Any Canadian theatres showing Expelled?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of177
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Jan

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 25, 2008
 
I live in Canada and am wondering whether any theatres here will be showing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I don't think it's a very good movie from what I've heard, and evolution/creationism isn't as big a controversy here as it is in the U.S. but it still might be interesting to see it if it comes here.
Scott

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 4, 2008
 
I am certainly hoping that it comes to Canadian theatres. We have contacted the publicity company for Expelled and they are sending me promo materials to distribute around.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 4, 2008
 
Jan wrote:
I live in Canada and am wondering whether any theatres here will be showing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I don't think it's a very good movie from what I've heard, and evolution/creationism isn't as big a controversy here as it is in the U.S. but it still might be interesting to see it if it comes here.
Are you serious?

The movie is nothing but a propaganda piece.

The non-creationist interviews were obtained using fraud and lies.

Furthermore, these have been edited into something OTHER than what the original interviewee said-- that is, the makers of the movie have created a FALSE WITNESS out of the recorded interviews.

And you actually WANT to see it?

Hmmm.
ricky

Beaverton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 7, 2008
 

Judged:

1

i'm serious.

I dont believe it but id like to see the movie

looks well written for a propaganda piece

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 7, 2008
 

Judged:

1

ricky wrote:
i'm serious.
I dont believe it but id like to see the movie
looks well written for a propaganda piece
If I could see it for free, I might consider it.

Just to keep abreast of what the pundits are saying.

But I refuse to pay one cent to the creators of that abomination.
mee

Scarborough, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 16, 2008
 

Judged:

1

"If I could see it for free, I might consider it.
Just to keep abreast of what the pundits are saying.
But I refuse to pay one cent to the creators of that abomination."
hmmm. shows what you know about it all. try to look at both sides and make your own philosophy. I'm not saying you should sway to the extreme of one side. Just saying that there is more to the world than just plain old outdated and ignorant darwinist views. I should know, I've conducted my own reasearch over the past year that covers the newer sciences like quantum physics. It was mind bending but just a little understanding of it shows that there is more to everything than just the darwinist view. My minds certainly open and unafraid of new ideas, cause really thats what a scientist is supposed to be. working for the ego will make us like those early scientists who thought that we could not go over a hunderd miles per hour until a brave few opened their minds to it, resulting in our ferarris. Like Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." If you think that Einstein was an idiot, then I pity you... I wont even wanna hear about you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 16, 2008
 
mee wrote:
"If I could see it for free, I might consider it.
Just to keep abreast of what the pundits are saying.
But I refuse to pay one cent to the creators of that abomination."
hmmm. shows what you know about it all. try to look at both sides and make your own philosophy. I'm not saying you should sway to the extreme of one side. Just saying that there is more to the world than just plain old outdated and ignorant darwinist views. I should know, I've conducted my own reasearch over the past year that covers the newer sciences like quantum physics. It was mind bending but just a little understanding of it shows that there is more to everything than just the darwinist view. My minds certainly open and unafraid of new ideas, cause really thats what a scientist is supposed to be. working for the ego will make us like those early scientists who thought that we could not go over a hunderd miles per hour until a brave few opened their minds to it, resulting in our ferarris. Like Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." If you think that Einstein was an idiot, then I pity you... I wont even wanna hear about you.
"plain old outdated and ignorant darwinist views" immediately shows how little you know about the subject. While some of Darwin's ideas are indeed dated, his ideas are not the state of the art in regards to the theory of evolution. ToE is alive and well. It is still the cutting edge in biology.

As for quantum mechanics, I have no idea what you think it has to say about evolution and biology. Its realm is strictly in the small...the molecular, atomic and subatomic scales...and has virtually ZERO to say about evolution.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 17, 2008
 

Judged:

1

mee wrote:
"If I could see it for free, I might consider it.
Just to keep abreast of what the pundits are saying.
But I refuse to pay one cent to the creators of that abomination."
hmmm. shows what you know about it all. try to look at both sides and make your own philosophy. I'm not saying you should sway to the extreme of one side. Just saying that there is more to the world than just plain old outdated and ignorant darwinist views. I should know, I've conducted my own reasearch over the past year that covers the newer sciences like quantum physics. It was mind bending but just a little understanding of it shows that there is more to everything than just the darwinist view. My minds certainly open and unafraid of new ideas, cause really thats what a scientist is supposed to be. working for the ego will make us like those early scientists who thought that we could not go over a hunderd miles per hour until a brave few opened their minds to it, resulting in our ferarris. Like Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." If you think that Einstein was an idiot, then I pity you... I wont even wanna hear about you.
I don't mind hearing or looking at a RATIONAL discussion of a RATIONAL alternative point of view.

