Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Good news and bad news for Expelled
National Center for Science Education ^ | January 1st, 2009

Posted on 01/01/2009 10:56:30 AM PST by CE2949BB

As 2008 drew to a close, the good news for the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was that their creationist propaganda movie was getting a bit of press again. The bad news is that it was in the lists of the worst movies of 2008. The Onion's A.V. Club (December 16, 2008), was quickest out of the gate, commenting, "There are terrible movies, and then there are terrible movies that cause harm to society by feeding into its ignorance. Nathan Frankowski's odious anti-evolution documentary belongs in the latter category. ... Few moments in cinema in 2008 were as shameless and disgusting as the Expelled sequence where Stein solemnly visits a Nazi death camp and unsubtly links 'survival of the fittest' theory to the Holocaust."

(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: creationism; evolution; expelled; moviereview; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: Tenacity7
Here’s a clue: mutations result in a loss of information and there is not one single observation where a mutation resulted in a gain of information.

Mutations result in different information. Sometimes it is beneficial and sometimes it is detrimental. More often it is neutral.

Your hangup regarding new" information is bogus, as is your "loss of information" requirement. Both are based on the religious idea of devolution since the "fall" -- and neither has anything to do with science.

21 posted on 01/01/2009 11:58:38 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Any Creationist would be hard-pressed to explain the nearly complete fossil evidence of horse evolution.

All occurring in a relatively short period of time.


22 posted on 01/01/2009 11:59:41 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
“Sorry to have to break this to you, but the theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. It is not contradicted by any credible scientific evidence.”

LOL!!! When you look CLOSELY at the “evidence” it's nothing merely more than outcome based BIAS.

“You oppose it because it doesn't support your particular religious belief.”

LOL! “Religion” has nothing to do with it. That is the BEAUTY of true science. It is your GODLESS beliefs that drive you to evolution because there is NO EVIDENCE to support it. NONE! ZILCHO!

“At least be honest in your objections and don't pretend you have any real interest in science.”

Actually you are the dishonest one. You try to frame my objection to YOUR “religion” of atheism as the reason I reject evolution. I reject evolution because objective SCIENCE does NOT support the hypothesis of evolution. I wouldn't even dignify evolution as a theory. By proper definition Evolution is merely an hypothesis. Than again, you wouldn't know that since you are not a knowledgeable person.

You need to clear your head of nonsense and get acquainted with genuine science. I'm sorry to admit though, that I have NO TIME for morons that believe in evolution. It's like trying to have an intelligent conversation with an Obama addict. You simply can't reason with unreasonable people. I lack the patience and time it would take to get through ... so like Obama supporters I see evolutionists the SAME WAY - terminally dumbed donw by CHOICE.

23 posted on 01/01/2009 12:01:56 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
LOL!

Evolution sure doesn't explain ANYTHING!

But you can believe in the tooth fairy too.

It doesn't bother me.

Be terminally dumbed down.

It's no wonder the U.S. is at 24th and 25th place worldwide when compared to other industrialized countries. It SHOWS. It is painfully clear when the topic of evolution comes up. Evolution is NOT based on science. It is a BELIEF that is mere wishful thinking - not even a theory by scientific definition. Oh, I forgot, evolutionists like liberals are SELECTIVE when they define things - when it's convenient they redefine truth to be whatever they want.

24 posted on 01/01/2009 12:05:48 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Why would anyone be embarrassed to know something factual?


25 posted on 01/01/2009 12:06:22 PM PST by DevNet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Than again, you wouldn't know that since you are not a knowledgeable person.

Saying that Coyoteman is not a knowledgeable person is perhaps the most assinine statement you could make. You can certainly disagree with him without making a fool of yourself. Or maybe you can't.

26 posted on 01/01/2009 12:13:10 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB

Poll: 77% of Americans Blame Media for Making Economic Crisis Worse
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2157229/posts


27 posted on 01/01/2009 12:13:52 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I reject evolution because objective SCIENCE does NOT support the hypothesis of evolution.

According to one source, "only a miniscule 0.15% of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism."

Than again, you wouldn't know that since you are not a knowledgeable person.

That's Dr. Coyoteman to you. And at the Ph.D. level half of my study was evolution and fossil man, and closely related subjects.

Perhaps your objection isn't so much scientific as that I don't accept your particular religious beliefs, eh?

But then if you are so well read on the science of evolution, please post some of your objections and lay off the personal attacks.

The following, from your post, do not constitute a scientific argument, nor are they likely to convince anyone:

you are the dishonest one
you are not a knowledgeable person
You need to clear your head of nonsense
morons
unreasonable
terminally dumbed donw

Care to try again, posting evidence instead of personal attacks?
28 posted on 01/01/2009 12:16:56 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB
A piece of crap movie. I used to have some respect for Stein as a pundit, then I realized he had gone off the deep end.

Truly sad.

(BTW, see my Tagline)

29 posted on 01/01/2009 12:17:30 PM PST by DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB

They must have done something right, the education establshment finds them important and dangerous enough to try to “ridicule them to death” strategy that has worked so well for them in the past when they have no logical argument.


30 posted on 01/01/2009 12:30:03 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

I have a feeling that you could be presented with a time lapse video taken by God showing evolution and you still wouldn’t believe it.


31 posted on 01/01/2009 12:31:53 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; nmh

Most of what is objectionable and laughable about the “theory of evolution” has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but rather the historical storytelling that is based on the presumption that there is no God, and that managed to get itself the moniker of “theory of evolution” so that the proponents could ridicule anybody who saw that the emperor had no clothes by denouncing them as anti-science zealots who opposed a proven scientific theory.


32 posted on 01/01/2009 12:33:59 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nmh; Dog Gone

There’s another thread today about a significant glitch in part of the “scientific theory” of evolution.


33 posted on 01/01/2009 12:35:32 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

Content! The message was everything.


34 posted on 01/01/2009 12:58:26 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

A link would be helpful.


35 posted on 01/01/2009 1:01:06 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
evolution is supported by mountains of evidence

Read: molehills. Information theory alone destroys the theory of evolution. You be honest, and deal with the evidence. And information theory is science...ignored by the evolution establishment because it is unanswerable by evolution.

36 posted on 01/01/2009 1:01:45 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

How does information theory destroy the theory of evolution?


37 posted on 01/01/2009 1:08:55 PM PST by DevNet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
The origin of information is problematical. Information is not a property of matter; it is not a property of energy.

For instance, DNA is no more information that the pages of a book. But both are the media for carrying the information. When DNA is replicated, codons of three nucleotides always equate to one amino acid. And they always equate to that amino acids. Where did the lexicon of codons and amino acids come from?

Einstein asked that very question, and came to the conclusion that there was only one explanation for any bridge between Matter and Meaning...and that was a Mind. The very first alleged mutation...changing information...had to operate on existing information. (You can't change something that doesn't exist). That information has to come from somewhere. And there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of information...especially in volumes that exists in all of life.

38 posted on 01/01/2009 1:33:49 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
I know a great many scientists who are believers and who work in fields related to evolution who have no problems giving God credit for Creation.

Shhhhh... truth not allowed.

39 posted on 01/01/2009 1:40:37 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Come on...the old Eohippus (I prefer that old name) was shortest, so it died first when the flood waters came in. It also couldn't swim as well, with those extra toes, and it couldn't eat the lush tree leaves as well as it floated up.

As the waters got deeper, each transitional...uh, I mean, species living side-by-side...died off in order. That's why the ones closest to modern horses are at the top, and the others are deeper.

Or something like that!

40 posted on 01/01/2009 1:44:45 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson