no test it can fail or pass.

But there are anomolous finds that would refute evolution but they are called anomolous and tossed by the wayside.

How do these disprove evolution? The theory would just be changed to include different evolutionary sequences in different time periods. One could say that there were different evolutionary "attempts" that got pushed back or cut off by some unknown force or pressure and that these resumed again at a later period. Evolutionary theory can be jiggled around in the same way and has been.

Cranial capacity used to be considered to be linked to intelligence as oldschool Darwinians looked for racial types.

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

Quote:

Please refrain from quoting after every line of my post; it's irritating. As far as my reply, you can pretty much read Redem's post addressing these issues you've brought up, because he's said the same thing I would say. Also - I've watched every bit of this movie that's available to me through the official trailers, but I can't watch the rest as it isn't available to me. As soon as the full movie comes to bittorrent, I'll watch it. In the meantime, I HAVE read many, many reviews of the movie, from opponents and proponents of it. The vast majority of them say the same thing. While you ask me if I've seen what's clearly agreed upon even by Fox News as a bag of s**t with a pretty wrapping, why don't you do the research I did? Instead of trying to refute people on Gaia who are presenting you with a world of facts, why don't you go read this website we keep linking to? expelledexposed.com If that's not enough to prove our point, you can verify the information found on that website in any number of scholarly sources.

I have already been to that dot com site last week when Voija gave it to me. Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film. I enjoyed it. I am here to state that the film was excellent; had superb art direction; I learned a lot about cell biology from it and felt I had brushed elbows with a number of prestigious scientists on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed seeing Dawkins as he is a charming man. I didn't feel that he was being ridiculed so badly. It was a happy laugh, not a scornful one. Ben Stein did a good job and I liked him in the film. There is a lot of things to talk about from this film and I am glad that I viewed it today with my 13 year old son. Also my daughter saw the film today. It was a good experience and I am here to recommend that anyone see it, even those who have read skeptical reviews and refutations of the film. Why? Because it is best to get information from the horses mouth rather than to rely on second hand sources. This reminds me of the Golden Compass film when people were asked if they had ever read the book.

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

If you mean www.expelledexposed.com it's owned and operated by the NCSE, a reputable organisation.

As for the movie itself, I can't see it, and may never be able to. Depends if it opens in Ireland or not, 'cos I am not flying to the US to see it.

I could pirate it I suppose, but I feel little motivation to do so. Any movie that makes the ignorant assertion that darwin was in any way responsible for the holocaust is simply sickening, and I have no wish to sit through that.

[Vividwings]

*sigh* The interviews in that movie were arranged under false pretenses, and then cut together to make the people being interviewed look stupid. Also, the persecution is waaaaay exaggerated.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/ has information regarding their questionable interview tactics, exaggeration, and sometimes outright lies.

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

But there are anomolous finds that would refute evolution but they are called anomolous and tossed by the wayside.

What anomalous finds? Be careful to check them, please, creationists are notorious for lying about these things.

mrsculedhel

How do these disprove evolution? The theory would just be changed to include different evolutionary sequences in different time periods. One could say that there were different evolutionary "attempts" that got pushed back or cut off by some unknown force or pressure and that these resumed again at a later period. Evolutionary theory can be jiggled around in the same way and has been.

I cannot imagine any way in which it could be "jiggled around" to satisfy such an occurrence. Modern rabbits in rocks from hundreds of millions of years ago?

Of course there would still be a theory of evolution, which explains the observed evolution of creatures, but it would not be the same one.

mrsculedhel

Cranial capacity used to be considered to be linked to intelligence as oldschool Darwinians looked for racial types.

Nothing to do with "darwinians", just a base assumption that brain size was directly linked to mental abilities...because big brains equalling smart brains is an easy inference to make. It has nothing to do with evolution though, just basic anatomy.

Not sure how that relates to anything we were discussing though.

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

mrsculedhel

Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film.

You'll believe something just because you saw it in a movie theater, but you'll immediately discount information if it came from a website ending in ".com" eh? I've been wondering the whole time I've been in this thread if I should be wasting my time on you, so thanks for finally proving to me that I shouldn't! The website's author is far more important in determining reliability than its http extension... this site is made by the National Center for Science Education, and is quite reliable. You're forcibly remaining ignorant in the face of facts and I won't waste my time on you anymore.

[mrsculedhel]

Redem

mrsculedhel

Quote:

Please refrain from quoting after every line of my post; it's irritating. As far as my reply, you can pretty much read Redem's post addressing these issues you've brought up, because he's said the same thing I would say. Also - I've watched every bit of this movie that's available to me through the official trailers, but I can't watch the rest as it isn't available to me. As soon as the full movie comes to bittorrent, I'll watch it. In the meantime, I HAVE read many, many reviews of the movie, from opponents and proponents of it. The vast majority of them say the same thing. While you ask me if I've seen what's clearly agreed upon even by Fox News as a bag of s**t with a pretty wrapping, why don't you do the research I did? Instead of trying to refute people on Gaia who are presenting you with a world of facts, why don't you go read this website we keep linking to? expelledexposed.com If that's not enough to prove our point, you can verify the information found on that website in any number of scholarly sources.

I have already been to that dot com site last week when Voija gave it to me. Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film. I enjoyed it. I am here to state that the film was excellent; had superb art direction; I learned a lot about cell biology from it and felt I had brushed elbows with a number of prestigious scientists on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed seeing Dawkins as he is a charming man. I didn't feel that he was being ridiculed so badly. It was a happy laugh, not a scornful one. Ben Stein did a good job and I liked him in the film. There are a lot of things to talk about from this film and I am glad that I viewed it today with my 13 year old son. Also my daughter saw the film today. It was a good experience and I am here to recommend that anyone see it, even those who have read skeptical reviews and refutations of the film. Why? Because it is best to get information from the horses mouth rather than to rely on second hand sources. This reminds me of the Golden Compass film when people were asked if they had ever read the book.

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

If you mean www.expelledexposed.com it's owned and operated by the NCSE, a reputable organisation.

As for the movie itself, I can't see it, and may never be able to. Depends if it opens in Ireland or not, 'cos I am not flying to the US to see it.

I could pirate it I suppose, but I feel little motivation to do so. Any movie that makes the ignorant assertion that darwin was in any way responsible for the holocaust is simply sickening, and I have no wish to sit through that.

I am Irish too! I knew I like you! 3nodding
The Academy of Science is a reputable organization as well. Being of high repute does not mean having sole custody of the truth. Darwin is not responsible for the holocaust and the film does not say this at all. An interview with a tour guide showing a hospital where the infirm were euthanized makes the assertion that the Nazi's abused the ideas of Darwin. She states that they were Dawinian. However, there were social Darwinists who didn't exactly do the right thing. Darwin wrote that we don't breed our worst animals for that would bring down the stock. He said that allowing the infirm to breed was doing the same thing.

[Trorbes]

mrsculedhel

Quote:

Please refrain from quoting after every line of my post; it's irritating. As far as my reply, you can pretty much read Redem's post addressing these issues you've brought up, because he's said the same thing I would say. Also - I've watched every bit of this movie that's available to me through the official trailers, but I can't watch the rest as it isn't available to me. As soon as the full movie comes to bittorrent, I'll watch it. In the meantime, I HAVE read many, many reviews of the movie, from opponents and proponents of it. The vast majority of them say the same thing. While you ask me if I've seen what's clearly agreed upon even by Fox News as a bag of s**t with a pretty wrapping, why don't you do the research I did? Instead of trying to refute people on Gaia who are presenting you with a world of facts, why don't you go read this website we keep linking to? expelledexposed.com If that's not enough to prove our point, you can verify the information found on that website in any number of scholarly sources.