Not by a long shot.

But that movie is anything but. It's purely a propaganda piece-- not the least that I already know about parts of it: it contains interviews of atheists and skeptics, OBTAINED UNDER FRAUDULENT PRETENSES.

That alone has tainted the entire movie for me-- and is the source of my distaste and refusal to pay these shills A SINGLE DIME.

If you've a RATIONAL source of some alternative view, I'd welcome it.

I'm NOT a zealot for the theory of evolution.

I'm NOT a "darwinist" either-- for that implies FAITH; I have no faith in science OR evolution. I have no belief.

I'm as skeptical towards evolution as I am towards ID/Creationism.

It's just that with evolution, there IS compelling and thought-provoking evidence, that ANYONE may study and make THEIR OWN conclusions about.

With ID/Creationism? Nothing resembling rational thought; nothing resembling evidence. Their SOLE "evidence" is: "goddidit". And even THAT is based on flawed reasoning!
Those Pesky Darwinists

Brampton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 22, 2008
 
Bob of Quantum Faith has no clue what he is talking about, typical Darwinian fallacies.

Anyone who wants insight on this whole "debate" please visit:

uncommondescent dot com
QrazyQat

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 22, 2008
 
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

Einstein, as quoetd above by a previous commenter, of course absolutely rejected the present religions' view of god; from his essay here's the part immediately after your quote:

"Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods."

And he stated that religions had "to give up the doctrine of a personal God" and that the "spiritual evolution of mankind" could only advance by giving up that view of god and "through striving after rational knowledge".
As for the Expelled movie, other than the plagarised animation they stole from Harvard, the reviews say it's not just dishonest and incorrect, but surprisingly poorly done and boring.
Those Pesky Darwinists

Brampton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 22, 2008
 
Bob of Quantum faith has not seen the movie, yet he already concludes its not worth seeing because of his own illogical distorted dilemmas.

"It's just that with evolution, there IS compelling and thought-provoking evidence, that ANYONE may study and make THEIR OWN conclusions about."

Intelligent Design is not creationism, granted the movie does not distinguish well between the two, but the real-time evidence for design is substantial.

Dawkins himself was exposed in the movie by claiming life could have come about through panspermia (ie: Aliens designing and implanting life here on earth), that is in fact Intelligent Design, yet he denies "God" as a possible cause lol!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 22, 2008
 
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Bob of Quantum Faith has no clue what he is talking about, typical Darwinian fallacies.
Anyone who wants insight on this whole "debate" please visit:
uncommondescent dot com
Uncomon decent?

LOL!

You make me LAUGH!

That website is a well-known "Liar for Jesus" site, and is FULL of lies, innuendo, falsehoods, irrational non-logic, and so forth.

I've seen it-- it's nonsense.

ALL of it's "arguments" have been completely refuted, time and again, by scientists world-wide.

Your low-quality home schooling is showing, if you think that site contains useful or truthful information.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 22, 2008
 
QrazyQat wrote:
....
As for the Expelled movie, other than the plagarised animation they stole from Harvard, the reviews say it's not just dishonest and incorrect, but surprisingly poorly done and boring.
Exactly.

Moreover,_ALL_ of the interviews it contains from NON-Creationists were obtained under FRAUD.

Most of the interviewees requested that their interviews be erased, and NOT be used, but were refused.

Intellectual DISHONESTY.

And THEFT of intellectual property.

So: the makers of the movie are THIEVES, LIARS and committed FRAUD.

And you think I WANT to see the product of such people?

As IF!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 22, 2008
 
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Bob of Quantum faith has not seen the movie, yet he already concludes its not worth seeing because of his own illogical distorted dilemmas.
I conclude it's not worth seeing, because it's authors committed THEFT, FRAUD and used LIES to STEAL the interviews presented.

They are nothing but a bunch of CRIMINALS-- why should I reward their CRIMINAL behavior?
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
"It's just that with evolution, there IS compelling and thought-provoking evidence, that ANYONE may study and make THEIR OWN conclusions about."
Dude, I HAVE studied your "evidence".

It COMPLETELY consists of DENIAL of science, scientific evolution.

