Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Shogun, Apr 21, 2008.

  1. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    If numbers are any indication, Ben Stein has shown he's no Michael Moore.

    Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design over the theory of evolution, debuted at just number eight among the top ten grossing movies last week.

    The film made $1.2 million on Friday in 1,052 theaters. By comparison, Michael Moore's 'Sicko' raken in $23.9 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 slots.

    "Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures earned $1.2M Friday for what should be a $3.4M weekend," penned Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. "But the per screen average for Friday was a feeble $1,130 (that $3,000 ballyhooed on the Internet would be for the entire weekend), showing there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign. So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood.'"

    On Friday, The New York Times' Jeannette Catsoulis called the movie "one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time... a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."

    Expelled's producers have also been accused of copyright violations -- they're said not to have secured the rights for the use of John Lennon's "Imagine" and The Killer's "All these things I have done."

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ben_Stein_shows_hes_no_Michael_0420.html

    :rofl: :rofl:


    :clap2: :clap2:
     
  2. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,776
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    I watched some of the youtube excerpts, that has to win the dumbest documentary of the year award. The poor numbers are a good thing, proves Americans are still thinking, we can only hope.
     
  3. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    well, if anything it proves that there is not some raging ID underground. I half-expected to see the numbers that the Passion gathered but, I guess, stein is less interesting than messiah porn.
     
  4. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Moore and Stein are opposite sides of the same coin when it comes to their movies apparently. The two movies you list of Moore's are little more than political propaganda that are absolutely rife with errors, exaggerations and outright fabrications. Anyone who believes the total crap in those two movies is an ignorant nutcase too lazy to figure out how to do his own research from unbiased sources instead.

    Stein's movie has no real substance, has a political agenda and misleads too. Not only did it have nothing about the very few highly specific questions in science where the theory has been proposed by scientists, but even those who love this theory because of their religious beliefs have attacked it for having provided nothing of substance to support any justification for teaching ID -which I think could be done, but wasn't here. The biggest misconception is that the theory of ID was proposed to counter the theory of evolution when that is not correct at all. The theory of evolution was offered as a broadbased answer to EVERY possible question regarding the origins of life and diversification of all life. But ID has been proposed as the most scientifically accurate answer for just a few highly specific questions in nearly every field of science. Not as a broad answer regarding every possible aspect about the appearance and diversity of life that evolution purports to answer (but doesn't). And many of the questions where it has been proposed have nothing to do with Darwin's theory. Now "creationism" and ID are so intertwined in the minds of many people, that they consider them to be one and the same thing when in fact creationists absconded with this theory and shoved it out there themselves to counter evolution on RELIGIOUS grounds. But I have no doubt that most creationists haven't a clue as to what specific scientific questions ID has actually been proposed by scientists and on what scientific basis.

    The one thing Stein was criticized for was his contention there was this "secret" disagreement about the validity of evolution among scientists. It actually isn't a "secret" to anyone but non-scientists. Scientists know full well there are lots and lots of scientists who have, do and will continue to challenge this theory and for very valid scientific reasons. Anyone studying advanced science is going to find out about that "secret" in no time.

    But Stein was misleading by suggesting that Intelligent Design is THE competing scientific theory to evolution. Insisting ID challenges evolution entirely is a claim of creationists, but not for those scientists who actually offered it as the most scientifically correct for a highly specific question -most of which have nothing to do with evolution. Most of the scientists who have proposed ID for some specific question -think some aspects of evolution are correct. But the theory of evolution should be challenged because it is seriously flawed, it has not proven to be totally correct because the science shows it fails to explain many of the very things it was first offered to try and explain.

    That only means we got at least some of it WRONG. I do get tired of those who seem to think this is an "either-or" situation. That it somehow means either evolution is the total "truth" -or the Biblical story of creation and God wrapped it all up in six 24 hour days (even though the manmade measurement of time didn't exist then) is the total "truth". This is not an "either-or" situation. And even though creationists have glommed onto ID because it fits in with their personal religious doctrine, while most are likely quite ignorant about the specific scientific questions the theory has actually been proposed and why -that was a disservice too. Doing that only served to provide plenty of fodder for those who insist on the outright rejection of the theory -but for all the wrong reasons. Demanding the rejection or adoption of a theory on the grounds it fits in with some religious doctrine is just a "flat-earth" mentality on both sides and are equally a disservice to scientific discovery. Such demands made for all the wrong reasons can only hinder scientific discovery and prolong ignorance.

    Why is it so hard for evolutionists to even consider the possibility that Darwin didn't get it totally right after all and that scientists need to do MORE research, ask MORE questions, pose MORE theories in order to find those answers? Insisting that evolution is 100% correct and pretending it is 100% proven fact when it is no such thing -is a demand that says all other possible theories are off the table. It is slamming the door on scientific research.

    But I have no doubt at all that our descendants will laugh at how stubbornly the ignorant people of the day clung to a theory that had no real scientific legs under it after all.
     
  5. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164

    This is a really stupid post.

    Since Darwin, scientists have conducted more research, asked more questions and posed more theories. The fact that Darwin's basic hypothesis about the evolution of life hasn't been tossed in the dustbin reflects its fundamental strength, not its weakness. You might as well question the scientific community because they continue to cling to Newton's silly theory of gravity.

    Some other theories (such as creationism or ID) are ignored because they are not essentially scientific and cannot be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't mean that they are wrong. It means that they aren't science.

    I will take your bet on our descendants.
     
  6. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Meanwhile the scientific community gets on with its research work, not oblivious to the sort of stupidity that ID'ers parade, but probably with a collective smile at it. After all, they got rid of phlogiston theory because it just didn't explain what it was supposed to explain. ID'ers are cunning creationists, but they don't suck in those with the ability to see through them.

