Watch the Super Trailer here
HINT: It's not what you think, it's much worse.
Alias Barack Obama: a lie is born: The greatest identity fraud in history Paperback – July 10, 2012
What did states vote for in November 2024?
-
American Thinker By Wendi Strauch Mahoney The November election brought
numerous hotly debated topics to the ballot. Controversial issues on the
2024 ball...
15 comments:
Yes. I think this movie will be a lying "mockumentary". But I fear that it's worse than that.
Highly dishonest film-making
Expelled
Both comments are useless. Hazy speculation and unsupported accusations. This does no one any good. Provide real information or none at all, please.
Real information is now available:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
“Think for yourself and question authority.” --Timothy Leary
There's nothing like first-hand experience. (A mind is a terrible thing to waste.) Don't hand over the privilege of making up your own mind to other people.
Go see the movie...then decide.
"Go see the movie...then decide."
That would be silly. The movie obviously presents only one side of the picture. You can't "decide" without hearing both sides. You can hear both sides out here in the real world and the Expelled side is mainly a lie.
You are wrong: both sides were presented equally (and expertly). It's a film worth seeing for those who like first-hand information. Fun to watch, too.
"both sides were presented equally"
Riiiight. They kept asking Dawkins how could "intelligent design" be correct and then they ridicule him for coming up with a real scientific answer instead of "God did it".
And they really presented how Martin Luther's attitude towards the Jews as expressed in his book did not influence Hitler at all.
"One of the highlights of Expelled is the interview with famed atheist Richard Dawkins. It may be the only time you will ever see Dawkins visibly perturbed and almost at a loss for words. Ben Stein managed to pull what might even be considered an admission from Dawkins that some intelligent designer may have created everything but that he, she or it would have to have evolved first. The double talk aside it is a moment well worth the ticket price alone."
http://tinyurl.com/5rzckm
PS: This wasn't a documentary about either Hitler or Luther.
"Dawkins visibly perturbed and almost at a loss for words"
Yes. Apparently Ben Stein pestered him with such stupid questions that he was hard pressed to try to give an answer that might make any sense to such an idiot.
"admission from Dawkins that some intelligent designer may have created everything but that he, she or it would have to have evolved first"
And this idea was first proposed by "intelligent design" advocates some years ago in an attempt to get around the Supreme Court decision against creationism.
"This wasn't a documentary about either Hitler ..."
It was an attempt to prove that "science leads you to killing people" (to quote Ben Stein). Such stupidity.
"Apparently Ben Stein pestered him...": Where did you read that?
Good for Dawkins...he got around the Supreme Court!
Gosh, you'd think the scientists in the movie wouldn't have liked being called murderers...bad enough they were fired.
"Good for Dawkins...he got around the Supreme Court!"
You have no idea what you are talking about.
"you'd think the scientists in the movie wouldn't have liked being called murderers"
You have no idea what you are talking about. Ben Stein said this recently in an interview about scientists who accept evolution.
"bad enough they were fired"
But, of course, this was supposed to refer to "intelligent design" scientists, but it's a lie.
"Apparently Ben Stein pestered him..."
You ignored me when I asked you where you read that.
"admission from Dawkins that some intelligent designer may have created everything but that he, she or it would have to have evolved first"
You're the one who said that this idea was an attempt to get around the Supreme Court.
You refer to an interview, I am talking about the film.
If you had actually watched the film, you would know that the scientists were not let go for legitimate reasons.
"If you had actually watched the film, you would know that the scientists were not let go for legitimate reasons."
How would you know? Did they "tell the other side" in the movie? What percentage of supposedly tenure-track astronomy professors actually get tenure? Why didn't he have graduate students making progress? Why didn't he have grants to support research and graduate students? Why was an inappropriate paper published in that journal? The editor was not an employee of the Smithsonian and he did not lose his privileges at the Smithsonian. Why was Crocker not rehired the next year? Because she was teaching obviously false creationist nonsense?
Actually none were "let go".
So many lies.
"So many lies."
How would you know?
Post a Comment