Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  BurnTheShips

  Defend evolution I have read your past post you would cry a tear if evolution was disproved tomorrow.

  I believe it, but I am not emotionally invested. Whether it stands or falls changes my life not a bit. As an atheist, you NEED evolution as a tool to explain away any possible divine intervention. I can look at the thing much more dispassionately than you can and see its good influences and bad. I have highlighted the bad on this thread. The fact that you refuse to see it only demostrates your enfatuation and personal attachment to the theory. For you, evolution is a "god" and honest criticism of some of its appendages is blasphemous.

  You have gone out of your way to attack by insinuating it is evil because the Nazi's base there idea of killing all Jews on the idea they weren't evolved enough for the Nazi's. Despite the ample evidence they did it because of age old European prejudices against Jews. Which were religiously based and appealed to at every chance.

  blahblah.
• 

  5go

  As an atheist, you NEED evolution as a tool to explain away any possible divine intervention.

  What happened to that headache BTW.

  I don't need evolution to be an atheist. The bible and people like you and perry were enough to make me atheist toward christianity. Science ( peer review and experimentation ) explains things the bible can ever explain. So when scientist say we have over and over again proved evolution sound. I trust them, and if I don't then they can still use what the they know to make things like vaccines using evolution. In fact Science has been used in attempts to prove god does exists in fact some Christians don't have a problem with evolution and consider it proof. So to say atheism needs evolution is dumb to say the least.
• 

  real one

  A scientist proved with mathematics that God exists
• 

  5go

  A scientist proved with mathematics that God exists

  That was an episode of the Simpsons BTW. Besides we all know Thor exists.
• 

  hillary_step

  Real One,

  Yes, it is ironic that the Priest who claims to have proved by mathematics, at least circumstantially, that God exists also believes in evolution. Are you and Perry also willing to acknowledge his belief in evolution, or is he half-demonized?

  HS
• 

  5go

  Expelled did 3.2 million on its opening night and cracked top 10.

  Granted, it's no "Fahrenheit 911" but that's not too shabby for a documentary on what to the general public is a rather dry subject.

  Burn

  Expelled has a 9% "fresh" rating on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes, from 21 negative reviews and 2 positive. [116] , and a Metacritic aggregate score of 28 out of 100 ("Mostly Negative Reviews") from 10 reviews.[4] It was not screened for critics. [115]

  Box office

  Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, earning $1.2 million at the box office in its first day and earned $3.2 million for its opening weekend. [117] [118] [119] Originally, Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer, "said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, "Fahrenheit 9/11," the best launch ever for a documentary." [120] Reviewing Expelled's opening box office figures, Nikki Finke of the Los Angeles Weekly wrote that considering the number of screens showing the film, the ticket sales were "feeble", demonstrating "there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign." Finke further wrote, "So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood". (Just for comparison purposes: left-wing Michael Moore's most recent Sicko did $4.4 mil its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9M its opening weekend from 868 venues.)" [121] Joshua Rich of Entertainment Weekly said the movie "was a solid top-10 contender" and "That's a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters." [122]
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Burn The Ships

  I have just returned from combat and missed the fighting in this arena.

  A few pages back I picked you up on your use of the word sacred. Your reply indicated that you were using the word 'sacred' in a secular way meaning, ' entitled to reverence and respect.' That your beliefs did not influence your choice of words.

  Yet on another thread you stated, 'God made the body, it is therefore sacred.'

  My comment was prompted by your explanation of sacredness based on your assumption that man was created.

  minima maxima sunt
• 

  Caedes

  I can't see that Burn has anything wrong in his understanding of the second law as it applies here, the second law allows for localised decreases in entropy as long as there is an equivalent increase elsewhere in the system. If you wish to take take the whole universe as a system then the entropy must increase over time. It's just a fancy way of saying that nothing is infinite and that perpetual motion is impossible since there will always be losses in a system.

  Good to see Hooberus back, still cutting and pasting for the lord eh?

  Would anyone who thinks this film is an honest piece of film-making concede that it was not in the film-makers interest to portray Richard Dawkins in a good light. Presumably we can all accept that prof Dawkins is an accomplished public speaker whatever you think of his views. He has consistantly refrained from engaging in debate on the issue of ID since from his point of view there is no debate since ID has no credible scientific basis. This film and it's makers didn't have the courage to be open about what their intentions which makes them sleazy and underhanded. Even the title is a poor ad hominen attack, perhaps that's why the makers felt the need to use a different one when they wanted fool people into contributing.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  That your beliefs did not influence your choice of words.

  PARRY! I never said they didn't

  THRUST! I said that you're beliefs colored your reaction to my words as least as much as mine colored my selection.

  PATRICIANS EQUESTRIANS AND PLEBES CHEER MADLY!!!!

  Gladiator in arena consilium capit

  Ardeo Navis

  
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Would anyone who thinks this film is an honest piece of film-making concede that it was not in the film-makers interest to portray Richard Dawkins in a good light. Presumably we can all accept that prof Dawkins is an accomplished public speaker whatever you think of his views. He has consistantly refrained from engaging in debate on the issue of ID since from his point of view there is no debate since ID has no credible scientific basis. This film and it's makers didn't have the courage to be open about what their intentions which makes them sleazy and underhanded. Even the title is a poor ad hominen attack, perhaps that's why the makers felt the need to use a different one when they wanted fool people into contributing.

  I concede every point you make here.

  Burn