Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Shirakawasuna wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
I say again....

This movie is an absolute don't-miss; aside from everything else, it provides a definitive answer to the question, "Is there such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ (Dawkins)?"

OK, I get it now. At first I thought you were georgeob1 and didn't understand what the heck he'd be going on about .

I wonder why you thought insulting Dawkins in such an infantile manner needed repetition...

True. Dawkins' own words were sufficient.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

If Chuck Darwin had never lived, Dawkins' life might have been differernt; he might have put the 180 IQ to some rational use and made some sort of a contribution to the world.

Yeah, like not studied animal behavior, come up with some novel evolutionary theory, and written numerous books inspiring others to appreciate science and recognize the vacuity of creationism and its bastard children.

What a jerk, that Dawkins. Let's see if we can act a little more like children with the ability to cover it up with more verbose writing.

neologist wrote:

True. Dawkins' own words were sufficient.

lol, it's Cheap Shots at Dawkins Week! No substance required!

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

True. Dawkins' own words were sufficient.

What words would these be, exactly?

P.S. Anybody want to know why Ken Miller isn't in the film?

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999

I think we all know why Ken Miller isn't in the film. It's because his inclusion would completely ruin the film's entire premise, which was bullshit to begin with.

0 Replies

More rational discourse and restrained analysis from those who style themselves as above partisanship & motivated only by reason on these issues, and who condemn personal attacks or denigration -- when they are done by others.

Why do you care so much?

0 Replies

No, seriously, what are you talking about? What scene makes Dawkins look like an idiot?

This wouldn't be the scene where Richard Dawkins talks about aliens seeding life on Earth, would it? Well, he was only answering a question posed to him where he was asked to describe a situation where Intelligent Design would be possible and a scientific issue.

What? Answering a question is a sign of idiocy now?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

No, seriously, what are you talking about? What scene makes Dawkins look like an idiot?

This wouldn't be the scene where Richard Dawkins talks about aliens seeding life on Earth, would it? Well, he was only answering a question posed to him where he was asked to describe a situation where Intelligent Design would be possible and a scientific issue.

What? Answering a question is a sign of idiocy now?

Not so much his speculation about seeding as his assumption of linear cause and effect.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
No, seriously, what are you talking about? What scene makes Dawkins look like an idiot?

This wouldn't be the scene where Richard Dawkins talks about aliens seeding life on Earth, would it? Well, he was only answering a question posed to him where he was asked to describe a situation where Intelligent Design would be possible and a scientific issue.

What? Answering a question is a sign of idiocy now?
Not so much his speculation about seeding as his assumption of linear cause and effect.

Uh? What? Isn't the ID argument that everything that exists is created. Isn't that even more linear?

Wasn't he requested to speculate? Can't hold it against him if it was requested.

T
K
O

0 Replies

lol, linear cause and effect. I suppose this is in opposition to star-shaped cause and effect or maybe little bunny-shaped cause and effect?

The mere invention of alternatives doesn't make them intelligent or reasonable Wink

.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

neologist wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
No, seriously, what are you talking about? What scene makes Dawkins look like an idiot?

This wouldn't be the scene where Richard Dawkins talks about aliens seeding life on Earth, would it? Well, he was only answering a question posed to him where he was asked to describe a situation where Intelligent Design would be possible and a scientific issue.

What? Answering a question is a sign of idiocy now?
Not so much his speculation about seeding as his assumption of linear cause and effect.

Uh? What? Isn't the ID argument that everything that exists is created. Isn't that even more linear?

Wasn't he requested to speculate? Can't hold it against him if it was requested.

T
K
O

I don't consider myself a proponent of ID, nor do I think creation must fit into a linear model. Why should our thinking place limits on God?

I've opined before that Stein used only the parts of the interviews that would advance his case. Nevertheless, he beat Dawkins on that one.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

lol, linear cause and effect. I suppose this is in opposition to star-shaped cause and effect or maybe little bunny-shaped cause and effect?

The mere invention of alternatives doesn't make them intelligent or reasonable .

So you find no limitations in the linear concept?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Not so much his speculation about seeding as his assumption of linear cause and effect.

Please, you must expound on your point. Are you suggesting that Dawkins should have suggested we evolve into highly intelligent gods, travel back in time and seed life on the Earth?

And how exactly did Stein beat Dawkins on this point? Tricking someone into an interview under false pretenses? Is that what you mean? Because I fail to see how Stein made a valid unassailable argument against Dawkins. He didn't. What did he do to argue against Dawkins' point? What did he do to argue that ID was a valid scientific viewpoint?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So you find no limitations in the linear concept?

I find your implication of alternatives as if Dawkins is a silly boy for not including them quite hilarious. Unless you actually have something to offer, so I'm waiting. You didn't contradict my joke of bunny causality Wink

.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

neologist wrote:
So you find no limitations in the linear concept?

I find your implication of alternatives as if Dawkins is a silly boy for not including them quite hilarious. Unless you actually have something to offer, so I'm waiting. You didn't contradict my joke of bunny causality .

Oh, that was a joke?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Oh, that was a joke?

lol, do you think everyone else makes as inane of points as you do?

0 Replies

Inane is your word.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Inane is your word.

It is his indeed. Perhaps you can now begin to understand the game he is playing here.

0 Replies

Yes, it's the game of meeting pettiness in kind. Aren't you tired of misrepresenting me, georgeob1? You know that I don't just let you do it and get away with it.

So we have some random anti-Dawkins statements and no willingness to put substance behind them - three responses from neologist, one vague and to the point, the rest petty or useless. Hooray!

0 Replies

The film has quietly faded into the woodwork. I think that multidisciplanary programs at several Universities will do more to keep it in memory than will the very IDjits who filmed it.

0 Replies

Film 207: How to sink gobs of monkey into a failure of a propaganda film

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Yes, it's the game of meeting pettiness in kind. Aren't you tired of misrepresenting me, georgeob1? You know that I don't just let you do it and get away with it.

So we have some random anti-Dawkins statements and no willingness to put substance behind them - three responses from neologist, one vague and to the point, the rest petty or useless. Hooray!

Actually I have tried fairly hard to grasp your central meaning here. It wasn't until I finally figured out that you were playing a game of gotcha and one up, that I realized you weren't seriously discussing the subject at hand, and were instead looking for some kind of juvenile satisfaction in a contest. I don't fault you particularly for that, however, I am not interested in the game.

Finally, I will readily concede your superiority in the pettiness department.

0 Replies

Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know