http://www.expelledexposed.com/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-st...michael-shermer

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-st...iew-john-rennie

Fake Moon Landing

Hoax


LMAO

The fact that you can't tell a difference between the postings at conspiracyplanet.com and expelledexposed.com explains a lot to me.

The fact you cant get a joke tells a lot to me.

then you might want to clarify your joke since nobody will get it. it appears you're trying to suggest that all of modern science as supported by scientific american and the national center for science education is a conspiracy, which would just make you look like an ignoramus.

The movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether religious based Intelligent Design / Creationism is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Nazi outlook on science, including theirs and the United States Eugenics policies of the 20th century.
Conspiracy. Your link says "We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none." Conspiracy.

My link claims that man never actually went to the moon....(in my opinion ridiculous) Conspiracy.

When you resort to grade school tactics... ignoramus... you lose credibility.


I actually used to think you were somewhat intelligent. I don't anymore.


GO COWBOYS ! Wooooooooooooooooooooooo! Football rules! Soccer sucks !

so you ARE saying all of modern science is just a rediculous anti-creationist conspiracy. thanks for clarifying.

Ben Stein???? Shouldn't he be a Scientologist?

Why do you believe this propaganda that is just spoon feeding you lies?


"4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents."

Ok. I believe you Scientific American. Thanks for the 'proof'.


"7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. "

oh. Ok. Well then I guess there is no debating it. God had nothing to do with it.



These articles and all the articles on that site are hilarious. They have very little info backing up anything they say. They just have a bunch of filler, a la Return of the King. I guess they tricked a few people into believing them however.... so good for them.

Project Steve anyone?



It's refuting the strawman that theists like to put up, not debating abiogenesis.



They are articles pointing out what a deceptive lying douche Ben Stein is. They are not scientific papers. Regardless, they provide support for most if not all of the claims they make

Haven't seen the movie, glanced through Crows link. I gather from your stance that you believe that a scientist who believes in creationism, or the christian God, should do just fine at any university worldwide.

No? Really? Surprising!!! Looks like Bens point stands on it's own without having to site specific examples. Guys, please- anyone who reads through 95% of the threads in this section of the board would see the hatred science has for creationism. Unless you fellas are not indicative of true minds of science, which I somehow doubt.

Went to 2nd site, here's my opinion;

Usually we lead all our arguments with the best point.

Their lead point? The classroom scene was staged.

GASP, the makers of a film used basic filmology 101 techniques to make a documentary?

The audacity!

Later they make the argument that Ben used walking as a tool to fool the audience into thinking he was speaking from an everyday man's point of view.

Then they accuse the film of being simplistic? Really? The everyday film wasn't complex?


Okay, Scientific America isn't a film mag, so they are mostly ignorant of documentary techniques, so they can be wrong about it. The fact they have such a large part of their arguements be directed towards something they know nothing about, and accuse the film of the same thing..is described by one word: hypocracy.


Next they begin the detailed destruction of the people interviewed in the film. These scientist claim to have been let go, fired, or held back for their religious views( yea, when you make that point in your article, you bring that point to the table )

So the HR departments of these job locations don't admit to firing them for their religious views? Shocking!

Well we all know there would be no litigation for admitting the change in employement status for a person's religious views...



Truth is they may very well have been bad scientist, but the HR department would be a bad place to get the truth...from a magazine that claims at it's foundation the employment of the scientific method.

But I guess when the subject is mocking creationist, no method no matter how bad shouldn't be used.






review: D+

The plus was for their backhanded compliment of saying that the documentary wasn't made with the same quality as a Michael Moore film

LOLOLOL, they thought that was an insult.


Then they make a fat joke....Scientific America, this MUST be a spoof site.

Have I been punked? Did this link take me to the Onion?

40%+ of working US scientists believe in the christian god. i'd say they're holding on to their jobs pretty well.

science could care less what anyone wants to personally believe - unless they want to promote creationism as science. creationism is absolutely not science. that is the only issue here - creationism is religious belief unsupported by ANY scientific evidence, and if it's taught as a "theory" it should be in general religious studies where it belongs, not in science classes. if stein or others want to promote creationism as science of course they are going to get hammered by real science. it's no different than if you were in a prominent scientific position saying science supports belief in the easter bunny. obviously you'd expect to lose status.