It contains NOTHING NEW, NOTHING ORIGINAL.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Intelligent Design is not creationism,
Bullsh!t. Go see the Pennsylvania trial for proof that your statement is bull.

Read the book, "Monkey Girl" for proof in detail.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
granted the movie does not distinguish well between the two, but the real-time evidence for design is substantial.
Bullsh!t. Name ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS "PROOF".

What's that? You CAN'T FIND ANY?

Hmmm.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Dawkins himself was exposed in the movie by claiming life could have come about through panspermia (ie: Aliens designing and implanting life here on earth), that is in fact Intelligent Design, yet he denies "God" as a possible cause lol!
The "interview" of Dawkins was obtained by FRAUD!

When the FRAUD was uncovered, they REFUSED to delete the STOLEN interview, and published ANYWAY.

Moreover, it's been CHOPPED, EDITED, and TWISTED into saying something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT that what Dawkins originally said.

MORE LIES.... as if they COULDN'T STAND the actual TRUTH of what Dawkins ACTUALLY SAID-- they had to RESHAPE it!

They are AFRAID of showing what he REALLY said!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 22, 2008
 
ROFL!!!

PZ Myers, one of the scientists "interviewed" for "Expelled", was...well...expelled from a showing of the movie. For his story, see...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/ex...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_...

PZ's daughter was not expelled from the movie, and gives a review. See...

http://skatje.com/...

What if really hilarious is that while PZ was expelled, the DI guys overlooked Richard Dawkins, who apparently asked some embarrassing questions in the Q&A following the showing.
ScienceofCreatio n

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 25, 2008
 
Creationism (in the biblical sense) is much more based on science than Darwinian Evolution. Evolution deals with the unobservable past, thus making it nothing more than speculation. Science deals with the repeatable, testable and observable parts of the natural world. Evolution (as an origins of species argument) fails every aspect of the science it claims to be.
Claims that we see evolution occurring now is exploiting the ignorance of the public. There is a very fine line between adaptation (with natural selection) and evolution.

As far as a biology goes, natural selection and adaptation occur all the time. What evolution requires is random processes that result in brand new complex biochemical pathways. This never happens. The mutations that is passed off as "proof" of evolution rely strictly on those pathways to already be in existence.

So, before you start shouting about how unscientific creationism is, you should take a look at you're own ideas.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother,'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3-5

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 25, 2008
 
ScienceofCreation wrote:
Creationism (in the biblical sense) is much more based on science than Darwinian Evolution.
False statement. ANYTHING that says, "and then, a miracle happened" is NOT SCIENCE!

Creationism says EXACTLY THAT!

It is therefore RELIGION and has ZERO place in a science classroom.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
Evolution deals with the unobservable past, thus making it nothing more than speculation.
False AGAIN. It deals with OBSERVABLE fossils and OBSERVABLE layers of rock and OBSERVABLE strands of DNA and OBSERVABLE behavior and ....

NONE of it is speculation!
ScienceofCreation wrote:
Science deals with the repeatable, testable and observable parts of the natural world.
True.

It ALSO deals with the UNOBSERVABLE, like atoms, subatomic particles, black holes, interstellar dust, electron-ion exchange and so forth.

There is LOTS of science that is based on INDIRECT observation-- geology is but one.

So is Forensic Science-- the science which proves what HAPPENED at a crime scene-- AFTER the events took place.

So your too-small "definition" lead you to a FALSE CONCLUSION.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
Evolution (as an origins of species argument) fails every aspect of the science it claims to be.
False AGAIN.

See above. In FACT, the SCIENTIFIC evolution is MORE supported by MORE facts than the theory of GRAVITY is!

Your ignorance is SHOWING.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
Claims that we see evolution occurring now is exploiting the ignorance of the public.
Incorrect. If you were not so WILLFULLY IGNORANT, you, too could avail yourself of these examples.

They are real-- the many MANY examples of modern evolution are all around you-- but YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE PREVENTS YOU FROM SEEING THEM.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
There is a very fine line between adaptation (with natural selection) and evolution.
Really? Care to EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS?

What, exactly ENFORCES this "fine line"?

What magical, invisible barrier keeps adaptation after adaptation after adaptation leading to a NEW species from occurring?

Your wishful thinking, perhaps?
ScienceofCreation wrote:
As far as a biology goes,
You're about as ignorant as they come-- but carry on...
ScienceofCreation wrote:
natural selection and adaptation occur all the time.
True. So, what magical "barrier" separates adaptation from evolution?

