Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

There are 479 comments on the The Panda's Thumb story from Apr 4, 2013, titled Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution. In it, The Panda's Thumb reports that:

As we reflect upon the amazing body of work left behind by this giant of the movie scene, readers of the Thumb should know that Roger Ebert was a passionate defender of science, and of evolution in particular.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Panda's Thumb.

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#42 Apr 10, 2013
llDayo wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't a regular quack but more of a Donald Duck type of noise. Sounds like a laugh to me!
<quoted text>
It's not ignorance, they just have no important work to talk about.
You must be living in a fantasy world of a mental asylum where the messages of talking animals take priority over the logical arguments of accomplished scientists, award-winning journalists and courageous political activists.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#43 Apr 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You must be living in a fantasy world of a mental asylum where the messages of talking animals take priority over the logical arguments of accomplished scientists, award-winning journalists and courageous political activists.
This weeks leading candidate for projection.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#44 Apr 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You must be living in a fantasy world of a mental asylum where the messages of talking animals take priority over the logical arguments of accomplished scientists, award-winning journalists and courageous political activists.
LOL only describes the action of the duck. He didn't actually utter the letters. And you could take out all of the words of your post from logical to political so that it would make sense.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#45 Apr 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You must be living in a fantasy world of a mental asylum where the messages of talking animals take priority over the logical arguments of accomplished scientists, award-winning journalists and courageous political activists.
Uhuh. Which is WHY you argue for an ancient book written by ignorant superstitious people who claimed that donkeys and lizards talk. The scientific community in the meantime has long accepted evolution.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#46 Apr 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Uhuh. Which is WHY you argue for an ancient book written by ignorant superstitious people who claimed that donkeys and lizards talk.
You should discuss that with llDayo since I've noticed that you didn't have any problem with him receiving a telepathic communication from an imaginary duck.
The Dude wrote:
The scientific community in the meantime has long accepted evolution.
I have also long accepted change over time. Even the Bible writers believed in change over time.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#47 Apr 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You should discuss that with llDayo since I've noticed that you didn't have any problem with him receiving a telepathic communication from an imaginary duck.
Imaginary ducks, imaginary wizards, whatever. Between the two of you there's still only one Poe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#48 Apr 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Your claim to be able to look into my soul and to judge my inner thoughts is just plain ludicrous.
Yet you appear to believe you can look into Roger Ebert's and judge his.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#49 Apr 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You should discuss that with llDayo since I've noticed that you didn't have any problem with him receiving a telepathic communication from an imaginary duck.
Hold on, there's another coming through!

(puts on his Carnac hat)
A dog, a frog and a log.

(opens envelope)
Name three things that can't believe someone can be this stupid.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#50 Apr 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Yet you appear to believe you can look into Roger Ebert's and judge his.
Roger Ebert's excuse for giving good reviews to shitty films is that he loves really good movies and really bad movies but nothing in between. Isn't that a perfect excuse for living a worthless life shilling for the movie industry?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51 Apr 11, 2013
Your ignorance is a perfect excuse for living a worthless life shilling for religious apologetics.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#52 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Your ignorance is a perfect excuse for living a worthless life shilling for religious apologetics.
We both promote a religious point of view. My religious view supports the central political and social philosophy of Peter Duesberg, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Paul Craig Roberts, et al because their scientific and/or social activism was predicted as being on the side of good in the book of Revelation. Your religious point of view, also referenced in the book of Revelation, is perfectly exemplified in the life of Roger Ebert, specifically, do everything you can for yourself and for your own survival, is just one of three great deceptions that influence endtime events.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#53 Apr 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> We both promote a religious point of view. My religious view supports the central political and social philosophy of Peter Duesberg, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Paul Craig Roberts, et al because their scientific and/or social activism was predicted as being on the side of good in the book of Revelation. Your religious point of view, also referenced in the book of Revelation, is perfectly exemplified in the life of Roger Ebert, specifically, do everything you can for yourself and for your own survival, is just one of three great deceptions that influence endtime events.
I made the mistake of reading this rubbish while sipping tea. Almost ruined my keyboard. You are so freakin' funny!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#54 Apr 11, 2013
That's not my point of view, that's your religious point of view of my view. That doesn't make my view religious. But since you're an End-Timer nut then why don't you go the whole hog and do a Harold Camping? Bound to be as successful as the ever reliable Ellen G White, eh?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#55 Apr 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> We both promote a religious point of view. My religious view supports the central political and social philosophy of Peter Duesberg, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Paul Craig Roberts, et al because their scientific and/or social activism was predicted as being on the side of good in the book of Revelation. Your religious point of view, also referenced in the book of Revelation, is perfectly exemplified in the life of Roger Ebert, specifically, do everything you can for yourself and for your own survival, is just one of three great deceptions that influence endtime events.
So now you compound your arrogance by assuming you can see into the Dude's soul and ascertain that he believes in "doing everything he can for himself and for his own survival". Funny, I never heard him express those viewpoints.

You one the other hand have openly expressed your impotent gnashing of teeth over Darwin, Einstein, and now the recently deceased Ebert. You have bared your soul and its not pretty.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#56 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
But since you're an End-Timer nut then why don't you go the whole hog and do a Harold Camping?
I've already outdone Harold Camping with http://everythingimportant.org/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#57 Apr 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I've already outdone Harold Camping
Not interested in your constant spamming. All I want is the date.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#58 Apr 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
So now you compound your arrogance by assuming you can see into the Dude's soul and ascertain that he believes in "doing everything he can for himself and for his own survival". Funny, I never heard him express those viewpoints.
Isn't that the definition of success for every evolutionist?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#59 Apr 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You one the other hand have openly expressed your impotent gnashing of teeth over Darwin, Einstein, and now the recently deceased Ebert. You have bared your soul and its not pretty.
There are many physicists that accept Hilbert's view of Einstein. I agree with them. Also, there is no question that Roger Ebert falls in the category of the first demon's message. I accept the first angel's message. As for Darwin, I agree with Dr. David Berlinski. Darwin's postulates barely passes the threshold of being an anecdote.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#60 Apr 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Darwin's postulates barely passes the threshold of being an anecdote.
Shubee wrote:
Frankly, I can barely remember anything about the one course I took in biology.
(Ahem)
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#61 Apr 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
(Ahem)
Don't you think mathematicians are qualified to research topics of interest as part of their own investigations of the lower sciences?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min Dogen 83,844
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 29 min Zog Has-fallen 41
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr lightbeamrider 164,937
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 6 hr Frindly 3,269
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
More from around the web