Trailer: ‘Creation’ — ‘You’ve Killed God, Sir’

bighollywood.breitbart.com ^ | 07/18/2009 | Big Hollywood

[RFEngineer]

“Ummm..., I think he’s talking about “sound-bite science” of Evolution.... LOL...”

Really? It’s quite a bit more than a “sound bite” if you guys are still arguing about it 150 years later, don’t you think?

[tpanther]

“There are reasons why consensus is important”.

Except of course when consensus doesn’t support the evo-liberal position. Then it’s thrown out the window.

If the majority of people believe in intelligence and design in science, moreover the majority normal folks want their children to learn it in public school, well then you see consensus then no longer becomes so important.

Like nailing jello to a wall.

And speaking of “real doctors”...we see more and more people embracing accupunture, and other non-western accepted norms and consensus. The current model tends to be writing a pill for every ailment after the fact.

And I’m reminded of a rather cozy arrangement when the pharmaceutical reps come out and preen at the doc offices.

[metmom]

If the majority of people believe in intelligence and design in science, moreover the majority normal folks want their children to learn it in public school, well then you see consensus then no longer becomes so important.

Consensus? Consensus? What's that?

Ve must shofe our agenda down zeir throats, all for zeir own gut, of course.

Vat ze parents vant is of no consequence.

[metmom]

If the majority of people believe in intelligence and design in science, moreover the majority normal folks want their children to learn it in public school, well then you see consensus then no longer becomes so important.

PWND.

[metmom]

Consensus in the medical community?

History is rife with examples of consensus in the medical community.

[tpanther]

Sound Science doesn’t need Hollywood. “Creation Science” however, needs all the props, smoke, mirrors, and an audience with a gullible and non-inquisitive nature - just like most Hollywood blockbusters.

However, if I were to pick a movie for “Creation Science” types, I submit that “Elmer Gantry” would be a good one.

---

Well there you go, this coming from you further illustrates normal people are on the right track.

If evolution is so strong, why do evos have to sue normal people and close down debate?

Don’t answer, it was a rhetorical question.

[metmom]

You were saying about consensus and AGW?

Schools foster climate illiteracy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295637/posts

I sure hope they teach the rest of science better than they teach this.

[Star Traveler]

Well, the same kind of so-called “science” that they use for AGW is the very same kind that is used for Evolution, too. The only difference is that these pseudo-scientists perfected this kind of “fake science” with Evolution first (over the decades) and now they’re using it with AGW...

[stormer]

Don’t mention it.

[stormer]

Who said anything about random? Undirected, yes; random, no. For example, if I randomly throw a ball, it will fall to Earth regardless of the direction I throw. Its downward trajectory is not random - if it were, the ball could continue up, or go right or left. Other factors may come into play (environmental pressures), such as wind speed, updrafts, etc., but the ball will drop.

[stormer]

Non sequitur. If there were more Mariner fans than Yankee fans, would the Mariners win the World Series?

[stormer]

Why? You don’t need to look into the fossil record to see such things.

[stormer]

500 years ago the church was burning heretics at the stake. We're all “bust(ing) a gut” about that now, aren't we.

[stormer]

The point is, that no matter how overwhelming evidence may be, a certain number of people are going to discard that evidence.

[grey_whiskers]

"...by...William Vance Trollinger"

How ironic of a name.

[Star Traveler]

Much worse for his descendants... especially nowadays... :-)

[stormer]

You are perfectly free to develop a theory that can compete academically with the theory of evolution; keep in mind, it must consider all evidence and be falsifiable. The Nobel Committee awaits (with a fat check).

[stormer]

As it stands, there is no science in “creation science”.

[ColdWater]

The Theory of a Flat Earth (a theory) explains the mechanism by which the Flat Earth (a fact) takes place.

Actually, NOT a theory. It has been falsified. UCANSEE that, right?

[stormer]

See post 57.