How many adaptations does it take to go from one species to another? One? Ten? One hundred? One thousand?

Where is the magical barrier that prevents one thousand adaptations from taking place?

Who enforces this magical, artificial distinction?
ScienceofCreation wrote:
What evolution requires is random processes that result in brand new complex biochemical pathways.
Natural selection is NOT RANDOM you ignorant dolt-- it's a directed process. Directed by the pressures of the environment the organism finds itself in. VERY specific pressures. VERY directed: organisms that FIT the environment survive. Organisms that do not fit so well, die off. Directed. Not random.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
This never happens.
Correct. Because your "random processes" is complete fiction.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
The mutations that is passed off as "proof" of evolution rely strictly on those pathways to already be in existence.
False. You are basing your "conclusion" on a FALSE PREMISE. See above.

------ end of part 1 of 2 --------

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 25, 2008
 
Part 2 of 2---------
ScienceofCreation wrote:
So, before you start shouting about how unscientific creationism is, you should take a look at you're own ideas.
Non-sequitur.

Even if you could somehow prove evolution false, it would NOT automatically mean YOUR kooky ideas are TRUE.

Not by a long shot.
ScienceofCreation wrote:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother,'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3-5
Indeed. You need to look VERY CAREFULLY at this verse.

See how CLOSELY it applies to YOUR OWN SITUATION?

See how YOU are completely devoid of HONESTY, and yet YOU sit in JUDGMENT of everyone DIFFERENT than you?

See how SELF-RIGHTEOUS you are?

Now, go and clear the FOREST from YOUR OWN EYES FIRST.

If, after having done THAT, you still have something worthwhile to say, come back, and we might listen.
MIDutch

South Haven, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 25, 2008
 
ScienceofCreation wrote:
Creationism (in the biblical sense) is much more based on science than Darwinian Evolution.... Science deals with the repeatable, testable and observable parts of the natural world.
So, umm, Madame/Mr. Scienceofcreation, if "creationism (in the biblical sense) is much more based on science" than the Theory of Evolution, and science deals with the "repeatable, testable and observable",...

umm,

have they figured out how God "spoke" the universe into existence yet?

Or have they performed experiments on how dirt gets turned into a man?

Or how you can make a woman out of some guys rib?

Or how a bat evolved from a bird into a mammal?

Or have they been able to recreated a "repeatable, testable and observable" global flood yet and figured out why some plants can run faster than others or why pterosaurs couldn't outfly or outrun the megatheriums?

Or what happened to the unicorns?

Or why the blood of doves sprinkled on the toes cures someone of leprosy?

Madame/Mr. Scienceofcreation, I apologize in advance for asking this, but if "creationism" IS science than where is the scientific explanation for all of these facts (in the Biblical sense)?

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Mar 26, 2008
 
Matthew 7:3-5 applies to everyone. It applies as much to you as it does to me.

(You'll have to forgive my copy and pasting, I haven't figured out how to show quotes like you, Bob)

"ANYTHING that says, "and then, a miracle happened" is NOT SCIENCE!"

Then what do you call the Big Bang? Oh, it wasn't a miracle, because that would be unscientific. It's a quantum fluctuation of singularity.

What do you call abiogenesis? That wasn't a miracle either, was it? Even though countless scientific studies have been done and proven it's impossibility, we still teach children that life from non-life is possible.

"They are real-- the many MANY examples of modern evolution are all around you-- but YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE PREVENTS YOU FROM SEEING THEM."

Name one.

"Natural selection is NOT RANDOM you ignorant dolt-- it's a directed process."

You can omit the word random if it makes you feel better. Mutations in the genetic code are random, natural selection makes it guided. Adaptation then leads to speciation.

As a side note, name-calling doesn't make you right. Let's keep this civilized.

Random or not, evolution (and the mutations that you cling to) still rely on the pre-existence of the complex biochemical pathways, and a new one has never been witnessed to come about because of evolution.

Oh, and you're right. Even if evolution was recognized to be complete nonsense, it won't mean that my ideas are correct. Unless, of course, my ideas can answer all the questions. Which, for the most part, it can. Of course, I don't claim to know it all, because who does?

"Now, go and clear the FOREST from YOUR OWN EYES FIRST."
Are you speaking of a polystrate forest? Because polystrate forests seem to be something you're ignoring when you evolutionists talk about the fossil record.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of177
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••