Expelled Exposed

[crowTrobot 2]

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

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Fake Moon LandingHoaxLMAO

[solderz 0]

Fake Moon LandingHoaxLMAO

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

[HollywoodAFD 0]

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.

[crowTrobot 2]

Fake Moon LandingHoaxLMAO

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.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

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 !

[crowTrobot 2]

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.

[timwakefield 68]

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

[brvheart 1,751]

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

[brvheart 1,751]

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

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.

[KramitDaToad 0]

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'.

Project Steve anyone?

"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.

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

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.

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

[Loismustdie 0]

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

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 filmLOLOLOL, 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?

[crowTrobot 2]

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.

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.

[PMJackson21 0]

Went to 2nd site, here's my opinion;Usually we lead all our arguments with the best point.

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.

[brvheart 1,751]

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.

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

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.

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.

[brvheart 1,751]

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

Science has a long detailed history of snuffing out opposing ideas of the status quo.

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.

[crowTrobot 2]

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?

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

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.

[crowTrobot 2]

Science has a long detailed history of snuffing out opposing ideas of the status quo. Even if those ideas are later proven correct.

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.

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

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

[Balloon guy 158]

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.

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.

[CaneBrain 95]

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

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.