I have already been to that dot com site last week when Voija gave it to me. Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film. I enjoyed it. I am here to state that the film was excellent; had superb art direction; I learned a lot about cell biology from it and felt I had brushed elbows with a number of prestigious scientists on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed seeing Dawkins as he is a charming man. I didn't feel that he was being ridiculed so badly. It was a happy laugh, not a scornful one. Ben Stein did a good job and I liked him in the film. There is a lot of things to talk about from this film and I am glad that I viewed it today with my 13 year old son. Also my daughter saw the film today. It was a good experience and I am here to recommend that anyone see it, even those who have read skeptical reviews and refutations of the film. Why? Because it is best to get information from the horses mouth rather than to rely on second hand sources. This reminds me of the Golden Compass film when people were asked if they had ever read the book.

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

You haven't heard a ******** word anyone's said have you? You've said the same ******** things everyone here has denied, argued, and refuted and I'm getting ******** tired of it. It's not a ******** good movie, it has no semblance of ******** science within it, and the only thing Ben Stein was ******** good at is comparing science to ******** Nazis. This goes beyond not ******** comprehending what others have said; you haven't done anything to convince me you've even ******** read anything here.

[Deformography]

SUCK_I crying REBEK

I lost a lot of respect for stein for this film. I do think that Creationism should be taught in science (maybe) but saying that it's the soul reason of life is (to quote Penn & Teller) BULLSHIT. After learning that Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and that he is a Nixon sympathizer, I now don't care what he says EVER.

Why should mythology, which is not science, be even entertained in science classes?

[mrsculedhel]

Daffodil the Destroyer

mrsculedhel

Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film.

You'll believe something just because you saw it in a movie theater, but you'll immediately discount information if it came from a website ending in ".com" eh? I've been wondering the whole time I've been in this thread if I should be wasting my time on you, so thanks for finally proving to me that I shouldn't! The website's author is far more important in determining reliability than its http extension... this site is made by the National Center for Science Education, and is quite reliable. You're forcibly remaining ignorant in the face of facts and I won't waste my time on you anymore.

Sorry for wasting your time. Speaking of quote mining, do you ever do that? eek You seemed to have cherry picked my quote to make me look as rude, unengaging and disinterested in information as you believe me to be. Therefore I allege that you are indeed wasting your time if you think I will be motivated to learn anything by your bullying. You haven't seen the film and you prefer to go by second hand information. This kind of quarrel is not going to facilitate knowledge for either of us.

[Katherine1]

mrsculedhel

Redem

mrsculedhel

Quote:

Please refrain from quoting after every line of my post; it's irritating. As far as my reply, you can pretty much read Redem's post addressing these issues you've brought up, because he's said the same thing I would say. Also - I've watched every bit of this movie that's available to me through the official trailers, but I can't watch the rest as it isn't available to me. As soon as the full movie comes to bittorrent, I'll watch it. In the meantime, I HAVE read many, many reviews of the movie, from opponents and proponents of it. The vast majority of them say the same thing. While you ask me if I've seen what's clearly agreed upon even by Fox News as a bag of s**t with a pretty wrapping, why don't you do the research I did? Instead of trying to refute people on Gaia who are presenting you with a world of facts, why don't you go read this website we keep linking to? expelledexposed.com If that's not enough to prove our point, you can verify the information found on that website in any number of scholarly sources.

I have already been to that dot com site last week when Voija gave it to me. Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film. I enjoyed it. I am here to state that the film was excellent; had superb art direction; I learned a lot about cell biology from it and felt I had brushed elbows with a number of prestigious scientists on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed seeing Dawkins as he is a charming man. I didn't feel that he was being ridiculed so badly. It was a happy laugh, not a scornful one. Ben Stein did a good job and I liked him in the film. There are a lot of things to talk about from this film and I am glad that I viewed it today with my 13 year old son. Also my daughter saw the film today. It was a good experience and I am here to recommend that anyone see it, even those who have read skeptical reviews and refutations of the film. Why? Because it is best to get information from the horses mouth rather than to rely on second hand sources. This reminds me of the Golden Compass film when people were asked if they had ever read the book.

