Expelled...no intelligence allowed in this movie

[Kyuuketsuki]

We do realize that and no one in this thread has mention this until you brought it up.  Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however, literal interpretations of the bible are at odds with currently understood scientific facts.

Actually, and I honestly understand the point you're making (quite well IMO), I don't really think science and religion are truly compatible because in order to believe one has to have faith, faith (religious faith at any rate) is not based in evidence where science is and when there is no evidence science takes no position. So in order to believe one must suspend that normal scientific stance of neutrality .. in essence I think the believer has taken one step closer towards insanity, it's just not politically correct to say so.

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't know if any of you realize this but the reality is that your disbelief in God has nothing to do with science.

First of all I am going to point out that most atheists (at least in my experience) don’t actually disbelieve in “God” they simply reject current claims to it on the basis of there being inadequate evidence to support such a claim. Secondly I will ask you a question ... which “God” are we supposed to be disbelieving in? Zeus? Yahweh? Quetzalcoatl? Odin?

At least not true science because if you believe in evolution it is a religious view in it's self.

No because we don’t “believe” in evolution in the same way as you “believe” in your God ... we simply accept that the theory of evolution represents the best current explanation for the diversity of life we see around us based on the data so far uncovered by various workers in the field and other associated ones. Maybe in a 100 years someone will have a new theory (though, if so, my money would be on it have a striking similarity to the current one) but the point is that you appear to be DRIVEN by your beliefs to reinterpret the data to suit your worldview, most of us will go where the evidence leads even, though I have few doubts we’ll resist for at least a while, if that leads to a new and radically different explanation.

I believe that 6,000 years ago or so God created the heavens and the earth.

And you do so without a shred of supporting validatable evidence.

You believe that many billions of years ago nothing exploded and created everything, ect.

No, Sir Frederic Hoyle described it as an explosion, as the big bang, because he had a problem with the idea and unfortunately the name and associated imagery stuck ... scientists nowadays view it as a phase of rapid expansion and not an explosion.

The thing is though that none of you can tell me where this nothing came from or what was before it.

Nor can you apart from some wishy washy claim that “God dun it!”

Also you ignore many of the laws of physics in order to make this claim.

No, we recognise that there was no before (“before” being a time based concept and time being a property of our universe) ... as I understand it (and I'm no physicist) the usual laws of physics could not be expected to fully hold during the first few moments of the universe’s formation.

So really this view is religious.

Unfortunately (for you) no for reasons already stated!

My view says God and I will be honest I have no clue where He came from.

Nor have we LOL!

So really evolution is RELIGION just as much as creation. So admit reality for once even though we all know the reason you push the evolution religion is really because you do not want anyone telling you what to do or not to do.

I see, so in reality all we are doing is rebelling against “God” so we can follow our vain and selfish ways yes? So, which “God” was it we are rebelling against again? I forget ... there are so many.

That's really all I have to say. I will be praying for all of you and I sincerely hope that God opens your eyes.

And I hope your head gets better I really do!

Kyu

[Shard]

On the subject of Expelled, if you haven't seen it there's a witty ditty that was put together by the animation studio that worked on the movie.  

There's some argument about whether it's pro- or anti-evolution, I think it's poking fun at both sides and - very rarely for a creationist paid-for effort - is actually funny.  Many of the 'stars' will be familiar

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

[Arthur Dent]

I loved the opening credits... not so hot after that!

My old-earth creationist friends ate it up. I sat in the theater having to fight the desire to shout in protest of their proof from incredulity and their lack of understanding of the scientific method.

The conversation after movie was pretty much me defending Dawkins and evolution and the whole of science vs everyone else, who apparently weren't well versed in the basics of evolution.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The conversation after movie was pretty much me defending Dawkins and evolution and the whole of science vs everyone else, who apparently weren't well versed in the basics of evolution.

I'll bet that was an unequal battle ... you versus several hundred scientific illiterates! I'd like to have been there.

Right now you have the advantage in that you actually have seen it and your opinion has the validity of experience. I've just started to download it off bittorent, I certainly wouldn't pay to go see it and I'll try and review it later ... amusingly it was classified under movies --> comedy.

I admit that people who opine (often virulently) without experience on some things do annoy me even if they are, ostensibly, on my side ... it happened with Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ", a woman (and she wasn't alone in this kind of stance) came on the radio and criticised it (referring to it as "obscenely bloody and 'anti-Semitic'") yet it was clear she hadn't seen the film at all. I did so (granted at the expense of a local church seeking conversion from atheism) and, if you're interested, my review is on my archived my web site (just type "faith.is-a-geek.net" into your browser then click "Freethought" and it's under "Reviews", "Screen" ... apologies for the way the menu system works, it was an attempt to be flashy which arguably didn't work so good).

Kyu

[wheels5894]

I have managed only to see the trailer and don't expect that it will appear here in the UK so i will have to rely on a download sometime I suppose. Mind, I agree with others, the graler was rubbish.

Now for the benefit of Poetic_Absences who wrote

You believe that many billions of years ago nothing exploded and created everything, ect. The thing is though that none of you can tell me where this nothing came from or what was before it. Also you ignore many of the laws of physics in order to make this claim.

the most recent New Scientist magazine, 22 nov 2008 contained an article by Lawrence Kraus, an eminient scientist in the Americas. Here is a link to the article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-commentary-the-free-lunch-that-made-our-universe.html I rather think that it explains the above quotation quite well and would love to hear what Poetic_Absences has to say about it.  

(This is a site one has to log into to read the full article. If the above link doesn't work, please say so and i will paste the article into here. )

[Akwo]

I used to respect Ben Stein, but not after this movie. I rank him as low as Richard Dawkins now.

[rlrose328]

I used to respect Ben Stein, but not after this movie. I rank him as low as Richard Dawkins now.

Um... you rate RIchard Dawkins low?  Why?  He presents some very logical and correct arguments against the existence of god.  

[Akwo]

Um... you rate RIchard Dawkins low?  Why?  He presents some very logical and correct arguments against the existence of god.  

I hate him because he's arrogant, pompous, and outspoken. He gives Atheism a bad name.

[DennisK]

Um... you rate RIchard Dawkins low?  Why?  He presents some very logical and correct arguments against the existence of god.  

I hate him because he's arrogant, pompous, and outspoken. He gives Atheism a bad name.

I couldn't disagree more. Richard Dawkins is brilliant, well spoken, thoughtful and witty.  In interviews and debates he really thinks about the answers carefully that he hadn't previously considered.  He often presents newly formed hypotheses base on his vast knowledge of biology, sociology, psychology, astronomy, physics and religion.  These shoot from the hip hypotheses may not be spot-on, but they are logical and usually communicated well.  If he appears arrogant, I feel it reflects your own theistic beliefs and offense of its non existence.

Now, if you had said Christopher Hitchens instead, I could concede the arrogance and pompous behavior.  He is usually abrasive, but he's goddamned hilarious.  I love both of these guys!

[Akwo]

Richard Dawkins is brilliant

Brilliance is not punching at the air. He can't argue the existence of God, it's either God is or isn't.

Anyways, let's stay on topic. Did Expelled get good ratings?