So, I would assume your point is then that that site doesn't write good movie reviews? That's all I can really gather from your post. From an outsider's perspective, you seem to be attacking the wrong portion of the OP's post if you were looking to refute anything. What about the first site? You specifically mention going to the 2nd site, does that mean you didn't read the first, or does that mean the 2nd site was easier for you to attack?

Sigh, I saw this thread yesterday and was hoping you guys would have a worthwhile debate over the actual points made in the documentary, and the counter arguments made on the OP's linked web site. I was looking forward to seeing this movie but I'm not going to waste my time if the OP's first link is correct.

But what if that scientist believed the Earth was round 300 hundred years ago? Wouldn't he have been killed, even though he was correct? Science has a long detailed history of snuffing out opposing ideas of the status quo. Even if those ideas are later proven correct.


1970's: scientists said that a new ice age is coming.

1990's: scientists say that they put the decimal in the wrong place and we're actually going to cook, not freeze.

Disagree with either and you are a hater of the truth and should be made fun of or shut up in some other way.

this is pretty fair. although I do think there is some to how vehemently opposed the science community is to creationism. Even if you assume everything evolutionary scientists believe about how life started and the big bang and what not....there is no reason that we know of (yet) that proves god did not light the big bang's fuse.

i did not mind most of this movie (though I don't buy what Stein is selling) but when he went into the Nazi stuff I lost a lot of respect for the movie and Ben Stein. Holding evolutionary science responsible for what the Nazis did is like holding Jesus responsible for the Inquisition.....you cant always control what people do with your theories. It was unnecessary and served no point other than to be sensationalistic.

And yes, I know Michael Moore and other documentarians do this stuff.....but that does not make it right and in this case it took a movie with a good message about open-mindedness and undermined it completely. And that is a shame because stupid stunts like that will only further encourage the scientific community to ignore and deride creationist thought.

Good points.

And religion does not? This is a pot/kettle/black situation going both ways. The only difference is the science community has a long detailed history of humiliating and discrediting those who oppose the status quo. They dont kill anyone.

Religion did kill people for being heretics. and that is a big big difference.

edit: although I do admit that heretic killing is (outside of muslim extremism) very much a defunct practice that will probably never occur again.

maybe 1000+ year ago yes, before anything resembling modern science existed.

however today if a scientist were to provide real evidence supporting ID they would absolutely be embraced by science, particularly in our christian culture. there is no scienctific conspiracy to suppress creationism or ID - the trouble is there is no evidence.

I would like to tell you that I used the second site because it was their best, but you are right, it was easy pickings for me.

The first site is a web site devoted to the single purpose of bashing this movie.. so not really a debatable place to start, unless you want to make the case why would anyone feel the need to make this type of website?

You do know in churches everyday they are teaching creationism, this movie isn't going to open up new people to a new thought.

It clearly was a movie made with the intent to rattle the cages of scientific america ( the community not the mag ) and let them know they can't just fire people for having different views about the world.

The fact that on here as well as academia there is a fully accepted conclusion that creationism is not worthy to be heard shows that the movie has a place.

Like there's only enough oxygen to say one thing, if something else gets said then we will not invent the cure for cancer.

If someone wants to present a different view, why is that anti-science?

Don't forget, it was the Christian community that founded 90% of these colleges to begin with, we like education. We don't like closemindedness.

name one example, keeping in mind that the causes of global warming is a media-hyped idea and there has never been any scientific consensus behind it.

Then the movie should flop.

What are you guys so afraid of?

Ben Stein made a movie, you disagree with the science...so what.

Algore did the same thing, and he got an Oscar and a NOBEL prize...and the science was shown to be false.

Yet you guys gave that one a pass...or at least didn't make a website devoted to debunking Algore's movie.

Me thinketh thou doth protesteth too much

The science community doesn't have a centralized organization to accuse of anything. But science clearly has killed people.

To compare it would be like comparing Math to square dancers, ones a group of losers who will never get laid, the others dance in squares.

I dont disagree with his premise (close-mindedness = bad). I dont like some of the things he did that were unnecessary to that goal. see my previous posts on the last page for more detail.....

I guess my point is that Christian documentarians can be just as manipulative and disingenuous as the M. Moore's of this world.

And the science behind Al Gore's movie has been proved to be inconclusive, not false. Again, it's a big difference.

I never said that. That's my entire point. The scientific community, a la CrowTRobot, acts holier than thou... and the fact is they don't know near as much for certain as they think they do.

examples of the bolded statement, por favor. not saying you are wrong....would just like to see what you are thinking of when you say this.

and again, this is that science or scientists or agents of science have killed people for disagreeing with them. not that the atom bomb killed people or something like that.

you mean opposed to creationism being taught or promoted as science, since it's not science.





evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis or the big bang. different things that have little or nothing to do with the ID debate.

I know that is why I said both ways. I guess we were making the same point basically.

This is absolutely not true.

i have talked to enough people who just think it shouldnt be allowed in a school under any heading period. though I understand your point.

as for the other thing....if god could have had a hand in the big bang he could have had a hand in anything. really, it is back to something unprovable....but if we shape the argument this way we might get religious people to see that evolution theory and big bang theory are not really incompatible with the notion of a divine creator. and that would be a great thing to have happen imo.

i never gave gore a pass, and i'm sure there are plenty of sites created by scientists pointing out the poor use of science in an inconvenient truth.

and gore won the nobel "peace" prize, which is a media hype award, not a scientific one.

Heh I thought so!

I'm sure the site was created to bash the movie, but that doesn't mean it can't serve any other purpose. If I was to create a SF Giants site, it would be with the intent to bash (how could i help myself?), but I would still have accurate information on there. After all, one would think the best way to truly hurt/disparage someone/something, would be to discredit it with facts. When I truly want to shut a Giants fan up, I don't say, 'oh yeah? well you guys suck!'. Generally I just point out the fact that they haven't won a WS since moving to SF 50 years ago, and that shuts them up. (obligatory PMJ baseball reference in post)

I thought the site did a convincing job of debunking some of the claims in the movie, but if the site was incorrect or misrepresenting information, I'd like to know obviously.

the thing is we have plenty of evidence that evolution is an undirected mechanical proscess, and none that even remotely suggests it might have been directed or designed. a creator is unnecessary to explain evolution, and injecting one just because it might be possible is unscientific.

you really think if someone discovered actual empirical evidence for intelligent design in our media-hype-driven christian culture that it would even be possible for anyone or anything to suppress it? no chance.

Hey you're taking away all my material...

I think we both understand your point, it's valid.

But you also understand mine, it's not necessarily accurate.

Let's get back to making fun of Dawkins, that is so much more fun.

Now just fit the big bang into the 6,000 year age of the earth and Whammy it's smores and Kumbaya by the campfire!



Yes I am this stupid!

So how exactly do we fit the words of your beloved mentor Little Dickie Dawkins who clearly said in this movie, while being paid for his opinion, that it is possible for SPACE ALIEN's to have planted life on earth and be the source of all life on earth?


I guess he is just a crackpot for even thinking such things, let alone going on film and espousing it? Or is it something more, something like..........bias?



And in fact, isn't this the real reason you are so anti-Ben Stein, the Jew, because he dared allow Richard Dawkins to speak without his medicine and admit to the world that he doesn't care what the truth is as long as it's not God? The very foundation of our rights in this country?


Well I for one am not going to sit around and let you bad mouth the United States of America!

Gentleman!

Humans evoluted from monkeys.

if you dont believe it you are dumb.


sine die

dawkin's is not my mentor, and if you have scientific evidence that it's impossible for earth life to have been seeded by aliens you should speak up.

Really? He is promoting a purely scientific rationale for why ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. He never makes any judgments on believers in religious doctrine (other than the fact that they believe in what is in essence silly superstition). You, the christians of this country, believe that we (crowtrobot and atheists like him) will burn for eternity in hell because you're right and we're wrong. Who is holier than thou? And considering the phrase itself originated from the religious believing they were holier than the less religious, well....

You said earlier in the thread that scientists don't listen to media-hype-driven stuff.

This made me laugh. Thank you.


you know... since you were trying to make a post about how you're not 'holier than thou'.

Actually your line is supposed to be that humans have a common ancestor with monkeys, which is why there are still monkeys on Earth.

You should be better at your beliefs. Maybe visit more atheist propaganda sites like "scientific" american. They will help you in your quest.

my point was if there was actual evidence no individuals with an agenda would be able to suppress it. it would be all over the media, and (after being validated) would be embraced by general science.

HAHAHAHAHA. This is gold.

If anybody suggested the earth was round 300 years ago they would have been repeating a fact that was well established for 2000 years. The fact that the earth is a globe has been accepted well before Christ was supposedly born. This of course makes the flat earth found in the Bible exceptional daft.

In fact Eratothenes (sp) was measuring the radius of the earth circa 250BC. Not something you tend to do with a flat earth.


The people that have been doing the killing of scientists are known as Christians. They did it by killing what they called 'heretics'. An example was the Inquisition. Similar to putting Galileo under house arrest for for the last 10 years of his life for daring to suggest that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe.


It is people (albeit scientists in many cases) that suppress opposing ideas. It is human nature to defend an idea that you've devoted your life to.

It is the scientific method that accomplishes the later proving.

Hopefully one day you will understand that science, the scientific method, evolution etc cannot be personified.



Ummm no. Take 2 seconds to look at the facts and you will find that global cooling was never accepted in the scientific community as a viable theory. 2 seconds. www.google.com. Try it



Somewhat similar to the way you conduct yourself, no?



I rest my case.

Your entire post is indicative of how the god of the gaps manages to survive

Wow. Most of this is the same old same old, but I absolutely loved this:

Really? He is promoting a purely scientific rationale for why ID and creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. He never makes any judgments on believers in religious doctrine (other than the fact that they believe in what is in essence silly superstition). You, the christians of this country, believe that we (crowtrobot and atheists like him) will burn for eternity in hell because you're right and we're wrong. Who is holier than thou? And considering the phrase itself originated from the religious believing they were holier than the less religious, well....


What a mess. And this:

dawkin's is not my mentor, and if you have scientific evidence that it's impossible for earth life to have been seeded by aliens you should speak up.


I won't even bother laughing, not because I agree because I think it's such a beautiful representation of how f ing inconsistent you guys can be. It's like the idea that everything could have had God behind is is so ingrained to be incorrect that they have no idea that it's not impossible, and then they slip in this argument and pretend, or just aren't aware, that it could be applied to God as well. It's not really mind boggling, that's not the right word, it's just stupid, and it just goes to show that science, for some people, is more than just a method it's a belief system, which they will never see. They are as blinded by the mouthpieces of science as I am by faith.

And the notion that ID would be accepted if it could be scientifically proven is the biggest lie I have heard so far in here. Or the notion that scientist don't buy into the supposed causes of global warming, or the new ice age for that matter. So, all haven't, which is what you will say, that' great, that's grand, ,meanwhile, that which is not consensus is being taught as fact to 1st grade on up everyday. Which is fine, I expect my daughter to learn whatever worthless bullshit is on the new agenda, but call it what it is.

And the notion that science hasn't had a hand in killing millions of people is wildly inaccurate. Atom bomb, anyone? Every crazy destructive weapon of war, anyone? Chemical warfare, anyone? Bioogical warfare?To deny that would be on par with me denying that science is in fact responsible for the fact that I can freeze and then heat in 3 minutes my frozen ravioli. It is- and the brilliant people behind it- responsible. I am sure if you talked to the actual scientists behind the atom bomb they would take no blame, they would say it was all in the name of science, even as you guys are vehemently saying the opposite.

Some of you have literally been turned out by science, you are it's bitch, to be used and manipulated however it sees fit. Enjoy the darkness in your world of enlightenment, I will, as always, observe from my perch of truth and wonder at how silly and dumb smart people can be.

wow, some seriously insane stuff there lois, even for you. nobody claimed earth was seeded by aliens, or even that it's likely, and nobody claimed it's impossible that "god" (in the generic sense) could have done it. both ideas are treated exactly the same way by science - as hypothesis lacking evidence. dawkins comments in expelled are trivial (and apparently taken out context in the film). there is no inconsistency. quit whining about straw men.

if you are referring to evolution in the sense of human descent from other species through modification, that has a virtually unanimous consensus among scientists. the evidence for that is conclusive. if you really cared about truth you'd objectively personally study the evidence to the best of your ability instead of taking creationists' word for it, but of course you don't care.



like guns science doesn't kill people. people kill people. science is just a method, and it has certainly been used way more for good than bad for humanity (unless you want to argue that people had a higher quality of life in the middle ages).

So you're saying there IS a chance?