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

If you mean www.expelledexposed.com it's owned and operated by the NCSE, a reputable organisation.

As for the movie itself, I can't see it, and may never be able to. Depends if it opens in Ireland or not, 'cos I am not flying to the US to see it.

I could pirate it I suppose, but I feel little motivation to do so. Any movie that makes the ignorant assertion that darwin was in any way responsible for the holocaust is simply sickening, and I have no wish to sit through that.

I am Irish too! I knew I like you! 3nodding
The Academy of Science is a reputable organization as well. Being of high repute does not mean having sole custody of the truth. Darwin is not responsible for the holocaust and the film does not say this at all. An interview with a tour guide showing a hospital where the infirm were euthanized makes the assertion that the Nazi's abused the ideas of Darwin. She states that they were Dawinian. However, there were social Darwinists who didn't exactly do the right thing. Darwin wrote that we don't breed our worst animals for that would bring down the stock. He said that allowing the infirm to breed was doing the same thing.

Yet, you admit the author of the site is reputable, therefore the site is reputable as well. Just look over th information. See the parts that the movie let out, of course if you want remain ignorant, I expect you to ignore the site completely.

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

I am Irish too! I knew I like you! 3nodding

cool

mrsculedhel

The Academy of Science is a reputable organization as well. Being of high repute does not mean having sole custody of the truth.

It does mean you cannot simply dismiss their words, though.

mrsculedhel

Darwin is not responsible for the holocaust and the film does not say this at all. An interview with a tour guide showing a hospital where the infirm were euthanized makes the assertion that the Nazi's abused the ideas of Darwin. She states that they were Dawinian. However, there were social Darwinists who didn't exactly do the right thing. Darwin wrote that we don't breed our worst animals for that would bring down the stock. He said that allowing the infirm to breed was doing the same thing.

Another example of quote mining Darwin.
He was talking about the principles that livestock owners have been using for millennia, that culling undesirable traits from the population can eliminate them. This is a self-evidence truth, and not darwinian.

Darwin argued against using these ideas on humans.

Hitler himself never once praised Darwin's works, or cited them in support of his ideas. And the origin of species was banned in Nazi Germany.

[mrsculedhel]

Trorbes

mrsculedhel

Quote:

Please refrain from quoting after every line of my post; it's irritating. As far as my reply, you can pretty much read Redem's post addressing these issues you've brought up, because he's said the same thing I would say. Also - I've watched every bit of this movie that's available to me through the official trailers, but I can't watch the rest as it isn't available to me. As soon as the full movie comes to bittorrent, I'll watch it. In the meantime, I HAVE read many, many reviews of the movie, from opponents and proponents of it. The vast majority of them say the same thing. While you ask me if I've seen what's clearly agreed upon even by Fox News as a bag of s**t with a pretty wrapping, why don't you do the research I did? Instead of trying to refute people on Gaia who are presenting you with a world of facts, why don't you go read this website we keep linking to? expelledexposed.com If that's not enough to prove our point, you can verify the information found on that website in any number of scholarly sources.

I have already been to that dot com site last week when Voija gave it to me. Dot com sites are not sources. I don't care who is refuting the film. I enjoyed it. I am here to state that the film was excellent; had superb art direction; I learned a lot about cell biology from it and felt I had brushed elbows with a number of prestigious scientists on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed seeing Dawkins as he is a charming man. I didn't feel that he was being ridiculed so badly. It was a happy laugh, not a scornful one. Ben Stein did a good job and I liked him in the film. There is a lot of things to talk about from this film and I am glad that I viewed it today with my 13 year old son. Also my daughter saw the film today. It was a good experience and I am here to recommend that anyone see it, even those who have read skeptical reviews and refutations of the film. Why? Because it is best to get information from the horses mouth rather than to rely on second hand sources. This reminds me of the Golden Compass film when people were asked if they had ever read the book.

Have you ever read On Origin of Species?

You haven't heard a ******** word anyone's said have you? You've said the same ******** things everyone here has denied, argued, and refuted and I'm getting ******** tired of it. It's not a ******** good movie, it has no semblance of ******** science within it, and the only thing Ben Stein was ******** good at is comparing science to ******** Nazis. This goes beyond not ******** comprehending what others have said; you haven't done anything to convince me you've even ******** read anything here.

No I actually haven't heard a word. I am reading posts. If this is getting tedious for you, then do rest! I am not demanding you remain here. You have not viewed the film so you cannot state this infallibly. This is your personal opinion about the film and you are entitled to your opinion. Ben Stein doesn' compare science to Nazi's and if you think that then you have been mislead. Until now I have read your posts. If you are running low on vocabulary words and are getting wrathful then I think I will pass on your future posts however. mrgreen

[mrsculedhel]

Redem

mrsculedhel

I am Irish too! I knew I like you! 3nodding

cool

mrsculedhel

The Academy of Science is a reputable organization as well. Being of high repute does not mean having sole custody of the truth.

It does mean you cannot simply dismiss their words, though.

mrsculedhel

Darwin is not responsible for the holocaust and the film does not say this at all. An interview with a tour guide showing a hospital where the infirm were euthanized makes the assertion that the Nazi's abused the ideas of Darwin. She states that they were Dawinian. However, there were social Darwinists who didn't exactly do the right thing. Darwin wrote that we don't breed our worst animals for that would bring down the stock. He said that allowing the infirm to breed was doing the same thing.

Another example of quote mining Darwin.
He was talking about the principles that livestock owners have been using for millennia, that culling undesirable traits from the population can eliminate them. This is a self-evidence truth, and not darwinian.

Darwin argued against using these ideas on humans.

Hitler himself never once praised Darwin's works, or cited them in support of his ideas. And the origin of species was banned in Nazi Germany.

He stated this in his book Descent of Man. A lot of books were banned in Nazi Germany because they were anti-intellectual. However the elite Nazi's could do what they liked and believe what they liked. Perhaps there is misinformation on this film, but the film was getting this bad information from German sources.

Thank you for not hurling the F word at me. I cannot read with a p***s in my eyeball! blaugh

[The Plantagenet]

OMG someone who actually saw the movie before making an opinion on it! Holy god! There's hope for humanity yet.

[mrsculedhel]

Redem

mrsculedhel

But there are anomolous finds that would refute evolution but they are called anomolous and tossed by the wayside.

What anomalous finds? Be careful to check them, please, creationists are notorious for lying about these things.

mrsculedhel

How do these disprove evolution? The theory would just be changed to include different evolutionary sequences in different time periods. One could say that there were different evolutionary "attempts" that got pushed back or cut off by some unknown force or pressure and that these resumed again at a later period. Evolutionary theory can be jiggled around in the same way and has been.

I cannot imagine any way in which it could be "jiggled around" to satisfy such an occurrence. Modern rabbits in rocks from hundreds of millions of years ago?

Of course there would still be a theory of evolution, which explains the observed evolution of creatures, but it would not be the same one.

mrsculedhel

Cranial capacity used to be considered to be linked to intelligence as oldschool Darwinians looked for racial types.

Nothing to do with "darwinians", just a base assumption that brain size was directly linked to mental abilities...because big brains equalling smart brains is an easy inference to make. It has nothing to do with evolution though, just basic anatomy.

Not sure how that relates to anything we were discussing though.

Honey, I am a good Catholic and I don't believe in Creationism!!!! I was raised in a scientific community and have an advanced degree in Anthroplogy! I have never questioned evolution in my life. eek The film convinced me that there is a reason to make way for ID. That's all.

For a compedium of anomolous finds try the book, Forbidden Archaeology. I am going to log out for wee rest and a nice shot of rum with a lime on the side. It is 9:45 PM here! 4laugh I will let you speak to my buxom daughter, Lady Imrahil. I think people are getting tired of me. wink

I will be back however. Take care! I enjoyed this lively debate!!!