Expelled: The Movie Explores Intelligent Design and the Case Against Big Science

Nov 11, 2007 Full story: Men's News Daily 131

“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale”

November 10, 2007 at 11:40 pm Filed under Culture , Intelligent Design , Entertainment , Vox Populi In Expelled: The Movie , economist, lawyer, presidential speech-writer, and all-around media personality Ben ... via Men's News Daily

Full Story

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

#21 Jan 2, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
Galileo lost his case in court too, and had to recant so he wouldn't be burned at the stake. What makes you think the judge in Dover was right? I'll bet if you had your way all religious zealots would be burned at the stake too. Seems like we're regressing as a society whenever this topic comes up. Nobody has won or lost yet, this is still up for debate yet Darwinists refuse to believe it. If anybody had won/lost this forum wouldn't exist.
LOL! Science is not up debate to anything that is based only on religion such as ID/Creationism. This forum exist because there are too many ignorant and uneducated people who believe those fundies nutcase (religious zealots) about Poof! Magic! Godidit! creationsm nonsense.

The Judge at Dover was a Christian picked by President Bush and he saw through the lies of ID/Creationism(religious zealots) trying to pass their religious aplogetics agenda into science classrooms. He was right. ID/Creationism had all the opportunity to defend their pseudoscience in court but couldn't win because the fact that their was no science backing this religious pseudoscience nonsense.

You forget it was the religious zealots who attacked Gallileo. BTW Gallileo would probably have accepted the science of evolution if he was born into our time since he was a good skeptical scientist back then.

“Pingustopher Walken”

Since: Dec 06

Cornwall, Canada

#22 Jan 2, 2008
hexene wrote:
<quoted text>
You forget it was the religious zealots who attacked Gallileo. BTW Gallileo would probably have accepted the science of evolution if he was born into our time since he was a good skeptical scientist back then.
That was my point. If hardcore Darwinists were able, they would probably burn religious zealots at the stake just like religious zealots burned witches who refuted their views. Funny how similar the two are.

“we do sarcasm and irony here”

Since: Aug 07

San Bernardino, CA

#23 Jan 2, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my point. If hardcore Darwinists were able, they would probably burn religious zealots at the stake just like religious zealots burned witches who refuted their views. Funny how similar the two are.
Now that is funny in a Adam Sandler sort of way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#24 Jan 2, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my point. If hardcore Darwinists were able, they would probably burn religious zealots at the stake just like religious zealots burned witches who refuted their views. Funny how similar the two are.
Nope. Never gonna happen.

Because a SCIENTIST is NOT interested in BELIEF.

And, buddy, it TAKES FANATICAL BELIEF in order to overcome the BASIC INSTINCT to GET ALONG-- that MOST humans possess.

FANATICAL BELIEF is what gets people burned at stakes.

A SCIENTIST has NO NEED of fanatical belief--- he/she has FACTS instead.

Something you are NOT familiar with, apparently?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#25 Jan 2, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
Galileo lost his case in court too, and had to recant so he wouldn't be burned at the stake. What makes you think the judge in Dover was right? I'll bet if you had your way all religious zealots would be burned at the stake too. Seems like we're regressing as a society whenever this topic comes up. Nobody has won or lost yet, this is still up for debate yet Darwinists refuse to believe it. If anybody had won/lost this forum wouldn't exist.
Uh oh. SWS has played the Galileo card. Now we have solid proof of his crank status.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#26 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
Galileo lost his case in court too, and had to recant so he wouldn't be burned at the stake. What makes you think the judge in Dover was right?
Well, let's see. One side (our side) presented compelling evidence that ID is simply Creationism in a new hat. We pointed out that the text book they were using literally did a find and replace on the word "creationist" with "design proponents".

Additionally, the other side (your side) got CAUGHT LYING UNDER OATH.

here's a tip for you: When your side is LYING it means that they know they are wrong
Starts With S wrote:
... Nobody has won or lost yet, this is still up for debate yet Darwinists refuse to believe it. If anybody had won/lost this forum wouldn't exist.
That's a load of crap. The "debate" consists of a group of willfully ignorant people like you who will never accept reality because reality disagrees with your religious views.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#27 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my point. If hardcore Darwinists were able, they would probably burn religious zealots at the stake just like religious zealots burned witches who refuted their views. Funny how similar the two are.
You Christians think everyone in the world is as evil as you. It's simply not the case.

You are obsessed with murdering people who disagree with you.

We simply want to educate.
sillysillysilly

Austin, TX

#28 Jan 3, 2008
"If anybody had won/lost this forum wouldn't exist."

You are silly silly silly. Your "debate" is a political debate. A political debate is ultimately "won" when one side successfully sends God's warriors to kill and enslave the other side.("Go forward Christian Soldier?")

