Thread: Expelled

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Jeff777 do you have an actual site dedicated to the sumerians that you visit? If so I would love the link to it.

I don't have an actual site I go to, but I did find these videos for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6yMDqmlc50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhj6J...eature=related

ha, thank you very much, these will do fine

Cheers!

Originally Posted by 27

Amazing how all these people can judge the film without even seeing it.

I already gave my review of the trailer. If they're that sleazy about selling it, the product itself has got to be a piece of work. They invoked the friggin Holocaust in the trailer. By internet law, they've already lost

I can't even tell you how many times I've seen atheists do the same. "Hitler said he was doing God's work," and such. You still can't judge a film before you've seen it.

[QUOTE=The Cusp;722256]The man who discovered DNA (and won a Nobel Prize for it) later wrote in a book that the odds of DNA randomly assembling it's self from from the primordial goop is about as likely as a fully functioning 747 jet assembling it's self in a junkyard during a hurricane.[QUOTE]
If you're referring to Crick, he was Watson's monkey-boy. If you're referring to Watson, he either never said that because he's a diehard atheist (my bio teacher met him), or it is a quote taken out of context, because it is impossible for useful DNA to simply assemble. PNA, however can. That then evolved into RNA which assembled DNA.

Originally Posted by 27

I can't even tell you how many times I've seen atheists do the same. "Hitler said he was doing God's work," and such. You still can't judge a film before you've seen it.

Given a ten minute trailer constructed with the purpose of summarizing and advertising the film (and presenting probably more than 10% of the footage, depending on runtime) I think I can make a pretty fair assessment. Also, given the film's context within an 80+ year unsuccessful movement to discredit evolution and bypass the Establishment Clause by any means necessary, again I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect from the film. Are you really anticipating any surprises here?

Look, I believe in evolution, and I don't expect this movie to change that. But I'm open minded enough to not assume anything about the film before I see it.

Originally Posted by 27

Look, I believe in evolution, and I don't expect this movie to change that. But I'm open minded enough to not assume anything about the film before I see it.

Seeing ben stein in that outfit destroyed what little credibility that video had

Yeah, it's not like he's ever done comedy before.


Bueller...


Bueller...

Originally Posted by 27

Yeah, it's not like he's ever done comedy before.


Bueller...


Bueller...

Lol. Personally, I think everyone should reserve judgment before they see the film.

Originally Posted by 27

Look, I believe in evolution, and I don't expect this movie to change that. But I'm open minded enough to not assume anything about the film before I see it.

But the thing is, no new material has come from the Creationist community. Every five or ten years, they just recycle old garbage in a vain attempt to "disprove" evolution.

I think Taosaur can know exactly what to expect.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Lol. Personally, I think everyone should reserve judgment before they see the film.

Then why make a trailer?

To get people intrested in the film so they'll go and see it?

And if someone doesn't like what they see in the trailer then that's their opinion and right to judge based on the material presented and decide whether or not to see the film, correct?

It's their right to chose to be ignorant of alternative ideas, of course.

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

If you're referring to Crick, he was Watson's monkey-boy. If you're referring to Watson, he either never said that because he's a diehard atheist (my bio teacher met him), or it is a quote taken out of context, because it is impossible for useful DNA to simply assemble. PNA, however can. That then evolved into RNA which assembled DNA.

I was referring to Crick. He suggested DNA had an extraterrestrial origins. Now I wish I hadn't brought it up...

Originally Posted by 27

It's their right to chose to be ignorant of alternative ideas, of course.

No being a creationist is not a choice.

Being a creationist is like being gay your just born that way.They cant help it..

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

No being a creationist is not a choice.

Being a creationist is like being gay your just born that way.They cant help it..

I hope you were joking. If you weren't then I feel sad for you.

I think it's by far fair game to have a documentary about creationism just like it is for darwinism, I just don't like people who don't beleive it just because it conflicts there morals.

Though what do creationists think about the fossils in the ground, do you think god just left them there for the lols . and all the diffrent dating techniques just happen to be wrong.

Originally Posted by De-lousedInTheComatorium

I hope you were joking. If you weren't then I feel sad for you.

lol ofcourse i was joking. jeeze dont take things to seriously man

Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod

I think it's by far fair game to have a documentary about creationism just like it is for darwinism, I just don't like people who don't beleive it just because it conflicts there morals.

Though what do creationists think about the fossils in the ground, do you think god just left them there for the lols . and all the diffrent dating techniques just happen to be wrong.

I think most creationists believe the fossils are of things alive before the flood. However idk what they think about the dating techniques besides that they are inaccurate.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I think most creationists believe the fossils are of things alive before the flood. However idk what they think about the dating techniques besides that they are inaccurate.

Yeah, even the guy who came up with "Carbon dating" said that his method wasn't entirely accurate and was flawed.

Joking, right?

You can't deny carbon dating. Potassium and uranium, yes. but not carbon. C14 decays at a known rate. Therefore, you look at how much is left, and work backwards to find how old it is. 10% error rate. Maximum range of 50-70,000 years.

On a side note, I don't see how you can explain away the fossils of extinct things. Did Noah forget the gentle dinosaurs or something? Not to mention the complete lack of geological evidence for anything larger than a local Mediterranean flood. Genesis=fail

Originally Posted by 27

It's their right to chose to be ignorant of alternative ideas, of course.

Excuse you?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

No being a creationist is not a choice.

Being a creationist is like being gay your just born that way.They cant help it..

This isn't the lounge...

Originally Posted by De-lousedInTheComatorium

I hope you were joking. If you weren't then I feel sad for you.

Hahahaha

Originally Posted by LucidDreamGod

I think it's by far fair game to have a documentary about creationism just like it is for darwinism, I just don't like people who don't beleive it just because it conflicts there morals.

Though what do creationists think about the fossils in the ground, do you think god just left them there for the lols . and all the diffrent dating techniques just happen to be wrong.

Creationists think one of three things:

1. God's faith test
2. Devil's evil
3. Animals before the flood (THen why aren't ancient human remains found outside the Pleiostine?)

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I think most creationists believe the fossils are of things alive before the flood. However idk what they think about the dating techniques besides that they are inaccurate.

Neh.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Yeah, even the guy who came up with "Carbon dating" said that his method wasn't entirely accurate and was flawed.

Carbon dating isn't "flawed" unless the object of age dating has had:

1. Carbon added
2. Carbon removed
3. Has no carbon

And scientists can tell if carbon has been added or removed by comparing parent to daughter ratios.

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

You can't deny carbon dating. Potassium and uranium, yes. but not carbon. C14 decays at a known rate. Therefore, you look at how much is left, and work backwards to find how old it is. 10% error rate. Maximum range of 50-70,000 years.

On a side note, I don't see how you can explain away the fossils of extinct things. Did Noah forget the gentle dinosaurs or something? Not to mention the complete lack of geological evidence for anything larger than a local Mediterranean flood. Genesis=fail

Actually Potassium and Argon dating are WAAY more accurate then C14 dating, and have a ~5 Billion year dating range