    ID'ers can believe what they like, but they can't sell the crap that it's anything near being scientific. That's just a total misrepresentation, simple and transparent propaganda. They've been sprung on it but still they keep on about and still some believe their schtick. It ain't science folks, it's religion.
     
  7. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,318
    Thanks Received:
    12,691
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,754
    You think we'll evolve that far? Or would that be devolve...
     
  8. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Really? By your own answer I know where your education in science ended. There are multiple problems with Darwin's theory. I'm pointing out just TWO of them but could discuss a variety of numerous problems with the theory.

    1. Darwin himself said the ONLY way for scientists to prove his theory correct was through the fossil record -and in a number of different ways. One of which was that if his theory were correct, then the vast majority of all fossil discoveries would be "in-between missing link" creatures -showing that one species was in the process of turning into another brand new species. But the fossil record shows NO "in-betweens" for ANY species at all. Not one. So it isn't just that the majority of fossils don't show what Darwin said they would -not a single one does. The reason no such "in-betweens" exist is largely explained by the second problem I discuss below. But since Darwin himself said this was the only possible way to prove his theory correct, then Darwin himself would be the first to admit there must be something fundamentally wrong with it since the fossil record fails to support that part of his theory at all.

    2. Darwin saw problems with his own theory too. Darwin considered the biggest argument against his theory to be the Cambrian Explosion -an event that Scientific American calls "life's big bang". MANY highly reputable and accomplished scientists say it is THE single most insurmountable hurdle for Darwin's theory.

    Prior to the Cambrian, the most complex life forms on earth were single-cell, multi-cell organisms, sponges, jellyfish and soft-bodied worms. And nothing but those unchanging life forms existed for 3.8 BILLION years. Then comes the Cambrian period which lasted between 5-10 million years -just a teensy fraction of the time prior (geologically speaking).

    The Cambrian age was about 530 million years ago -and during that 5-10 million year period, the Cambrian layer shows the simultaneous co-existence of virtually every phyla known to man. All the major body plans and every known complex body system and nearly every known phyla to ever exist or exists to this day -all coexist in this single layer that lasted between 5 and 10 million years. They don't exist at all in the layer prior to the Cambrian -which has nothing but unchanging single and multi-cell organisms and sponges, jellies and soft-bodied worms going back for nearly 4 BILLION years -and then bam -nearly every phyla known to have ever existed or still exists to this day all show up within 5-10 million years. No "in-betweens" because nearly every known phyla are already co-existing in this same layer. 530 times as much time has passed as the Cambrian lasted -and we have seen nothing like this again. Darwin knew all along that the fossil record as it was known during his time was the strongest argument against his theory.

    As does something Darwin did NOT realize at that time: the fact that successive layers AFTER the Cambrian show decreasing numbers of species in the fossil record with each successive layer -a decrease in the diversity of life over time. Once the most recent layers are reached, it shows that 98% of everything that has ever lived is now extinct. That fact totally contradicts Darwin's theory which postulated INCREASING diversity over time with ever more species. Remember -his theory is that all life forms have a common ancestor and branched OUT over time with increasing diversity of species occurring over time. It is the entire foundation of his theory, which apparently some of the most diehard evolution supporting people haven't actually read. So if that were true, the fossil record would show LESS diversity as we go back in time and greater diversity as we move forward in time.

    But the fossil record is the opposite -it shows increasing diversity of life as we go BACK in time to the Cambrian and less diversity as we move forward in time. For billions of years prior to the Cambrian, there are sponges and worms and single-cell and multi-cell organism that existed unchanged, then a short period of time in the Cambrian where nearly every known phyla are all coexisting in the same layer with the simultaneous appearance of every seen complex body plan, method of reproduction, complex systems within the body - all showing up fully intact. And then from the Cambrian on, decreasing diversity of life as we come forward in time. To the current time where we now know that 98% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct.

    Darwin tried to get around what he knew was already seen in the fossil record during his time by postulating that the fossil record simply had not been well researched enough and said he believed that further research in the fossil record would eventually end up showing the exact opposite of what was seen in the record at that time. But 150 years later and WHOLE lot more discoveries and research in the fossil record has only confirmed what Darwin already knew at the time. And it is a big, ugly fact -the fossil record totally contradicts his theory, totally contradicts the very foundation of his theory that life has a common ancestry and branched out over time. And that is a MAJOR problem. What Darwin realized was a huge and significant contradiction to this theory then -still is. And his belief that the fossil record would eventually show the exact opposite of what it did then -was dead wrong and has only confirmed what the fossil record already showed at that time.

    So -yes, a whole lot of scientists are fully aware that Darwin didn't get it right and refusing to continue the search for answers only delays scientific knowledge that much longer. One current theory under active investigation is that the earth was exposed to some kind of unique radiation or ultrahigh wavelength rays of some kind from a cosmic event that resulted in a response from life forms with an intense but brief period of diversification that gradually died off over time -and even that theory is more consistent with the reality of the fossil record than Darwin's theory.

    But you go ahead and tell your descendants all about how Darwin answered every possible question about the origin of life and diversity of life to your complete satisfaction and how you accepted that as "proven fact".
     
  9. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Naw, it's just that the right, unlike the left, knows the difference between farce and reality.

    Which explains the block-buster status of Michael Moore's and Gore's mockumentaries.
     
  10. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Some of that stuff that you think that I said... I didn't say. Who cares? Accuracy is a bitch. Otherwise...

    Cool. By your own admission, both Darwin and the rest of the scientific community have not been resting on Darwin's laurels. Ain't progress grand? I guess you have nothing to bitch about.
     

Share This Page