But our "debate" is a scientific debate (and a legal debate when a country like ours has "separation of church and state). Fortunately, our courts are open to evidence instead of being controlled by the One True Church. So when the creationists presented their "evidence", the judge found that creationism was "not science" and could not be taught in a state-supported high school. But no one was ever going to be burned at the stake in this civil (not criminal) case. So the scientific debate was won many years ago, but the political debate continues to be a source of conflict.

"Seems like we're regressing as a society..."

Yes. Our society members are so ignorant about "science" that they persist in trying to make questions about science into political questions. This leads to "conflict" of course.

"Darwinists refuse to believe it"

Well, the Director of Science for the Texas Education Agency was forced to resign because she forwarded an email critical of creationism. So the supporters of evolution are well aware that the political debate is not over yet.
Ossuary

United States

#29 Jan 3, 2008
RMB Furion wrote:
Then why is evolution still debated since it is losing a majority of debates vs ID and creationists?
Ah, RMBuffoon, you are a REAL TREASURE! Utterly priceless, and great entertainment. IDiocy rules!
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#30 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
Galileo lost his case in court too, and had to recant so he wouldn't be burned at the stake. What makes you think the judge in Dover was right?
All of the evidence...including plenty of evidence that some members of the school board were conniving, underhanded, liars.

...And the lack of any evidence to support "ID" as "science".

...And Behe's "dismissal" of stacks of biology papers, an attempt by him to just toss out science results and substitute his beliefs...

...Behe's admission that Astrology would qualify as science under his definition.

...the fact the Behe's position is clearly dictated by his religious beliefs.

...the fact the Behe twists the whole CONCEPT of "irreducible complexity" by his definition that won't consider that removal of a component that would result in a useful...but DIFFERENT... function.

His own examples of "irreducible complexity" have been shown to be faulty. What does he have left with which to make any point?

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#31 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my point. If hardcore Darwinists were able, they would probably burn religious zealots at the stake just like religious zealots burned witches who refuted their views. Funny how similar the two are.
Dawkins seems to be on a mission...Neo Darwinism has no answers to the larger things in life. It has nothing to say with any value as to Love, art, music and the whole gammit of culture and the thirst for life. Not really.

“Pingustopher Walken”

Since: Dec 06

Cornwall, Canada

#32 Jan 3, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You Christians think everyone in the world is as evil as you. It's simply not the case.
You are obsessed with murdering people who disagree with you.
We simply want to educate.
Actually I'm not Christian. I don't follow any religion, I don't think everyone is evil, and as for your last two sentences I feel the exact same way about the Darwinists.

“Pingustopher Walken”

Since: Dec 06

Cornwall, Canada

#33 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think the judge in Dover was right?
My point here was that just because a judge said so doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Ask the hundreds if not thousands if innocent people who go to jail for a crime they did not commit. If our justice system can't even get that right how can they possibly hope to get this right?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#34 Jan 3, 2008
>>>>Starts With S
Actually I'm not Christian. I don't follow any religion.

>>>GIllette
You're lying, We've been through this before with you.

The trite banality of "Christianity is not a relgion, it's a relationship" won't fly around here.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#35 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I'm not Christian. I don't follow any religion, I don't think everyone is evil, and as for your last two sentences I feel the exact same way about the Darwinists.
Well seeing as "Darwinists" is a word made up by the Christian Fundamentalists, I've got to conclude that, just like them, you are incapable of anything but idiocy and lies.
Ossuary

United States

#36 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
My point here was that just because a judge said so doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Ask the hundreds if not thousands if innocent people who go to jail for a crime they did not commit. If our justice system can't even get that right how can they possibly hope to get this right?
One has to question the merits of the plaintiffs' case, when their principal support (the Discovery Institute) urged the Dover Board of Education to drop the matter, when almost all of their own "expert witnesses" declined to support them in court (having already taken their money), and when their chosen "text-book" was proven to be a simple find/replace version of a text-book that had already had its day in court (SCOTUS). Given these facts alone, it would not be difficult to argue that the Dover Board's case was meretricious.

“Pingustopher Walken”

Since: Dec 06

Cornwall, Canada

#37 Jan 3, 2008
Gillette wrote:
>>>>Starts With S
Actually I'm not Christian. I don't follow any religion.
>>>GIllette
You're lying, We've been through this before with you.
The trite banality of "Christianity is not a relgion, it's a relationship" won't fly around here.
Do some research before you make a comment. You are mistaken. Please find the post where I stated I was a Christian.

“Pingustopher Walken”

Since: Dec 06

Cornwall, Canada

#38 Jan 3, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well seeing as "Darwinists" is a word made up by the Christian Fundamentalists, I've got to conclude that, just like them, you are incapable of anything but idiocy and lies.
Would you prefer evolutionists? What would you like to be called?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#39 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you prefer evolutionists? What would you like to be called?
Biologists. Scientists. Educated people.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#40 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
Would you prefer evolutionists? What would you like to be called?
"Educated" would be a good choice.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min deutscher Nationa... 128,034
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 175,501
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Chimney1 106
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Chimney1 139,662
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Thu Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Nov 26 MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Nov 26 The Dude 64

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE