Expelled: The first numbers are in

Well, at least we can't accuse the movie of "selling out"!

That was sarcasm, of course!

“Big Science Academy” is proud to have the support of the “Mainstream Press” in stifling the rise of freedom of speech in our science classrooms. In so many ways, “Big Science” and “Big Media” are on exactly the same page, when it comes to making sure that dissenters and troublemakers are properly expelled.

That is still a lot of people who are just a little bit more ignorant than they were on Thursday.

Oh, they'll be crowing about a "Top 10 Movie" come Monday, no matter how high their expectations were.

Hey, thanks for the tip-- I guess I should run to the theater now to grab a seat for this evening ( if they haven't already sold out, that is).

So it figures to make $3M in its first weekend. The way I see it, that is a success. The important thing is not how much this movie makes in relation to others, but how much the investors gain or loose.

I read that it cost $3.5M to make. That means the investors will probably break even by the end of its theatrical run. Then all the DVD sales will be profit. And don't forget that this will probably be released internationally in at least a few countries--Australia, Great Britain, and Turkey spring to mind.

It looks like the investors will make a profit or at least not lose much. Since they are motivated more by ideology than profit, I think they will consider it a success and be looking for ways to reproduce it.

I can see that they have already succeeded with one goal. People are now using the term "Darwinism" in place of "evolution."

(Regarding the money they are paying schools to take their students: I imagine that the donors consider this a cost they are willing to bear to propagate their message, and will budget it separately from the profit and loss of the movie.)

Karen: Hey, thanks for the tip-- I guess I should run to the theater now to grab a seat for this evening ( if they haven't already sold out, that is).

So it figures to make $3M in its first weekend. The way I see it, that is a success. The important thing is not how much this movie makes in relation to others, but how much the investors gain or loose.

People are now using the term “Darwinism” in place of “evolution.”

Not in science, unless one is specifically discussing Darwin's original ideas. They have helped solidify "Darwinism" as a creationist buzzword - if you see an article where the term is used seriously, it's a safe bet that it will be devoid of actual scientific viewpoints.

I read that it cost $3.5M to make. That means the investors will probably break even by the end of its theatrical run.

Rocky:

I can see that they have already succeeded with one goal. People are now using the term "Darwinism" in place of "evolution."

Creos have been trying to push that term for years. The only people using that term will be the ones who have used it before. If that was a goal, chalk it up as another failure for the movie.

Near the end of the movie, Stein tells his Pepperdine audience that “There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box, where it can't possibly touch a higher power, cannot possibly touch God.” Perhaps Stein has it backward. It is God that is in a little box, and the box gets smaller all the time. His god-of-the-gaps used to be required to push the planets about in their orbits, to make the rain fall, and the sun shine, but that was all once upon a time. Science has deprived this god of most of his once-vital functions. Science cannot possibly touch God? Sorry, Ben. There's been a lot of touching going on. God has the bruises and the gap-toothed smile to show for it, too.

If anything could boomerang on someone, this movie might do it. Their messages are:

1. We're twisted Xians. We lie a lot. Then we lie a lot more. We are completely dishonest and not very bright.

2. Destroy science. Science is evil. Kill Science, Kill, Kill, Kill.

3. When we lie our way into power and set up a theocracy, then we can head back to the Dark Ages.

This message will resonate with the Nihilistic moron segment of the population. The rest of us will keep our computers, cheap food, good medical care, rising living standards, freedoms, and leadership in science.

Near the end of last year I received a forwarded e mail from a Christian friend of mine asking me to boycott a movie called "The Golden Compass" (because an atheist wrote those books). Also to send the e mail on to anyone I knew with kids (I did not, of course - not because I cared what the fate of the movie was, but because I refuse to send out shit like that.)
The e mail originated from the Catholic League.

Anyhow, on a whim, I just checked to see how well the movie did...

I read several reviews that referred to it as a Box Office Disaster

It grossed 25 mil opening weekend - shown in theaters for 91 days.

What's worse than a disaster? Anyone? Anyone?

That's still shamefully high turnout - especially considering how many True Believers saw it for free in the preview screenings. (How many would feel a need to see it again?)

IMDB presently shows 3.3, after 402 votes. (And amusingly, came up with a racy Pink Patch ad.)

The mentality of some of these people is shown by one of the IMDB comments, where one paranoid whiner seems to think that the total lack of positive reviews (as of yesterday) indicates the extent to which we've gone to suppress the truth. Apparently Darwin's Ghost controls the media as well as the academy.

I didn't expect it to actually arrive in theaters. They would have been better to cancel it after the previews, and claim that the Darwinian Establishment suppressed it.

Rocky: The important thing is not how much this movie makes in relation to others, but how much the investors gain or loose.

Is it intact?

Does it still have the Harvard animation and the John Lennon lyrics?

People like Rocky can spin all the want, but that doesn't change the bottom line, and that's going to be substantially negative in every way you can analyze this. They obvious spent a small fortune on PR, far more than they did on the actual project (sort of like they do with science), so they are going to lose money.

As for propogating the message, show me one positive review of the movie that came from someone who wasn't already on their side in the first place? I can't find one. The only positive things written about the movie come from the DI themselves, and partisan hacks like Brent Bozell and Matt Barber. No one on the pro science side budged, and even potential allies like Foxnews and Utah newspapers panned the film. Now even more people are convinced the ID crowd is a bunch of liars.

Any way you slice it, it's a flop. Deal.

I don't think "Expelled" is doing well here in New York City. Today I stopped by one theater (one of two which are screening it, the other is a Times Square multiplex) which is screening only "Expelled" and was told that there were only 21 suckers willing to lose their money to Ben Stein for the 2:30 PM screening (At approximately $10 per ticket, that's not a lot.).

And so the spin about persecution begins! These people are worse than X-Files fans. They seem to have a burning desire to be downtrodden - if they really have that much of a martyr complex, they should try Saudi Arabia. I hear Christians get all the persecution they could ever want there.

I'm just happy to see the numbers are so low. I was afraid there would be a mass mobilization to the theaters, but no. Not so much. This warms my heart.

My favorite review so far is on Halfway There.

he e mail originated from the Catholic League.

http://www.catholicleague.org/

IIRC, this thing is pretty much just a one-man show.

R Ward -
Based on what Abbie had on her blog, ERV, the copy of the Harvard video had been removed. It will be interesting to see if that is the case. From what people have said, Part of "Imagine" is still in the film.

I think the numbers are amusing, consider some people might not have had any idea what they were going to see. All they knew it was a Ben Stein movie. None of my neighbors have even heard about "Expelled"

Raven, it would be nice if the film had that affect. But the people who refuse to see through the tactics of the producers, will not accept any part of the movie as being false.

I am not sure how it is doing in Texas, there were only about 5 theaters in the entire Dallas-Fort Worth area showing it.

An astonishing low number, for an area with a population of 6.5 million.

Regarding what the movie maker makes....

CNN Money says:

"Most of the money from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. A film booker leases a movie to a particular theater for a set period of weeks. The percentage of ticket sales that the studio takes decreases on each week that a movie is in the theater. If the screening was arranged by an independent middleman, he also takes a slice. So the movie has to pull in sizeable audiences for several weeks in order for theater owners to make any serious profits.

During the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of International Cinema Equipment Co."

Most theaters make there money from concessions, not the movie itself.
So most of that 1.2 million does go to to the studio.

Thanks JJ.

This actually makes a certain twisted kind of sense.

The filmmakers knew that they had stolen the Harvard video and they knew that anyone knowledgable in such matters would immediately recognize it. That is apparently why they were so desperate to prevent certain people from seeing the movie in prerelease form. Once PZ blew the whistle, they had no choice but to remove the offending footage, because they knew that they would be sued.

When someone pointed out at the last minute that they had also stolen the Imagine music, it was probably already too late to make a new version and distribute it before opening day. They were probably just hoping that ticket sales would be so low after all of the free showings that no one would bother to sue over that little gem.

The cost issues are unimportant compared to getting the message out there that they are being so censored that they couldn't possibly make a movie for everyone to see. Oh yea, and they don't have enough money to do any real research of their own.

I notice the Movie Review Query Engine has never heard of this movie. Strange - they usually find every the most minor or local releases...

SPECIAL EXPELLED OUTREACH OFFER I trust you have seen Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. If not, click here to find the nearest theater showing the movie. Then, take a friend (or better yet, a whole group of friends!) to watch then discuss it together over dessert! Do this as soon as possible to help ensure that this amazing, much-discredited (by evolutionists!) documentary stays in theaters as long as possible. We urge you to use Expelled as a tool for outreach. We’ve agree that it will be a very popular “evolution-busting” tool to expose the lack of academic freedom in America’s schools today. Once you’ve seen Ben Stein you’ll want to equip yourself and help your friends. That’s why we’ve assembled an incredibly low-priced value pack of Creator-affirming materials shown above, plus you’ll even receive an exclusive coupon good for $5 off Expelled at AnswersBookstore.com as soon as the film is available to us on DVD! This valuable action kit—with 2 of our top-selling books, 2 excellent DVDs, an 11×17 full-color poster, and the special edition issue of Answers magazine which includes an exposé of government education—plus our exclusive $5 savings coupon—is only $19.99! (that’s a $57 value, and it’s a limited-time offer specially designed to help you and your church to “get the word out” about the evolutionary stranglehold on education in today’s schools. The lie of evolution must be exposed! Order several kits now, while the fervor and interest created by Ben Stein and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is much in the news!) Email this special offer to your pastor, youth pastor, friends and others. Click this link for the offer: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/90-7-436 Let’s get the word out! This kit includes; Evolution Exposed – BOOK ($15.99) War of the Worldviews – BOOK ($12.99) Creation: Science Confirms the Bible is True – DVD ($12.99) Answers magazine 2.3 – MAGAZINE ($7.00) Artificial Authority – DVD ($12.99) Popular Origins Beliefs – POSTER ($1.99) Exposed DVD $5 OFF Coupon ($5.00) ($57 retail value / $19.99 special) A MOST THOROUGH REVIEW If you haven’t read AiG’s lead article for Friday reviewing the Expelled movie, I urge you to do that now: Dr. Dawkins, Tear down This Wall! One of AiG’s supporters wrote: I want to commend you for one of the most excellent reviews I’ve have EVER read, and this one pertaining to the film Expelled. It is one of the most thorough, well-written, concise, and objective reviews that would stand alone as completely acceptable as well as Christ-honoring pieces I have seen. Thank you. Well done, good and faithful servant of him

From my lmiited understanding about the film industry, the big money is in DVD sales. I can almost bet that the producers is going use a phrase like "MAJOR MOTION PICTURE" as a marketing tool to boost the sales.

Since DVD sales can last for years after the theater run ends, we're not going to see the last of this by a long shot.

Since DVD sales can last for years after the theater run ends, we’re not going to see the last of this by a long shot.

There are enough gullible people out there for them to recoup their money in DVD sales after this flops, with lots more to throw away. What's important to remember is that their efforts to gain support for their lost cause is going the way of Dover. I'm sure we will soon hear Dembski saying "..well this may have been a bit of a setback but we're gonna be doing a whole lot more seance* now.....after we've raised more cash!!"

(* it may as well be, since they don't understand science)

R Ward: Is it intact? Does it still have the Harvard animation and the John Lennon lyrics?

I can't recall seeing any mention of Expelled in either the York Daily Record or The Evening Sun. It would appear that the closest showing is in Gettysburg.

The breakdown used to go by weeks in release (I'm not sure now-a-days what the actual breakdown is):

Week 1: 90% studio / 10% theatre
Week 2-3: 80% studio / 20% theatre
Week 4-6: 70% / 30%

It took several weeks for there to be a 50/50 split.

I would say the producers are going to see about 2.5 million dollars gross before the thing is out of theatres.

Bobby wrote: Propaganda isn't generally distributed in hopes of profit. These con men are miles ahead by getting anyone at all to pay for it.

Judgment Day/Pall Allen/PBS.

I havn't seen the movie so I can't comment. Funny, we've never witnessed a new gene being created without an existing one, or we've never seen millions of new genes created because of lightning mixing with soup, yet we extoll is from the rooftops!! Silly sluggards!! Hurry now, insult some ID proponant, cite fruitflies and put your hope in mutations!!!

The Washington Post has not reviewed Expelled, but they are carrying ads for the movie. The ads include two blurbs - one from Rush Limbaugh ("It is powerful. It is fabulous.") The second blurb is from the other paper in town - the Moonie owned conservative Washington Times. James Farah is quoted as saying

"Imagine what Michael Moore might produce if we forcibly administered truth serum to him. That would be "Expelled.""

The numbers are incredibly BAD, and prove something.

This is a movie that every single person who belongs to a serious right wing fundamentalist authoritarian church has been TOLD TO GO SEE. Unlike a true commercial film it has a certain minimum audience. It seems to be coming in very close to that minimum, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm even among that group.

Either there are fewer nutjob fundamentalists in the US than Republican-cheering media men keep claiming, or even fundamentalists think it sucks, or both.

I predict that the numbers will drop rapidly. Only a few nutjob dominionists will see it more than once. They've already been mobilized. Their numbers are in. Who's going next weekend?

marv: I havn't seen the movie so I can't comment. Funny, we've never witnessed a new gene being created without an existing one, or we've never seen millions of new genes created because of lightning mixing with soup, yet we extoll is from the rooftops!! Silly sluggards!! Hurry now, insult some ID proponant, cite fruitflies and put your hope in mutations!!!

marv: I havn't seen the movie so I can't comment. Funny, we've never witnessed a new gene being created without an existing one, or we've never seen millions of new genes created because of lightning mixing with soup, yet we extoll is from the rooftops!! Silly sluggards!! Hurry now, insult some ID proponant, cite fruitflies and put your hope in mutations!!!

bjm: There are enough gullible people out there for them to recoup their money in DVD sales after this flops, with lots more to throw away. What's important to remember is that their efforts to gain support for their lost cause is going the way of Dover. I'm sure we will soon hear Dembski saying "..well this may have been a bit of a setback but we're gonna be doing a whole lot more seance* now.....after we've raised more cash!!" (* it may as well be, since they don't understand science)

Marv sez

I haven’t seen the movie so I can’t comment.

That's something new, Marv withholding comment on things that he doesn't know anything about.

Prediction. Sunday's numbers will be higher than Friday or Saturday, and churches will transport their members to see the movie after services.

It is so much more believable to think that we were made out of clay in one day

Judgement Day: reports facts, won Peabody Award

Expelled: spreads propaganda and lies, critics prefer Zombie Strippers

churches will transport their members to see the movie after services

I went to a different movie tonight at our local multiplex. Out of curiosity I took a peek in to see the attendance at Expelled playing down the hall. Both the 5 PM and 7 PM showings had over 50% filled theatres. Not huge turn out but definitely not empty. The demographic seemed pretty old to me. The ads during the Dailey show were not very cost effective I suppose.

There is an audience for this film I am sorry to say.

PvM:

Judgment Day/Pall Allen/PBS.

A great documentary. Now if you call this propaganda and 'con men' then I wonder what you must think of 'Expelled'

churches will transport their members to see the movie after services

I watched this movie and even before doing so believed darwinism and evalution to be as full of holes as is gloabal warming. However, even if you think that darwin is your God, then you should still watch this movie because one of its real and major point is not who is the creator, but how we - in America - are being stripped of our freedom to speak, think, and feel by a government that is more closely aligned with the Nazis of Germany and the former soveiet union, than it is with what we think is a free nation that can stand the search for the truth. This movies more important point is that we have closed the discussion and decided that - just like in global warming - that there can be no other discussion except for the government's sanctioned view; hence the strong parralels to the Berlin Wall in this movie.
If your god is a mud fish, and you came from a monkey, then fine - do you want to live in the Nazi like world of the third riecht? If not, you may want to stand up for your mud god, and your freedom to believe in the mud dobbers; you may still want to fight with us Christians who are demanding the right to think, decent, and to explore the truth, regardless of where it leads. If this freedom is allowed, and you can prove to me that darwin was right - I'll accept that, but will you allow freedom to explore and convince me? No, you insist on cutting off the search, as in global warming where Algore calls us flat worlders - if we disagree with him. Have some courage, let freedom flurish in this land again - let the people decide based on open discussion, science, and exploration. Don't be little Nazis.

@bjm: Yes, I thought the ID crowd would take the opportunity to make a mountain out of that particular molehill.

The size of the mountain estimated there however is hilarious. One commenter reckons that 8400 people per day will be buying a ticket for another film and sneaking into Expelled. I suppose that's a fair indication of the standards of honesty that group is used to. (Taking into account the relative honesty of scientists and ID-ers, my guess is that the number will be less than 100 in total.)

jp

If you have the courage to step out of the umbrella of persecution you feel you are under you may be surprised by the reality of the world around you. I'm no historian but it seems there is a greater chance of developing a totalitarian state if most of your subjects subscribe to a personal belief system. Hitchens has a good take on this in his book. Go read.

You may be surprised to learn that you being a christian is irrelevant to the debate on science. Ask any of the christians here who have no problem with science. You have been told you don't have the right to think, dissent and explore the truth and it seems you actually believe that!! You have a mind but you don't seem willing to use it? You have access to the internet - use it - it's not an atheist conspiracy. I'm not going to try to convince you about evolution. There is a wealth of information available but it requires you to have the courage to peep over that wall you conveniently hide behind. Come out.

jp:

A good troll would say anthropogenic global warming.

Quick OT question: which do you think 'works better' overall? Responding to the Poe's Law-ridden nonsense in jj's block paragraph or ignoring it?

Stephen, I think those claims say more about their belief that a notional idea about god has the status of a 'theory'. They don't require facts to believe their own drivel.

Since DVD sales can last for years after the theater run ends, we’re not going to see the last of this by a long shot.

— Boyce Williams

Yes, we have the internet, and we have our minds - but you have the schools, the grants, the scientific institutions, and the DemonCrat party to enforce your will. Nevertheless, its not your fault - we the selfish and easy to fool public were inticed with federal funding of schools, that permits what the constitution precludes; the control of our schools by the feds and other Nazi party members (teachers unions) etc.

Its really not fair when you, by force of laws, have the keys to our kids minds... I've got an idea - let school vouchers be provided and see how many of our kids would be left in your halls of indoctrination. I think it would be a very lonely public school system.

Too risky for you?

I'll tell you what, lets get to the nub. One of you great thinkers out there tell me how the big bang was produced from nothing?

Then tell me how the universe, that is expanding at an increasing speed, but according to theory should be slowing down - please explain.

Then explain how a cell with a gigabyte of written instructions "DNA" and 250 protiens, machines, motors, and a factory producing factory - just came to be. Darwin could not know what we know today about a cell, and if he did he would probably stayed in the closet.

I'm waiting for your explanation of these little ommissions from your evolution theory - remember it is only a theory. Who wrote the dna instructions and placed them in the first cell that magically came from dirt, that magically came from the big bang, that no one can explain?
The bible explains it:

"The Lord Spoke and the world leapt into existance".

Nuf said...
The bible' explanation is much more clear than yours - "we don't know how the big bang began" - until we do, why not teach that their may be a creator.

jp must be doing parady, nobody can be that stupid. if not, then jp should check out http://www.expelledexposed.com

it appears jp is guilty of having his mind enforced by the lyers for jesus group

the only reason people want vouchers is to put the bible in school

But what about my questions? I hear your derogatory inflamations, but what about my questions? Will you answer my questions? As Ben Stien says: "But you haven't answered my question"....

richCares - what do you care if I send my kid to a school with bibles... and you send your kid to a school taught by the decendant of a monkey....
Can't you tolerate my choice in the matter. No, you can't. Hence, I once again draw your attention to the parrallels in this movie to the Berlin Wall. That wall was there to prevent the east from knowing how great life was for the west... They didn't want them to know.

Sounds just like you>

richCares - what do you care if I send my kid to a school with bibles… and you send your kid to a school taught by the decendant of a monkey…. Can’t you tolerate my choice in the matter. No, you can’t. Hence, I once again draw your attention to the parrallels in this movie to the Berlin Wall. That wall was there to prevent the east from knowing how great life was for the west… They didn’t want them to know.

Sounds just like you, doen't it

No parody intended.

Quick OT question: which do you think ‘works better’ overall? Responding to the Poe’s Law-ridden nonsense in jj’s block paragraph or ignoring it?

— Shirakawasuna

Mike: Prediction. Sunday's numbers will be higher than Friday or Saturday, and churches will transport their members to see the movie after services.

Dear JP,

As I remember it in high school, evolutionary theory was mentioned in passing in science class, this indoctrination business is complete nonsense. As far as Creationism/ID goes
I hadn't thought about evolution, etc. at all for years, until a friend (who is a YEC) pointed me to ICR.ORG, AIG.COM and Walter Brown's website so I STARTED reading about this topic from YOUR side of things. To be perfectly frank they were beautifully crafted, well maintained websites, but it soon became apparent they were just plain wrong. After many email exchanges with them it is also clear that they either suffer from Cognitive Dissonance, don't really understand what they are saying or are lying.

As far as the movie goes my wife and I went to see it last night, and frankly it was mostly dishonest propaganda pure and simple, loaded with button pushing references to nazis, etc.

FYI, the cell animation footage was in it, and so was the Imagine musical piece.

Frank J - Frank your answering my question with a question. This is not allowed. Tell me, if you know, what was the cause and the method, and the science of the instant prior to the big bang?

Then, get a mathematician to calculate the odds of the first cell, knowing what we know today about a cell, forming by random processes?

Then, when you have these answers; publish them because no one else has done so and no one can do so.

It is not permitted, in this science class, to answer a question with a new question; however irrelavant that question is.

JP

I’ll tell you what, lets get to the nub. One of you great thinkers out there tell me how the big bang was produced from nothing?

COMPLETELY irrelevant to the theory of Evolution.

Then tell me how the universe, that is expanding at an increasing speed, but according to theory should be slowing down - please explain.

COMPLETELY irrelevant to the theory of Evolution.

Then explain how a cell with a gigabyte of written instructions “DNA” and 250 protiens, machines, motors, and a factory producing factory - just came to be. Darwin could not know what we know today about a cell, and if he did he would probably stayed in the closet.

COMPLETELY irrelevant to the theory of Evolution.

Evolution STARTS with something able to replicate itself. If you have actual questions about Evolution I'm sure womeone can answer you.

jp: The bible explains it: "The Lord Spoke and the world leapt into existance". Nuf said... The bible' explanation is much more clear than yours - "we don't know how the big bang began" - until we do, why not teach that their may be a creator.

jp is probably fully aware of the lies in Stein's movie, but that's OK, lies for Jesus are fine. He prefers to ask questions that show his ignorance. you can give him answers or links to answers, but he won't accept them, so why bother. Really sad!

Its really not fair when you, by force of laws, have the keys to our kids minds… I’ve got an idea - let school vouchers be provided and see how many of our kids would be left in your halls of indoctrination.

— jp

But what about the questions? You still have not answered the questions? I'm sorry to be so impolite as to try to pin you down, but can you answer my questions?
Thank you teacher.

Frank J - But Frank, you still have not allowed school vouchers. Can we stop the verbal bravado - if your are so sure of yourself, send out the vouchers. Thats all. "Tear down this wall" - you know who said that, the other man of God you fear so much.

Rolf - Galilei, Copernicus - or Einstein - All these men believed in a creator. You may want to get some history lessons.

Frank J- I hate to condemn myself so suredly in your eyes, but I went to a Catholic school. They did not teach evolution. They taught creation. I hope this doesn't diminish or increase your hatred for people like me too much. After all, you tolerent people, unlike us Christians, are so understanding and will to hear one hand clapping.

Rolph -- That is a Germon name isn't it? Wasn't Hitler German. He believed in Darwin too.
No book, no science defines the events and the physics prior to the big bang - I chanllenge you to quote from some book, paper or other scientific journal as to this event and what led to it other than - the bible.

jp, all of your questions are answered in countless books, articles and websites. If you honestly want answers that will increase your understanding of science (and how scientists actually go about their work), please avail yourself of these readily available resources.

To demand that you be provided a crash course in big bang cosmology or molecular biology in this venue is unreasonable. Do your own homework. If you can read and think, you can educate yourself. Then you could add substance to your own arguments. You might also experience the novel and refreshing delight of abandoning one point of view for another of greater usefulness and deeper clarity. FWIW, I found the change bracing and liberating.

Crudely Wrott - I don't agree. It is not explain anywhere and you cannot avoid this issue by telling me to go into some vast cosmic archieve and find my own answer. Teacher! Tell me the answer or provide the title of one book that explaines both of my questions. Give me the book name, and author. Don't tell me to go look into space for an answer that every scientist I've ever heard says has not been found. People in science are persuing this knowlege with particle accelerators and such and if the answer had been found they could shut those accelerators down today. But they don't... They are still looking for these answers. It is incredable to me that you would insinuate that these answers are laying around in books somewhere while these mental midgets are playing around; banging particles togethere to try to find answers to questions you say have been answered.

Another big lie, from big science.

Now send me an answer... not a bit of fluf.

jp is way too ignorant, I went to Catholic schools, they taught evolution, the last 2 popes have no problem with evcolution, jp is no Catholic. he's a lier for Jesus.

vast majority of evoltionary biologist are religious, but jp don't know that. he belongs on the bathroom wall

richCares - Your name calling belies your ignorance, I don't have to explain it to those reading your comments; you call yourself what you are. I'll leave to you to further incriminate yourself.

Thanks for your tolerant hate speach filled comments.

OK, jp. Listen. You will not be spoon fed here. Listen. Do your own homework, expend your own energy, invest your own time, engage your own brain.

A good first step would be to get up, go to a book store, locate the science section, read the blurbs on several books, look for authors whose names you recognize, buy two or three, take them home, read them. Read them again. Then go get more. You will profit much more by doing that then you will by doing what you are doing now.

jp: Rolph -- That is a Germon name isn't it? Wasn't Hitler German. He believed in Darwin too. No book, no science defines the events and the physics prior to the big bang - I chanllenge you to quote from some book, paper or other scientific journal as to this event and what led to it other than - the bible.

Crudely Wrott - Not good engough. I'm not buying this. You tell me what book has the answers by name and author. You tell me why scientist are using partical accelerators to find the charactaristics of the universer prior to and at the time of the big bang - if it is already know science. My God man, where is your COMMON SENSE!

jp: Rolph -- That is a Germon name isn't it? Wasn't Hitler German. He believed in Darwin too. No book, no science defines the events and the physics prior to the big bang - I chanllenge you to quote from some book, paper or other scientific journal as to this event and what led to it other than - the bible.

jp said "Wasn’t Hitler German. He believed in Darwin too"

no he didn't, he actually burned Darwin's book, but an idiot like you don't know that, his hate for Jews came mainly from Martin Luther. Are you Lutheran?

are you lying or being lied to?

by the way "social darwanism" has nothing to do with evolution or Darwin, Stein's wrong viewpoints were based on "social darwanism" not Darwin.

Stanton - OK Stan old buddy, I guess we should have invaded Austria. Oops Sorry Germany, wrong country.

marv: I hav[e]n't seen the movie so I can't comment. Funny, we've never witnessed a new gene being created without an existing one, or [meaning "and"] we've never seen millions of new genes created because of lightning mixing with soup [sic], yet we extoll [sic] is [sic] from the rooftops!!

Stanton - Stan old buddy, we don't need a quote from him we have is actions. He killed over 15 thousand handicaped and/or otherwise feable people in order to improve the race by removing the bad seeds. This is exactly what Darwin called for when he said that "even breaders of dogs know that you don't allow the worst animals to breed". I don't need his written statement... I'll look at actions.

jp,
the short answer is: science can't give you the kind of answers you seem to want, the type that would be understood by and satisfy bronze-age nomads. Science is a process of discovery, and the kind of phenomena you want explained are not those that science can give you a short paragraph-length explanation for.

You can however spend some more time and effort than it takes to watch Expelled, or than Ben Stein took to learn anything about the subject of his movie, to see what kind of hypotheses scientists are pursuing with regard to those questions, what kind of experiments they are conduction to pursue them, and the results they have obtained so far from those experiments.

You may find that while we don't have definitive answers (like for anything else in science), for some of those issues we have some very interesting evidence confirming key scientific hypotheses. You will certainly find out, for instance, that when Ben Stein mocked the "on the back of crystals" statement, he was just fooling you: there is ample and significant evidence that inorganic materials like clays can act as catalysts for basic chemical reactions of the kind that would have been necessary for inorganic material ("dirt") to turn into the biomolecules that make cells. You will also learn that there has been a dramatic series of discoveries in the past 20-odd years that make it quite clear that the first informational molecules were almost certainly not DNA, but RNA, which can take both the role of storing information (what DNA does in most organisms today) and utilizing that information biochemically (what now proteins do, mostly); this greatly simplifies the biochemical requirements for the first life forms. You may even be surprised to learn that scientists did not know about all this beforehand, but made rather daring predictions, and then confirmed them experimentally - the hardest kind of scientific effort, and the most convincing type in terms of supporting a hypothesis.

At the end of it all, you may not have enjoyed the process of learning about this, and you may well remain utterly unconvinced, but I can guarantee that it will not be time wasted. If on the other hand you just find the way scientists get to answers too cumbersome, time-consuming, complex and tentative to satisfy you and make your effort worthwhile, feel free to go ahead and subscribe to any of the nonscientific explanations that are available out there. It's really nobody's loss but yours.

Funny but I'm just now reminded of the old Uncle Remus story about Bre'r Rabbit and De Tar Baby. Wonder what brought that on?

rocket - I agree with you about Martin Luther and I agree he was influenced. But you cannot deny that Darwinism is the same thing, only not specific to jews. Dawrinism condems all the feable, helpless, the less capable - without regard to race or religion. Hitler was a Darwinist by action - defacto! He did what Darwin suggests - kill off those inferior beings in favor of the more superior beings. I cannot implicate him more than by the actions of Hitler, regardless of who Hitler happened to have been reading at the time.

Andrea Bottaro - you have now made my point - You have stated, very well in fact - science cannot give definitive answers, they are looking for answers - Ben Stien and I are only telling the world that you and yours will not look over the WALL - Why do you condemn those and prevent them from looking to a creator... By God, I think you got it.

We are about - freedom - not forcing you to think like me, or me to think like you.

Turn loose of your dog chains around the necks of scientists and teachers that would like to be free to explore the facts wherever they lead. Its about freedom.

Crudely Wrott - Your comments are becoming quite vague and meaningless, are you just practicing your typing?

jp troll lying: how we - in America - are being stripped of our freedom to speak, think, and feel by a government that is more closely aligned with the Nazis of Germany and the former soveiet union, than it is with what we think is a free nation that can stand the search for the truth.

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link to Blake Stacey's blog which has more details on the 11 victims of fundie attacks.] As usual the truth is the exact opposite. The creos have been firing, beating up, attempting to fire, and killing scientists and science supporters for a while now. They are way ahead on body counts. Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. I’ve discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire. There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I’m keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 11 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I’d post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 11 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven’t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

Got to go now, its time for church.

one of its real and major point is not who is the creator, but how we - in America - are being stripped of our freedom to speak

JP,

The answer to you question about DNA is random mutation and natural selecetion (along with drift, gene duplication, sexual selection, linkage disequilibrium, retrotransposition, lateral gene transfer, etc. etc. etc.). Didn't you learn anything about genetics in that school you went to?

Let's get to the nub. Perhaps you can tell us how God was produced from nothing. (Hint: saying God always existed is not an answer).

You have the right to send your children to private schools. You have the right to home-school your children. No one is trying to take that right away from you. But even if you do, they will still be taught by the descendant of a primate, (not a monkey by the way, unless that is the way you choose to go), they just won't know it. You have the right to keep your children ignorant of all of science if you so choose. You also have the right to leave the country and set up your own country where your religion will run the government.

What you don't have the right to in this country is to get taxpayers who don't share your religious views to pay for the indoctrination of your children in your religion. That is what your tax-free church is for.

No one cares what you or your children believe. Teaching science is not indoctrination. If you want them to learn science, then by all means send them to a school where that can happen. If you don't want them to learn science because your faith is so weak or so contrary to the findings of sceince that you fear that it won't stand the strain, then by all means keep your children in ignorance. They will learn the truth eventually anyway, if they so choose.

Now, when you home school your children, are you going to present them with the genetic evidence that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, or are you just going to indoctrinate them in your religious beliefs? Are you going to show them the evidence that the two species are 98.5% similar genetically? Are you going to teach them about the shared retrotransposons in both species? Are you going to show them the evidence that humans have two fused chromosomes relative to chimps? Are you going to teach them about the minor developmental differences between the two species? Or are you going to waste all their time singing Jesus Loves Me and hoping they don't ever hear the truth from anyone?

You can try to hide behind the Berlin wall all you want, but it is a wall of your own making.

"Dawrinism condems all the feable, helpless, the less capable - without regard to race or religion. "

now how can you respond to this stupidity? Darwanism only exits in the minds of the ignorant (like jp)

try reading Darwin's work instead of quote mines or you can start by looking at
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

though that's unlikely, people like you are not interested in the truth! lie for Jesus, that's you!

JP writes Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein - All these men believed in a creator.

Oh, forgive me, jp. I didn't realize it was about freedom. Here I am slaving away under the illusion that it is about discovering how the real world works, and how we can improve our ability to ferret out the truth about, you know, reality. I mistakenly thought that the evolution of ideas means that some notions, comfortable and reassuring ones to be sure, are replaced by newer ideas that better explain some facet of life, the universe, and, uh, everything.

I am deeply embarrassed to have not noticed that you are searching for the freedom to remain mired in the dark ages. Pardon me, friend. I won't impede your liberty to labor under your own illusions anymore. I'm so sorry. Goodbye.

jp: Andrea Bottaro - you have now made my point - You have stated, very well in fact - science cannot give definitive answers, they are looking for answers - Ben Stien and I are only telling the world that you and yours will not look over the WALL - Why do you condemn those and prevent them from looking to a creator... By God, I think you got it. We are about - freedom - not forcing you to think like me, or me to think like you. Turn loose of your dog chains around the necks of scientists and teachers that would like to be free to explore the facts wherever they lead. Its about freedom.

jp: I don't need his written statement... I'll look at actions.

jp: Andrea Bottaro - you have now made my point - You have stated, very well in fact - science cannot give definitive answers, they are looking for answers - Ben Stien and I are only telling the world that you and yours will not look over the WALL - Why do you condemn those and prevent them from looking to a creator... By God, I think you got it. We are about - freedom - not forcing you to think like me, or me to think like you. Turn loose of your dog chains around the necks of scientists and teachers that would like to be free to explore the facts wherever they lead. Its about freedom.

blipley wrote The breakdown used to go by weeks in release (I’m not sure now-a-days what the actual breakdown is): Week 1: 90% studio / 10% theatre Week 2-3: 80% studio / 20% theatre Week 4-6: 70% / 30%

jp confused: Frank J- I hate to condemn myself so suredly in your eyes, but I went to a Catholic school. They did not teach evolution. They taught creation.

Notre Dame Biological Sciences Biology > Ecology, Evolution and Environment Ecology, Evolution and Environment The Environment Begins in the Life Sciences In the 21st century, rapid globalization and related global changes have placed environmental issues at the forefront of scientific inquiry. Emerging diseases, invasive species, chemical pollution, and global warming are but a few of the serious threats facing our planet's inhabitants. Environmental research and scholarship begin with understanding the relationship between organisms and their environment, whose core is in the Life Sciences. The Department of Biological Sciences has assembled a strong and interactive group of faculty who study the natural and human-modified environment. Our faculty apply ecological and evolutionary principles to address questions of major environmental importance. These questions are addressed in the laboratory and in the field, across North America and on other continents, and from the genome to the landscape.

jp wrote: Then, get a mathematician to calculate the odds of the first cell, knowing what we know today about a cell, forming by random processes?

JP writes... Hitler was a Darwinist by action - defacto! He did what Darwin suggests

jp, no-one can help you if you won't help yourself.

Paul,

It's even worse than that. The same God condemned every human being to death because some guy ate an apple! Man, the guy never had a chance, after all the chick who gave him the apple was naked at the time. So you see, humans could have been immortal and lived forever, except that guy screwed up so now we must all grow old and die in agony. But don't worry, that same loving God has generously provided a way to redeem us from the sins of others, so we'll be OK, eventually. We still have to die though.

Now what was that apple the guy ate? Oh yea, it was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Interseting. Maybe JP will study that one in sunday school today and come back and explain. Seems like he somehow got the idea that knowledge is evil, imagine that.

James D. Kennedy, producer of Darwin caused Hitler fame, suffered a massive heart problem, same as mine. Evolutionary biology led to the use of pig valves in humans. They told me I had a 30% chance of survival, I made it. They told Kennedy that the means to save him were from evoution research, he said "go ahead", same 30% chance, he didn't make it, he died, probably because he didn't believe in evolution.

from jp's comments, Kennedy is probably one of his heroes. so jp make sure you use no modern medicines as all were developed through evolution research. Just cover your ears and eyes on your way back to the dark ages.

by the way, I am a Catholic so I know you lied!

First off, jp, you're a perfect example of the guy with the plank in his eye who complains about the dust motes in everybody else's.

Second, if you actually studied science, rather than listen to the filthy lies all of your spiritual handlers have been filling your head with, you would realize that "Creationism/Intelligent Design Versus The Theory of Evolution" is not about "freedom." It is about quality control, and the fact that no 20th or 21st century Creationist and no Intelligent Design proponent has ever expressed a desire to do any science whatsoever with their pitiful hypothesis.

The ignorant creationist hiding behind the username jp said: "I chanllenge you to quote from some book, paper or other scientific journal as to this event and what led to it other than - the bible."

JP is a liar. Do you hear that JP? You are a liar.

I went to Catholic school as well and learned evolution. We didn't read the bible except for whatever passage our priest directed us to while we were in church. We received "handout's" in Catechism.

JP - do you know what the Bible say's about liar's? Here's a refresher ...

Revelation 21:8
All iars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.

You better go to confession.

Frank J - Frank your answering my question with a question. This is not allowed.

— jp

Andrea Bottaro: At the end of it all, you may not have enjoyed the process of learning about this, and you may well remain utterly unconvinced, but I can guarantee that it will not be time wasted. If on the other hand you just find the way scientists get to answers too cumbersome, time-consuming, complex and tentative to satisfy you and make your effort worthwhile, feel free to go ahead and subscribe to any of the nonscientific explanations that are available out there. It's really nobody's loss but yours.

Any word on yesterday's numbers?

At least in some religions, teachers try to convince others that their world view is the only correct one. Teachers of science do not do that, or do they?

The movie is an eyeopener for the general public concerning the science, special interest, and educational complex that is quite parallel to the military industrial complex and its abuses of money, power, and influence that Eisenhower warned us against in the 50's ( its outcomes were McCarthyism, etc.).

Several things become clear:

1) Philosophical and spiritual belief systems pervade one's world view into areas of science and social paradigms.

2) There is a huge coordinated effort to protect the power base of this complex across individuals, organizations, and the monetary benefits and power they enjoy.

3) The science of this debate from ultimate origins, to all biologic diversity is on the side of both special creation ( regarding origins and diversity) regardless of age and degree of continuing interraction with an intelligent creator.

4) If it were possible to fully elaborate and effectively describe the complexity of the cell in tyerms say of a complex manufacturing facility and illustrate its orders of magnitude increased complexity over anything we have yet to even design let alone accomplist, then people would demand the consideration of intelligent design as a scientific explanation of life.

5) There is a fear within the complex that opening up the discussion in the most open and robust sense throughout society would harm scienctific progress. This is an unfounded and irrational fear easily dismaissed in the centuries old historical recoird and the film examples presented of qualified scientists doing good and important work while doubting darwinism.

But of course NO ONE prevents or condemns you, Ben Stein or anyone else from looking at God as an explanation. It’s just not a scientific explanation.

— Andrea Bottaro

So here’s Charles Darwin again, from Descent of Man: “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

So here’s Charles Darwin again, from Descent of Man: “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

Andrea Bottaro:

At least in some religions, teachers try to convince others that their world view is the only correct one. Teachers of science do not do that, or do they?

Science teachers shouldn't be in the business of teaching world-views in general. But we do know from multiple surveys that a significant fraction of public school science teachers in the US teach creationism as truth, and an even larger fraction are afraid of teaching evolution science because of potential repercussions on their careers or their physical safety.

I am presently engaged in as study of European history. I think i know the answer, but I have enquired of some historians here to clear the issue for me. You see, i think Germany after WW1 was ready for Hitler and his dream of lebensraum and a German 1000-year Reich - and the Jews were a handy enemy to unite the forces of evil - for a glorious future - a revenge for the humiliating Versailles tract.

Joseph Goebbels [Nazi Propaganda Minister]: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

But what about the questions? You still have not answered the questions? I’m sorry to be so impolite as to try to pin you down, but can you answer my questions? Thank you teacher.

— jp

One of you great thinkers out there tell me how the big bang was produced from nothing?

Then tell me how the universe, that is expanding at an increasing speed, but according to theory should be slowing down - please explain.

Then explain how a cell with a gigabyte of written instructions “DNA” and 250 protiens, machines, motors, and a factory producing factory - just came to be.

I’m waiting for your explanation of these little ommissions from your evolution theory...

...remember it is only a theory.

Any word on yesterday’s numbers?

— Stacy S.

Hey Kieth is back!

Hi Troll! Happy Sunday!

Once again, Kieth attempts to derail the thread with his Great Conspiracy Theory(tm) which now includes both big science and the popular press.

(A two for one! don't you love spring clearance sales!)

Anyhow, Kieth, I'm gonna ask you the exact same thing I just asked JP.

You keep complaining that the Great Science Cabal(tm) won't let you ID guys show your gleaming evidence to the world.

Well, you have an open forum here. Right here, right now, you can point us to all that positive evidence the DI has drummed up that Creationism is real.

There are no peer review firewalls to sneak by, no media censorship to evade, just clean white space waiting for your nuggets of testable fact.

So go on, put your evidence on the table.

But please, real evidence. Not references to 3000 year old books written by and for semi-literate shepherds, no screeds linking Darwin to Hitler, no arguments that amount to "I don't understand all this complicated stuff, therefore it must be wrong".

Evidence. You know, stuff we can actually test and examine to demonstrate that ID isn't just full of crap.

Here's your big chance to put up or shut up. Then again, given your track record, I suspect you'll do neither.

I'm reminded of some Pentagon PR experts. They are capable of looking you straight in the eye and telling you they don't see you - and believing it!. What do you do to counter this? Provide pictures of yourself? Shout?

The futile effort so many people here make to try to counter the obvious position that evidence does not matter, by providing more evidence, always amazes me. This is not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of preference born of indoctrination, curable only by death.

I suppose the pedagogical value might be all those silent lurkers who can see repeated demonstrations of how sanity itself must be abandoned to maintain wired-in superstitions. But those lurkers are either wired that way (in which case they learn nothing) or they are not (in which case they learn nothing new).

RBH: My favorite review so far is on Halfway There. One quote. After noting that the Peperdine "students" were actually extras hired by the film company, HT says

Near the end of the movie, Stein tells his Pepperdine audience that “There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box, where it can't possibly touch a higher power, cannot possibly touch God.” Perhaps Stein has it backward. It is God that is in a little box, and the box gets smaller all the time. His god-of-the-gaps used to be required to push the planets about in their orbits, to make the rain fall, and the sun shine, but that was all once upon a time. Science has deprived this god of most of his once-vital functions. Science cannot possibly touch God? Sorry, Ben. There's been a lot of touching going on. God has the bruises and the gap-toothed smile to show for it, too.

Paul Burnett:

The ignorant creationist hiding behind the username jp said: "I chanllenge you to quote from some book, paper or other scientific journal as to this event and what led to it other than - the bible."

Jp, your acceptance of the bible as a source of scientific truth has problems - here are just a few quotes: A Talking Donkey - "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam..." (Numbers 22:28-30) A Talking Snake - "And the serpent said unto the woman..." (Genesis 3:1-5) Stopping the Rotation of the Earth - "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed... So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. " (Joshua 10:12-13) Pi Equals 3.000 - "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (I Kings 7:23) Grasshoppers and Beetles Have Four Legs - (Leviticus 11:20-23) And the list goes on and on, jp. Your "scientific reference," written by and for bronze-age nomads, just doesn't make it in the 21st century. But I'm sure you can see why people who invoke such "scientific truths" are Expelled from actual science classes and actual science teaching positions. (They would, of course, do much better at Bob Jones University or Biola or Liberty University.)

rocket: Evolutionary biology led to the use of pig valves in humans.

The futile effort so many people here make to try to counter the obvious position that evidence does not matter

Teachers of science do not do that, or do they?

— Eric Finn

Andrea Bottaro: But of course NO ONE prevents or condemns you, Ben Stein or anyone else from looking at God as an explanation. It's just not a scientific explanation. If you are happy with any of the available mythologies, may that be Abrahamic, Hindu, raelian or any other of your choice - which are all indistinguishable from a scientific standpoint - good for you. If however you think that freedom requires science to endorse your mythology of choice, and to present it in classes and professional journals as if it were actual scientific evidence, you have a very strange idea of freedom.

I thought mathematics was a language of science, not a science in itself?

So, a question related to the original topic:
If this movie is bombing so hard on opening weekend and likely isn't going to rake in much in the way of profit, could I feel less dirty for paying ticket price and seeing it in theaters? I just might want to check out this Godawful travesty for myself. You know, the way one might experience a low-budget hackneyed flick about vampire eyeballs from space.

Robert O'Brien: Make that an empirical explanation, Gomer. Mathematics is a science too (the most important, in fact), and it fits quite nicely with my theology.

"Wheels",

I'd suggest waiting two weeks before giving them your money. That will help deprive them of what they so desperately desired, market validation.

Dr. Elsberry, Did I tell you thank you yet for coming to Florida? THANK YOU :-)

There are some new numbers up at the box office link.:-)

Hi Everyone,

Apparently "Expelled" is doing a lot worse than anticipated. As of yesterday, it had barely grossed $2.9 Million in sales according to the information posted here:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/jet-and-jackie-nudge-out-judd-on-friday/

"Expelled" has slipped from opening in 8th place to 10th place.

That's great news!

Cheers,

John

Stacy S.: Dr. Elsberry, Did I tell you thank you yet for coming to Florida? THANK YOU :-)

Wheels, what is this movie about vampire eyeballs from space? I want to see that.

6 DaveScot 04/16/2008 11:32 am This is getting funny. Not long ago the chance worshippers were wondering if Expelled had a big enough budget to licence teh Bad To The Bone music. Now it’s looking more like a documentary category killer. In other words it’s all like “we own the space”. I wonder when it’ll make it to HBO and after that probably FOX broadcasting.

@ John- It's not even in the top 10 ... look to the right hand side of the article that you linked :-)

There are some new numbers up at the box office link.:-)

Zeno:

Robert O'Brien: Make that an empirical explanation, Gomer. Mathematics is a science too (the most important, in fact), and it fits quite nicely with my theology.

O'Brien says he's in mathematics when he's not trolling the boards and offering puerile insults. I agree that it's a nice field (since it's also mine), but I fear I must have missed the mathematical axiom that says anything about God's existence. Math is as agnostic as evolutionary biology when it comes to deities. He says math fits quite nicely with his theology. Hey, it does with mine, too.

Stacy S.: @ John- It's not even in the top 10 ... look to the right hand side of the article that you linked :-)

Frank J:

Teachers of science do not do that, or do they?

— Eric Finn

Every science teacher I had, grade school through grad school, even those who seemed morally challenged, sent us a clear message of "cheat at your own risk." So In a way they did teach a world view. By the time I was conducting my own research I was tempted to do what the anti-evolution activists do - cherry pick evidence, cover up inconsistencies, play word games etc. But I knew that if I cheated it would catch up to me sooner or later. But even then - I was an atheist at the start of my career - there was always something more than the possibility of getting caught that stopped me from cheating. Call it a conscience or God, but some of it was inspired by those teachers.

steve s: More failed ID predictions:

6 DaveScot 04/16/2008 11:32 am This is getting funny. Not long ago the chance worshippers were wondering if Expelled had a big enough budget to licence teh Bad To The Bone music. Now it’s looking more like a documentary category killer. In other words it’s all like “we own the space”. I wonder when it’ll make it to HBO and after that probably FOX broadcasting.

Sheesh, go away for a day, and come back to discover that "jacob" got a new IP address.

Jackelope King:

Stacy S.: @ John- It's not even in the top 10 ... look to the right hand side of the article that you linked :-)

Stacy, those are last weekend's box office numbers (note that Forbidden Kingdom isn't at the top). Still, if those numbers are right in terms of revenue, then Expelled has (once again) flunked.

From the link in John Kwok's comment 151,802:

"So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the 'agenda of liberal Hollywood'."

Actually I do think that the "silent majority" would flock to movies if they had less of the usual "liberal Hollywood" agenda. I certainly would. I don't mean that they must have a conservative agenda either - centrist, a balance of liberal and conservative, or even "apolitical" would probably all be a refreshing alternative for most moviegoers.

But "Expelled" is far from even mainstream conservative. It is an overdose of candy for conspiracy junkies, wrapped in a radically paranoid authoritarian agenda.

John,

Wonderful news! So far it's been a disaster with the critics. At Rotten Tomatoes it is running at a dismal 9% among all critics and 0% among top critics (compare that to Zombie Strippers, at 40% overall and 38% among top critics). It's refreshing to see that film critics know propaganda when they see it.

Wheels,

Thanks for your very patient and very thoughtful explanation. I agree with Wesley, wait awhile before seeing this turkey.

Just in - Friday and Saturday - number 9:

9. Expelled: No Intelligence Used In Making This Mockumentary / 1,052
$3,153,000 | - | $2,997 | $3,153,000 | New

jp said:

Frank J- I hate to condemn myself so suredly in your eyes, but I went to a Catholic school. They did not teach evolution.

Or spelling. Or grammar.

jp: Have some courage, let freedom flurish in this land again - let the people decide based on open discussion, science, and exploration. Don't be little Nazis.

We already have witnessed how the movie has poorly equipped its Christian viewers with the tools and knowledge to defend themselves when trying to evangelize. As such the movie has violated Augustine's fair warning that we Christians should not look foolish when it comes to issues of science.

The cost of the movie on Christianity seems to be significant. Another victory for atheism.

The weekend estimates are already in

Friday: $1,205,000

%change/per theatre: -- / $1,145

Total: $1,205,000 / 1

Saturday: $990,000

%change/per theatre: -17.8% / $941

Total: $2,195,000 / 2

Sunday: $958,000

%change/per theatre: -3.2% / $911

Total: $3,153,000 / 3

Matching predictions

Robert O'Brien: Make that an empirical explanation, Gomer. Mathematics is a science too (the most important, in fact), and it fits quite nicely with my theology.

PvM:

jp: Have some courage, let freedom flurish in this land again - let the people decide based on open discussion, science, and exploration. Don't be little Nazis.

That is exactly what has happened. And science, based on this has rejected ID's claims, in fact it's worse, ID has failed to submit any scientifically relevant thesis so far.

Andrea Bottaro: I am no mathematician, but as fas as I know, God isn't accepted as a mathematical explanation either.

Davescot: I wonder when it’ll make it to HBO and after that probably FOX broadcasting.

Robert O'Brien: ...the Bible was written during the Iron Age.... And the "pi=3" objection is one of the stupidest I've encountered, and I'm in mathematics.

The post I made earlier stands and the outburst of angry, dishonest, fanciful, and blasphemous posts don't change reality.

1) The current cosmology and modern physics point to a single finite beginning act of creation in which all matter, energy, and mass, and time came into being in something less than 10**-35 seconds. No on has any concept of what occurred before the end of that period. There was absolutely nothing identifiable in our understanding because there was no universe...absolutely nothing. This is the result of 100 years or more of argument about whether the universe was eternal, without beginning or end, and the result to date is antipathy to most scientists in the field.

2) Defining away the abiogenesis event is a sophistic trick employed falsely by evolanders because after 100 years, millions of dollars, and thousands of man-hours in labs around the world they have 100% NADA to show for their efforts. Yet the pace is maintained by people with identical degrees, experiences, philosophies, workplaces, journals and credentials as the supposed separate biological community... nothing can be farther from the truth, just the usual total dishonesty in the face of abject failure of their theory.

3) Even after granting some abiogenesis event via naturalism that results in the first self sustaining flawed replicator , cell, organism apart from the how, when, or where not one evolander will post, posit, reference, or in any sense describe said replicator in sufficient detail for science to assess such proposals. You will never, never, never see this foundational, necessary, critical to evolution hypothesis treated scientifically.

4) As for the movie, the weekend is not over, the DVD and rental revenues here and abroad are unknown over the next several months, the attention to the maggots, sewer people, and demagogues, anarchists, neo-nazis, and anti-christs has been immense and will continue to ripple through every element of society for some time. Without any doubt several million will view the film this year and that is phenomenally important and influential.

5) The admission by Dawkins that ID is certainly possible and even detectable via scientific methodologies was absolutely astounding and will probably result in his being criticized by the other unruly pack of cannibalistic evolanders...no tolerance for such admissions.

6) The cartoonish understanding of the Judeo Christian God and His Word in scripture that He inspired through human authors in the original writings via several authors is unworthy of comment in its sophomoric ignorance and willing stupidity.

Keep whistling past your graveyard, if it helps qualm your irrational fears.

Andrea Bottaro: I am no mathematician...

Andrea Bottaro: I guess what you mean is, unlike some aspects of natural sciences, mathematics doesn't really upset your theology.

Remember this one ...

April 18th - the Great Awakening! LMAO! ;-)

Paul Burnett: The creation myths of Genesis are found in the Babylonian / Mesopotamian "Enuma Elis" which is variously dated anywhere from the 12th to 18th centuries BC. The "Late Bronze Age" is generally agreed to be about from the 12th to 15th centuries BC. Looks like a good match, wouldn't you agree?

Paul Burnett: ... Keeping the above in mind, Robert, what's the value of pi?

1) The current cosmology and modern physics point to a single finite beginning act of creation in which all matter, energy, and mass, and time came into being in something less than 10**-35 seconds. No on has any concept of what occurred before the end of that period. There was absolutely nothing identifiable in our understanding because there was no universe…absolutely nothing. This is the result of 100 years or more of argument about whether the universe was eternal, without beginning or end, and the result to date is antipathy to most scientists in the field.

— keith

Stacy S. said:

Remember this one … April 18th - the Great Awakening! LMAO! ;-)

4) As for the movie, the weekend is not over, the DVD and rental revenues here and abroad are unknown over the next several months, the attention to the maggots, sewer people, and demagogues, anarchists, neo-nazis, and anti-christs has been immense and will continue to ripple through every element of society for some time. Without any doubt several million will view the film this year and that is phenomenally important and influential.

— Keith

Stacy S.: Remember this one ... April 18th - the Great Awakening! LMAO! ;-)

keith: ...the outburst of angry, dishonest, fanciful, and blasphemous posts don't change reality.

jp: Frank J- I hate to condemn myself so suredly in your eyes, but I went to a Catholic school. They did not teach evolution. They taught creation. I hope this doesn't diminish or increase your hatred for people like me too much. After all, you tolerent people, unlike us Christians, are so understanding and will to hear one hand clapping.

keith: The post I made earlier stands and the outburst of angry, dishonest, fanciful, and blasphemous posts don't change reality. 1) The current cosmology and modern physics point to a single finite beginning act of creation in which all matter, energy, and mass, and time came into being in something less than 10**-35 seconds. No on has any concept of what occurred before the end of that period. There was absolutely nothing identifiable in our understanding because there was no universe...absolutely nothing. This is the result of 100 years or more of argument about whether the universe was eternal, without beginning or end, and the result to date is antipathy to most scientists in the field. 2) Defining away the abiogenesis event is a sophistic trick employed falsely by evolanders because after 100 years, millions of dollars, and thousands of man-hours in labs around the world they have 100% NADA to show for their efforts. Yet the pace is maintained by people with identical degrees, experiences, philosophies, workplaces, journals and credentials as the supposed separate biological community... nothing can be farther from the truth, just the usual total dishonesty in the face of abject failure of their theory. 3) Even after granting some abiogenesis event via naturalism that results in the first self sustaining flawed replicator , cell, organism apart from the how, when, or where not one evolander will post, posit, reference, or in any sense describe said replicator in sufficient detail for science to assess such proposals. You will never, never, never see this foundational, necessary, critical to evolution hypothesis treated scientifically. 4) As for the movie, the weekend is not over, the DVD and rental revenues here and abroad are unknown over the next several months, the attention to the maggots, sewer people, and demagogues, anarchists, neo-nazis, and anti-christs has been immense and will continue to ripple through every element of society for some time. Without any doubt several million will view the film this year and that is phenomenally important and influential. 5) The admission by Dawkins that ID is certainly possible and even detectable via scientific methodologies was absolutely astounding and will probably result in his being criticized by the other unruly pack of cannibalistic evolanders...no tolerance for such admissions. 6) The cartoonish understanding of the Judeo Christian God and His Word in scripture that He inspired through human authors in the original writings via several authors is unworthy of comment in its sophomoric ignorance and willing stupidity. Keep whistling past your graveyard, if it helps qualm your irrational fears.

Poor pathetic Keith was right about one thing, but not the way he thought. April 18th was the great awakening. The country awakened to the dishonesty and intellectual charlatanism of Intelligent Design. Dover was exciting to most of us, but was mostly unknown to the public at large. This steaming pile of a movie isn't. The moral and intellectual difficiency of ID can't be hidden any more, and hopefully, won't take any more school boards by surprise either.

Face it Keith, you guys put everything you had into this movie, and it stunk up the joint. You lose. But don't feel bad. Go open another Cracker Jacks box, maybe you'll find another one of those advanced degrees you keep illiterately claiming you have.

Evolander: Just because you don't like evolution doesn't make it not true. The fact of evolution remains, in spite of everything you and Robert and "Expelled" and Answers in Genesis can do. The war is over - you lost. Go away.

Robert O'Brien:

Paul Burnett: ... Keeping the above in mind, Robert, what's the value of pi?

A history of Pi

Science Avenger: Go open another Cracker Jacks box, maybe you'll find another one of those advanced degrees you keep illiterately claiming you have.

Robert O'Brien: Then you two will have the same alma mater!

Yet another in Robert's long list of assertions sans evidence. Do you really think the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" impresses anyone?

You guys are truly pathetic. You can't even come up with original insults.

Science Avenger: Yet another in Robert's long list of assertions sans evidence. Do you really think the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" impresses anyone? You guys are truly pathetic. You can't even come up with original insults.

Robert O'Brien:

Science Avenger: Yet another in Robert's long list of assertions sans evidence. Do you really think the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" impresses anyone? You guys are truly pathetic. You can't even come up with original insults.

We are not acting as a corporate entity. I just took the opportunity you presented to take a swipe at you.

Dale Husband:

Robert O'Brien:

Science Avenger: Yet another in Robert's long list of assertions sans evidence. Do you really think the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" impresses anyone? You guys are truly pathetic. You can't even come up with original insults.

We are not acting as a corporate entity. I just took the opportunity you presented to take a swipe at you.

Thus proving your idiocy, Robert.

Dear "Intellectual Morons" in the Tradition of Sanger, Darwin, Kinsey, Mead and a long long list.

Everyone note.... not a single rejoiner to the challenges posted as has been the case for 20 years on the net.

Maybe tomorrow, mybe next year, maybe , maybe ,maybe.

Yes, the great awakening has begun and if you believe this weekend is some sort of victory for evolanders.. I laugh and hold your stupidity in derision. You set your assessments as to what some success is based on 48 hours of showing...laughable. The real message is that your forecast of cancelling the showing with injunctions, bought and paid for liberal media critics, organized diversionary web blogs, crashing screenings, all of this well publicized and all of it sickening to ethical people and confirming the neo-nazi nature of the hard line evolander community .

My local theatre was 2/3 full at 1 pm on Saturday in a highly intellectual university community with a strong spiritual plurality.

Call me back when one of you sniveling, pitiful, arrogant, blasphemous and ignorant ranting sewer people leaders can attract a combined audience of about 250,000 people plus millions by way of the media in a one week tour of events.

You people cannnot even define what you mean by evolution in terms that can be fully tested or falsified by any observation...it's a mishmash of ever changing excusatory new terms, multiple postulates, conflicting hypotheses, and nothing founded in rigorous science.

My post remains unchallenged and the outcome of the debate is as certain as anything quantifiable...you lose, HE wins.

Count on it!!

..you lose, HE wins.

My post remains unchallenged and the outcome of the debate is as certain as anything quantifiable…you lose, HE wins.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Dear “Intellectual Morons” in the Tradition of Sanger, Darwin, Kinsey, Mead and a long long list.

You set your assessments as to what some success is based on 48 hours of showing

The director was not there; the host was a PR flak who identified himself as Steve Schmidt, a personal friend of the producer (who was also Schmidt's former pastor, he said). He was a fount of interesting information. He still claims the movie is opening on 1000 screens on April 18. They picked Ben Stein because he has a 54% recognizability rating in the US. Stein was their first choice and he accepted, but they had two other people on the list. Someone asked who they were, but he would only say that one of them was Dennis Miller. He said they would consider the opening weekend successful if the movie sold 2 million tickets (earning $12-15 million).

In the end, one is entitled to make even bold claims, if one thinks that the observations support them.

— Eric Finn

Hey Keith, give me the name and phone number to the theater you are talking about ... I'd like to check out your story.

Over on Box Office Mojo, Expelled is currently getting "B" Movie status from those who have voted:

As: 81, (66.4%)
Bs: 4, (3.3%)
Cs: 0, (0.0%)
Ds: 0, (0.0%)
Fs: 35, (28.7%).


I have (of course) contributed my F, but I was surprised at the 81 As so far.

You can sign up to vote there on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/users/?page=signup&ref=pop&p=.htm if you like.

It's clear that they're lulling us into a false sense of security with these awful reviews and poor box office returns. IT'S A TRAP!

Stacy S.: Hey Keith, give me the name and phone number to the theater you are talking about ... I'd like to check out your story.

Greg du Pille: Over on Box Office Mojo, Expelled is currently getting "B" Movie status from those who have voted: As: 81, (66.4%) Bs: 4, (3.3%) Cs: 0, (0.0%) Ds: 0, (0.0%) Fs: 35, (28.7%). I have (of course) contributed my F, but I was surprised at the 81 As so far. You can sign up to vote there on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/users/?page=signup&ref=pop&p=.htm if you like.

PvM:

Stacy S.: Hey Keith, give me the name and phone number to the theater you are talking about ... I'd like to check out your story.

If Keith is correct and his theatre was 2/3 full then we can draw several possible conclusions 1. Keith's theatre is relatively small 2. Other theatres have remained relatively empty as the 'success' has been limited to some religious hotspots, missing the more general public Any other possible conclusions?

Andrea Bottaro said: Some people think cooking is a science too,

Everyone note…. not a single rejoiner to the challenges posted as has been the case for 20 years on the net.

Hey, has jp gotten back from his "Righteous Orgy of Righteousness" revival meeting with Rev. Phelps yet?

Frankly, just direct his stupid ass to Wikipedia's article on "evolution" and demand he address flaws in the theory after he has the smallest clue what he's talking about. He doesn't deserve anything more.

P.s. Keith is a dishonest loser shit who makes the honestly ignorant and stupid look like saints of reason and moderation.

tomh:

Andrea Bottaro said: Some people think cooking is a science too,

Hey! Don't disparage us cooks out here. Cooking is more of a science than anything the idiot O'Brien can understand.

Stacy S.: Hey Keith, give me the name and phone number to the theater you are talking about ... I'd like to check out your story.

Regarding pi having a value of 3, the explanation given is that the diameter was measured over the outside of the bowl while the circumference was measured inside the rim. Given the likely tools they had available (a knotted rope) this seems very unlikely. Try measuring the inside circumference of a garbage can using a cloth tape measure. The other way around, measuring the diameter from inside rim to inside rim and the circumference around the outside would have made sense. As it is, I think whoever proposed this had not put their explanation to the test.

Dana Hunter: These people are worse than X-Files fans.

Robert O'Brien said: I am sure you are the best fry cook your local McDonald’s has but if you think you know science better than I do then you need to lay off the chronic.

tomh:

Robert O'Brien said: I am sure you are the best fry cook your local McDonald’s has but if you think you know science better than I do then you need to lay off the chronic.

Hehe, that's a good one. You were really born a few hundred years too late, since court jester would have been a perfect calling for you. Know science better than you? You display your lack of knowledge of science with every post. You should really stick to religion in your posts, a field where any fool can be an expert, no knowledge required.

Okay, here's a serious question for all you Darwinoids.
You've seen the opening box office numbers for Expelled. That's what this thread is directly concerned with. Now here's your question: Would you be willing to agree that all the media attacks and whines that you evo-guys have individually and collectively been doing in the weeks and months leading up to Opening Day, have in fact very significantly contributed to those box-office numbers?

FL

Getting another conspiracy theory together, FL? First "Big Science" for the movie, then "Big Media" for the bad reviews...... now what? "Big Box Office"?

My working hypothesis is that the Freemasons and the Illuminati caused Expelled to fail at the behest of Big Science, to whom both are subordinate.

FL: Okay, here's a serious question for all you Darwinoids. You've seen the opening box office numbers for Expelled. That's what this thread is directly concerned with. Now here's your question: Would you be willing to agree that all the media attacks and whines that you evo-guys have individually and collectively been doing in the weeks and months leading up to Opening Day, have in fact very significantly contributed to those box-office numbers? FL

Robert O'Brien: Nor are you a geologist, as we saw when you attempted to defend Professor Swamp Gas' absurd claim that: Evolution, on the other hand, is at the center of all life science, much physical science (as in geology), and applied fields such as medicine and agriculture.

No legitimate natural science upsets my theology.

Sure Stacy it was 1:40 showing Saturday at Norman Spotlight.

Richard I am early retired (what super successful people are able to do you know) at 62. I am currently in a MS Liberal Studies degree program with an emphasis in History of Science.

My prior BS and MS in Engineering physics and Systems Engr. were pretty adequate in assisting my career in the Fortune 500.

I did read through a recent college Biology text in my last job as a consultant in workforce development in higher ed. Since it was only a year ago I found it interesting that since HS the BS Urey Miller stuff has been retained but, but clarified as inconsequential, the Haeckel drawings treated as a historical inaccuracy, but all the other origin of life speculation retained...curious at best.

I find no need to take a formal class in material so easily understood and mastered in comparison to my other more rigorous classes and areas of study and practice. Clearly people like Remine has completely destroyed any intellectual basis for the hypotheses on the basis of being intellectually gifted and conducting a self study of the subject.

I admit it can be frustrating to follow the logic of a hypothesis with so many disparate variations, internal inconsistencies, lack of mathematical rigor, philosophically fallacious propositions in logical terms, and lacking in any sense of internal consistency.

jp: Rolph -- That is a Germon name isn't it? Wasn't Hitler German. He believed in Darwin too. No book, no science defines the events and the physics prior to the big bang - I chanllenge you to quote from some book, paper or other scientific journal as to this event and what led to it other than - the bible.

@ FL - Don't know. don't care. I still think it's funny though! :-)

"I find no need to take a formal class in material so easily understood and mastered in comparison to my other more rigorous classes and areas of study and practice. Clearly people like Remine has completely destroyed any intellectual basis for the hypotheses on the basis of being intellectually gifted and conducting a self study of the subject."

Indispensible reading for Keith.

Freemasons? Bah! It's the Pentaverate!

But seriously...the lies in Expelled needed to be challenged. As far as I know, no one engaged in picketing or other overt techniques that would have piqued curiosity outside of the fundamentalist target audience.

OK FL, here's a serious question; do you think the film will flop because of a Darwinian conspiracy or just because it is a very badly made propaganda film (by all reasonable accounts)?

I admit it can be frustrating to follow the logic of a hypothesis with so many disparate variations, internal inconsistencies, lack of mathematical rigor, philosophically fallacious propositions in logical terms, and lacking in any sense of internal consistency.

Yeah, Intelligent Design frustrates me, too. Small wonder it hasn't presented any data in a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper.

Would you be willing to agree that all the media attacks and whines that you evo-guys have individually and collectively been doing in the weeks and months leading up to Opening Day, have in fact very significantly contributed to those box-office numbers?

— FL

Thanks keith ... will report back ASAP

Personally the Urantians and their books make more sense than your theory... maybe they are who Dawkins was referring to in the movie since their story is quite congruent to his hypothesis.

I think Stacy would be a blue person, Stanton a red, and green is up for grabs.

Well Keith is telling the truth (I think) Thank you Keith.

I spoke with "Aaron" or "Eric", and he said he couldn't release any numbers, but he thought it was "holdin' its own with thuh othuh movies".

JJ: No, it is a piece of garbage. The film makers thought the general public couldn't see through their tactics. April 18th, the great awakening, looks like most everyone slept through it.

Poor Little Green Footballs.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29682_Steins_Expelled_Exposed

Fl smirks.... Would you be willing to agree that all the media attacks and whines that you evo-guys have individually and collectively been doing in the weeks and months leading up to Opening Day, have in fact very significantly contributed to those box-office numbers?

I find no need to take a formal class in material so easily understood and mastered in comparison to my other more rigorous classes and areas of study and practice. Clearly people like Remine has completely destroyed any intellectual basis for the hypotheses on the basis of being intellectually gifted and conducting a self study of the subject.

— Keith

Keith,

I am delighted that, as you say, "I find no need to take a formal class in material so easily understood and mastered in comparison to my other more rigorous classes and areas of study and practice."

In that case, it must be as easy as falling off the proverbial log for you to answer my question. Please could you give us your theory for the origins of the variety of life on Earth, and some of the evidence to support it.

As an additional point, "I admit it can be frustrating to follow the logic of a hypothesis with so many disparate variations, internal inconsistencies, lack of mathematical rigor, philosophically fallacious propositions in logical terms, and lacking in any sense of internal consistency." Please could you tell us what you perceive as some of these problems? You see, we keep getting creationists / IDers here who say things like this but apparently they do not have your level of expertise as they are never able to identify the specific problems for us.

BTW, many people do not measure how successful their career was by how quickly they can get out of it. For myself, for example, as a result of my career I have had experiences other people could only dream of.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

P.S. I'm glad to see your spelling has improved. However, it is 'Clearly people like Remine have completely destroyed . . .', not 'Clearly people like Remine has completely destroyed . . .'

Remine ?

Mr "You keep misrepresenting me ! Buy my book !" ?

Mr "1667 mutations AREN'T ENOUGH !!" - and never explains HOW he determined that ?

An Encounter with Remine

Figures an eel like that would be one of keith's role models.

Robert O'Brien:

Andrea Bottaro: I am no mathematician...

Nor are you a geologist, as we saw when you attempted to defend Professor Swamp Gas' absurd claim that: Evolution, on the other hand, is at the center of all life science, much physical science (as in geology), and applied fields such as medicine and agriculture.

Andrea Bottaro: I guess what you mean is, unlike some aspects of natural sciences, mathematics doesn't really upset your theology.

No legitimate natural science upsets my theology.

Robert O'Brien: Even if Genesis were influenced by the Enuma Elis, that does not make it a bronze age document. The earliest source for the Genesis narrative is dated to the 10th century before Christ, which is well within the Iron Age.

FL accidently being coherent: Would you be willing to agree that all the media attacks and whines that you evo-guys have individually and collectively been doing in the weeks and months leading up to Opening Day, have in fact very significantly contributed to those box-office numbers?

The reason for no formal classes after biology in high school is that I was too busy taking math, physics, chemistry, information theory, EE, materials, thermo, pchem and other hard sciences that make the lesser light sciences like biology, paleontology, etc. possible... that is to have some sense of technical efficacy, rather than falling into the category of say phrenology or alchemy.

Let's start with the 100th presentation of the question aired on the net since 1990.

1) Evolution, writ large, assumes and critically depends on the transition of life from non-life but has no demonstrable evidence that the laws of the universe could ever under any condition bring such about by purely natural means. Defining this away does not relieve evolution of its responsibility to provide a chain of logic and evidence to support its foundational assumption.

2) Assuming that abiogenesis did occur under natural processes it is again a critical assumption that the first replicator though flawed was capable of evolving under RM and NS into more complex organisms and indeed was the common ancestor of all biology. Yet never , ever has anyone offered a molecular description for this organism based on experiments, observations, theoretical design in any sense supportive of the theory that has not been discredited totally by the scientific community in very short order.

3) The development of consciousness and self awareness as well as cognitive thought in the human context has absolutely no experimentally supported thesis as to an evolutionary origin, this after 100 years of study.

Why would one proceed to other areas of failure in the the theory when its most critical and necessary assumptions cannot and have not been shown as remotely credible in any sense?

Defining away problems, claiming independence, ignoring a valid chain of logical necessity is paramount to fraud and fakery apart from having nothing in common with the scientific method.

Please feel free to provide these missing elements in significant detail, references, data, etc. at your first opportunity. Until then don't bother me about the giant wolf to whale transition... LOL!

Paul Flocken:

Robert O'Brien: Even if Genesis were influenced by the Enuma Elis, that does not make it a bronze age document. The earliest source for the Genesis narrative is dated to the 10th century before Christ, which is well within the Iron Age.

The oldest written sources? How old is the oral tradition they were based on? Or are you saying that the oral sources don't count?

Wow! Raven and the team sure do know a lot about how to succeed as a Nazi... is that a biology class you people take.

Richard, some of us continue to grow and develop beyond a single discipline even after we reach the peak of our professions, perhaps particularly so. In my case I went into retail management and operated a 250,000 sq ft shopping center, became a certified commercial appraiser, and a consultant to higher ed in training program development, etc.

Of course other people enjoy having one year's experience twenty-five times and if frog dissection is your thing be happy and stick with it.

Did your other experience include superglueing moths to sooty trees or something even more profound?

....other hard sciences that make the lesser light sciences like biology, paleontology, etc. possible…

Classic BS. Ever hear of Physical Biochemistry? Structural Biology? Problem is, physicists can accurately describe up to about helium. What's the Hamiltonian for chlorophyll? Complexed with protein? A total photosystem? A drug-protein complex..... right....

The reason for no formal classes after biology in high school is that I was too busy taking math, physics, chemistry, information theory, EE, materials, thermo, pchem and other hard sciences that make the lesser light sciences like biology, paleontology, etc. possible…

The development of consciousness and self awareness as well as cognitive thought in the human context has absolutely no experimentally supported thesis as to an evolutionary origin, this after 100 years of study.

prof weird,

Thanks for the link to the discussion with ReMine. I'd seen it before but forgotten about it. Didn't something come out later, that Moderator #3 was ReMine himself or something like that?

keith: The reason for no formal classes after biology in high school is that I was too busy taking math, physics, chemistry, information theory, EE, materials, thermo, pchem and other hard sciences that make the lesser light sciences like biology, paleontology, etc. possible... that is to have some sense of technical efficacy, rather than falling into the category of say phrenology or alchemy. Let's start with the 100th presentation of the question aired on the net since 1990. 1) Evolution, writ large, assumes and critically depends on the transition of life from non-life but has no demonstrable evidence that the laws of the universe could ever under any condition bring such about by purely natural means. Defining this away does not relieve evolution of its responsibility to provide a chain of logic and evidence to support its foundational assumption. 2) Assuming that abiogenesis did occur under natural processes it is again a critical assumption that the first replicator though flawed was capable of evolving under RM and NS into more complex organisms and indeed was the common ancestor of all biology. Yet never , ever has anyone offered a molecular description for this organism based on experiments, observations, theoretical design in any sense supportive of the theory that has not been discredited totally by the scientific community in very short order. 3) The development of consciousness and self awareness as well as cognitive thought in the human context has absolutely no experimentally supported thesis as to an evolutionary origin, this after 100 years of study. Why would one proceed to other areas of failure in the the theory when its most critical and necessary assumptions cannot and have not been shown as remotely credible in any sense? Defining away problems, claiming independence, ignoring a valid chain of logical necessity is paramount to fraud and fakery apart from having nothing in common with the scientific method. Please feel free to provide these missing elements in significant detail, references, data, etc. at your first opportunity. Until then don't bother me about the giant wolf to whale transition... LOL!

FL, oh he of the "there is no such thing as bad publicity" ideology asks:

Okay, here's a serious question for all you Darwinoids. You've seen the opening box office numbers for Expelled. That's what this thread is directly concerned with. Now here's your question: Would you be willing to agree that all the media attacks and whines that you evo-guys have individually and collectively been doing in the weeks and months leading up to Opening Day, have in fact very significantly contributed to those box-office numbers?

there's a very simple answer to that, moron:

NOBODY who criticized the movie did so out of fear of generating controversy. It wouldn't matter if there was conclusive evidence that the websites criticizing the film DOUBLED ticket sales.

Instead, we all did it to call attention to and publicize the gross disinformation and blatant lies presented in a film that calls itself a "documentary".

I suppose when right wingers criticize Michael Moore's documentaries, you feel they do nothing but contribute to Moore's success?

you're nothing but a desperate, pathetic little hypocrite.

and guess what? the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity is false.

Keith, you keep harping on ultimate origins and earliest events.

One more time: Evolution deals with the nature of life as it exists and, apparently, evolves in REAL space and time. Whatever its beginnings, whether through natural phenomena or magic, the theory has shown the most remarkable robustness. You demand to be satisfied on ultimate origins, and do so in a most condescending tone, while offering nothing useful in scientific terms.

Even if your creator/father/savior/career counselor did do the ultimate deed, biologically and cosmologically, the application of evolutionary theory would be no different. At all.

Thus the silence is as deafening as ever as the hollow and vacuous nature of the theory remains,the same tired circumlocutions echoing across the network.

Like I said no answers, no logic, no argument, just the usual excuses and irrational vagaries.

Oh yeah, you forget the intelligent clay gumby's and crystal golems.

Boy it's a good thing I had great parental guidance, I might have settled for being a biologist..whew!!

Question for Keith.

Your car needs servicing so you take it to an auto mechanic. Do you then demand that he know and be able to describe in detail the origin of the automobile before you accept his ability to do a tune up and rotate the tires? Will he need to know all about Benz and Olds and Firestone and just what they accomplished before you would trust him to change your oil?

It seems that you are demanding something very similar here.

Peace, man.

keith claimed: The development of consciousness and self awareness as well as cognitive thought in the human context has absolutely no experimentally supported thesis as to an evolutionary origin, this after 100 years of study.

Thus the silence is as deafening as ever as the hollow and vacuous nature of the theory remains,the same tired circumlocutions echoing across the network. Like I said no answers, no logic, no argument, just the usual excuses and irrational vagaries.

Of course other people enjoy having one year’s experience twenty-five times

and if frog dissection is your thing be happy and stick with it.

Did your other experience include superglueing moths to sooty trees or something even more profound?

Like I said no answers, no logic, no argument, just the usual excuses and irrational vagaries.

Keith Eaton, giving us yet another grand example of pure projection.

seek treatment, Keith.

Let's look at this from a different perspective. It doesn't matter if the film makes money or not. The DI was successful in getting it made and released to a national audience. They are hyping it and any dissenters, reviewers or otherwise, are part of the liberal big media, as ben calls them and/or the scientific establishment that tried, and failed, to get the movie out of people's minds. DVD's are being made and they are preaching the film to the fundamentalist choir and their leaders, who are likely in full support and will continue this struggle against evolution. It is a fulfillment of the wedge process, it is slowly but surely eating away at the credibility of science. What doesn't help is Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, et. al., who are wearing their atheism on their shirtsleeves. If you attack a fundamentalist they will only attack back in equal or greater force. They are the underdogs and people root for the underdogs, poor fired and dismissed people, unable to speak their piece, etc.

Science (evolutionists, etc.) may have won the battle, but the war is not going well. Keep that in mind.

For too long scientists have quietly brushed aside these creationists, but their voice is being shriller and they are making an impact on their legislators with their claims of discrimination, unfair as they might be. If science continues to be polite, it just might, sad to say, lose the war.

The Catholic Pope just said science wasn't the only way to learning. Well, shades of the inquisition (he used to hold the high inquisitor's office himself for keeping the faithful faithful (or else). I think in his mind Galileo was wrong, and obviously so was Darwin.

Keith wrote:

"Please feel free to provide these missing elements in significant detail, references, data, etc. at your first opportunity. Until then don’t bother me about the giant wolf to whale transition… LOL!"

So. let's follow the logic here. Keith demands answers to certain questions and until he gets those questions answered to his satisfaction he won't listen to anything anyone has to say about any other subject. He won't look at any evidence, he won't accept any explanations, he just puts his hands over his ears and cries "I can't hear you".

There is a great deal of evidence from genetics, palentology and developmental biology and it all points to the same answer. Modern cetaceans descended from terrestrial Artiodactyls over the last 50 million years. Keith can ignore all of this evidence, since no one can prove to him how life originated. Fine, no one cares what he thinks.

Well Keith, if that's the sort of logic you understand then, please provide a detailed explanation for the origin of life as you see it. Tell us, what did God do, where, when and why? Until you provide all of these details, by your own logic, why should anyone pay the slightest attention to you or anything you say?

I continue to be amazed that people here engage the Keith as if he were a real, sentient adult interested in intelligent dialog.

It's obvious that he has no science education whatever, and he doesn't want any. He just has too many words in his vocabulary for which the meanings are completely beyond him.

It is a fulfillment of the wedge process, it is slowly but surely eating away at the credibility of science.

no, it does nothing to the credibility of science itself, it only reinforces already existing prejudices.

science itself will go on just fine with or without the nutters.

It's the funding that gets hit, but there are always other countries that are more interested in giving scientists decent money.

What doesn't help is Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, et. al., who are wearing their atheism on their shirtsleeves.

you are wrong on two counts here.

One: atheism has nothing to do with science itself, and only the CREATIONISTS are linking the two directly.

Two: Dawkins et. al. have done more to push the discussion of LACK of religion in science than anybody here has. They have done more to shift the frame into a more rational mode than anybody here has.

what's more, implying they aren't on the side of good science is just an asinine thing to say.

I highly suggest you rethink your position, as it sounds more like the creationists' PR campaign is hitting home with YOU.

For too long scientists have quietly brushed aside these creationists, but their voice is being shriller and they are making an impact on their legislators with their claims of discrimination, unfair as they might be. If science continues to be polite, it just might, sad to say, lose the war.

THAT is why Dawkins and PZ are extremely valuable in this fight.

Science (evolutionists, etc.) may have won the battle, but the war is not going well. Keep that in mind.

If anything could boomerang on someone, this movie might do it. Their messages are: 1. We’re Twisted Xians. We lie a lot. Then we lie a lot more. We are completely dishonest and not very bright. 2. Destroy science. Science is evil. Kill Science, Kill, Kill, Kill. 3. When we lie our way into power and set up a theocracy, then we can head back to the Dark Ages. This message will resonate with the Nihilistic Moron segment of the population. The rest of us will keep our computers, cheap food, good medical care, rising living standards, freedoms, and leadership in science.

It is a fulfillment of the wedge process, it is slowly but surely eating away at the credibility of science. What doesn’t help is Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, et. al., who are wearing their atheism on their shirtsleeves. If you attack a fundamentalist they will only attack back in equal or greater force. They are the underdogs and people root for the underdogs, poor fired and dismissed people, unable to speak their piece, etc. Science (evolutionists, etc.) may have won the battle, but the war is not going well. Keep that in mind.

— DavidK

The Catholic Pope just said science wasn’t the only way to learning.

— DavidK

Keith: The movie is an eyeopener for the general public concerning the science, special interest, and educational complex that is quite parallel to the military industrial complex and its abuses of money, power, and influence that Eisenhower warned us against in the 50’s ( its outcomes were McCarthyism, etc.).

This movie is following a very predictable path. A box office flop completely irrelevant to science whose only impact is to re-enforce the faith of people who believe that crap anyway. It will soon be confined to DVD, where sales will be poor, and will eventually constitute nothing more than a DVD version of a Chick publication, shown in Baptist churches and circulated amongst fundamentalist prayer groups.

The DI folks and YEC's can do (and have done) tremendous damage against K-12 education in this country. But the entire premise of this movie is ludicrous. ID has had extensive exposure in science. It has been rejected by scientists because it is based on demonstrably false assumptions. The rhetoric surrounding it is a pile of crap that a college freshman could debunk in a first semester paper.

As an aside, Kieth can jump up and down laughing and yelling like a madman, hurl abusive insults, and slobber all over himself about how smart he is and how he knows so much until he turn blue in the face. He is irrelevant. His only minor value is to provide a glimmering insight into why so many of our students come into college so weirdly ignorant.

Crude, I don't see the analogy as having any application to a chain of logic to support a set of conclusions.

If the person took a sledge hammer and started to beat my oil pan to pieces as a method to get the old oil out I would ask if he were familiar with the socket or box end wrench method of removing an oil plug from the bottom of the pan.

If he said it doesn't matter how the oil got in originally or how I get it out and by the way what's a wrench anyway...well I might question his sanity.

Raven anyone who writes your 1-3 pieces is seriously insane and in great need of mental health services. I might even help pay if you will get the help you need.

Waldy , if by science you mean or include math, chemistry, physics, thermo, EE, information theory , material sciences, systems analysis, MIS disciplines, and such I will gladly compare credentials. If you sadly perceive biology to be the essence of science I will stand in awe of your ignorance.

Richaerd you do realize your have added precisely zero to the discussion other than excuses and handwaving. I am challenging the very core assumptions of your dumb theory and for 20 years not one evo has supplied a single answer of any consequence.

David please point out where I asked "where , when or why"..right, not at all. I accept many theories of science where math,observation,experimentation,theoretical constructs, and logic are employed, unfortunately evolution employs none of these in its larger interpretations of life.

I believe the operative term is "room full of dense smoke" (and not a few mirrors).

Dan are you really that dumb. The thermonuclear basis for stars and their operations has been studied, theorized, and confirmed for decades. What planet are you from?

Here is a nice article about the sun ...it's that big yellow ball you see most days in the sky when you're sober.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Reality is what it is and doesn't care what humans think about it.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

-Stephen Colbert

Richaerd you do realize your have added precisely zero to the discussion other than excuses and handwaving. I am challenging the very core assumptions of your dumb theory

rocket said:

"jp said 'Wasn’t Hitler German. He believed in Darwin too'

no he didn’t, he actually burned Darwin’s book, but an idiot like you don’t know that, his hate for Jews came mainly from Martin Luther. Are you Lutheran?"

rocket, would you please provide a link or citation (or multiple citations if you have them)re Darwin's works were part of the NAZI book-burning. I was not aware of that but it is not surprising since Darwin's ideas of humanity's common heritage is so opposite of Hitler's notions of the "virtue of blood" and the Volk.

PvM: The weekend estimates are already in Friday: $1,205,000
%change/per theatre: -- / $1,145
Total: $1,205,000 / 1
Saturday: $990,000
%change/per theatre: -17.8% / $941
Total: $2,195,000 / 2
Sunday: $958,000
%change/per theatre: -3.2% / $911
Total: $3,153,000 / 3
Matching predictions

"The thermonuclear basis for stars and their operations has been studied, theorized, and confirmed for decades. What planet are you from?"

What else has been studied, theorized and confirmed for decades?

I am from the planet Earth and would like to be among the first to welcome you here.

Keith,

You demanded to know when the first replicater arose, how it arose and a complete description of it's origin and characteristics. In fact, you demanded a "molecular description".

Abiogenesis is a large and growing field. If you reject every finding and hypothesis in this field, what is your alternative? What is your "molecular description"? Where do you think the first replicator came from? What evidence do you have for your hypothesis? How many supernatural interventions were involved? How do you hope to convince anyone of anything if you won't tell us what it is you want us to believe?

Also, if you don't want to be bothered with "giant wolves", what is your hypothesis for the origin of modern Cetaceans? How do you account for the evidence? Regardless of whatever questions you have about abiogenesis, how do you address the evidence that exists?

No one cares whether you believe in evolution or not. But demanding explanations from others and providing none of your own is not the way to get taken seriously. Ignoring evidence convinces no one of anything other than your own ignorance.

waldteufel: I continue to be amazed that people here engage the Keith as if he were a real, sentient adult interested in intelligent dialog. It's obvious that he has no science education whatever, and he doesn't want any. He just has too many words in his vocabulary for which the meanings are completely beyond him.

MattusMaximus: PvM, do you have a link on this and how this breaks down in terms of number of tickets sold? So much for "Expelled" being a box office smash. You know, if keith and the other creationists here keep flapping their arms and spinning the numbers, they might actually achieve liftoff.

Reginald: Keith has yet to answer my questions. I asked them about two weeks ago and he completely ignored them.

Oh, and one more thing in reference to the "stellar" performance of Expelled...

Ben Stein has jumped-the-couch!!! :)

In $USD/theater, it ranked #5 at $2,997/theater, but was not too far from #3 (Prom Night) at $3,370 per theater.

I wonder if the evolanders sneaking into the theater after buying tickets for a different film might have something to do with this.

From hiding Behe's books in bookstores, to ripping off the creators of Expelled...par for the course, I guess.

Outside of Forbidden Kingdom and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, little else was going on. Al Pacino vehicle 88 Minutes nabbed a modest estimated $6.8 million at 2,168 theaters, hindered by marketing that wasn't clear whether the movie was a real time thriller or a conventional serial killer mystery. Also opening, creationist propaganda piece, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, being pitched as a documentary in a manner similar to Michael Moore's fare, inherited a windy estimated $3.2 million at 1,052 venues. Though meager, it wasn't a total flunkout given the genre and its independent release.

All of which is to admit that none of the evos have the slightest element of scientific defense of their little theory and cannot offer a scintilla of evidence for the critical foundational assumptions.

As you stand there shivering and intellectually naked in the cold light of day .....it must be a disconcerting state of mind to know you've based your entire world view on skyhooks and nothing more.

Top ten is pretty remarkable considering only 1,000 screens in the scheme of things.

Remind me to school you on how investors feel about getting their capital back in the first 3 days of operation with a year of screens, vids, and dvds worldwide in front of them and all costs covered. It's called ATDCF rate of return for you nimbies. Yeah another area of expertise I picked up along the way as a Director of Planning and Economics for a large Coal subsidiary.

I understand other projects are in the works and the DI has received membership requests of several hundred since Friday morning.

Ah! The sweet smell of success!

The troll (keith) blathers on again... ignore him. Yawn!

Can't wait for those lawsuits to get rolling :)

Any updates on potential legal action? Anyone?

OK Reginald,

4 comes after 3, red, blue, and green are primary colors, f= ma, and cows go moo.

There, that should hold your attention for a year or so.

Stanton can help you out if you get stuck.

keith: All of which is to admit that none of the evos have the slightest element of scientific defense of their little theory and cannot offer a scintilla of evidence for the critical foundational assumptions. As you stand there shivering and intellectually naked in the cold light of day .....it must be a disconcerting state of mind to know you've based your entire world view on skyhooks and nothing more. Top ten is pretty remarkable considering only 1,000 screens in the scheme of things. Remind me to school you on how investors feel about getting their capital back in the first 3 days of operation with a year of screens, vids, and dvds worldwide in front of them and all costs covered. It's called ATDCF rate of return for you nimbies. Yeah another area of expertise I picked up along the way as a Director of Planning and Economics for a large Coal subsidiary. I understand other projects are in the works and the DI has received membership requests of several hundred since Friday morning. Ah! The sweet smell of success!

"Top ten is pretty remarkable considering only 1,000 screens in the scheme of things. ... Ah! The sweet smell of success!"

(This is from Jeff's wife, Joanne.)

Jeff minimized this and I thought I would add my "two cents"... Unlike Jeff, I liked the movie overall. I think Ben Stein did a great service to us by bringing forth his comments and ideas. At a time when baby boomers are now at least middle aged, a large group of people have reached a point in their life where they are "waking up" to the realization that we are 'born to die'! We see death and dying all around us. (How many of us can reach middle age without experiencing the death of at least one friend or loved one?) At this point we are looking for answers, hoping our life has a higher purpose and deeper meaning.

This movie raises some of the big existential questions many of us are grappling with at this time: What is the meaning of life? and, What value do we place on human life?

Ben Stein spent a lot of time on Eugenics and the concept of survival of the fittest and how these concepts and authored theories relate to the holocaust. I am 48 years old and when I was a little girl my grandparents and great aunts and uncles spoke a lot on this topic in different ways.

The Eugenic concept was born out of poor times and limited resources, before we had the extensive social services we have today. My elders were born in the late 1800's and early 1900's -- before 1910. They lived in a time when the government and people had very little. Eugenics was more about economy -- do we want to spend our tax dollars and savings on the sick and the poor or put our resources toward the greater good: science and technology, job creation, disease control, defense,... Mass genocide is taking the concept too far; however, how many of us have had to face or will have to face euthanization of our elderly relatives where life support and extended hospital stays and nursing home stays are bankrupting and when quality of life is so diminished... (There was a great episode of Boston Legal on topic last week.)

The issue of Darwinism vs. Creationism vs. Intelligent Design is, from my perspective, an issue of semantics. Scientists are purists and want only official scientific theory in the form of proving or disproving a hypothesis in the Science classroom, not a debate on theories or a forum for discussion on how life began. They believe these topics should be covered in social studies or other titled classes. They believe Darwinism is a valid scientific theory because it has not been disproved in the more than 150 years since the theory was put forth. Evolution is about species developed to the present day from when they began. Darwinism does not involve HOW life began and even the atheist interviewed by Ben Stein in his recent movie concedes that life on earth was probably either planted here from elsewhere or created by a higher being.

The big question still unanswered and although admittedly not part of the Darwin Theory, is: How did life begin.... If we were created by a higher power, than how was the higher power created... Ultimately the big unanswerable question seems to still boil down to: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I am glad Ben Stein and friends made the effort to bring this film to us. Although not in a traditional documentary format, it provided us with a window in which we can see the topics discussed from different view points with ideas we may not have considered before. The film certainly prompted a lively discussion at our dinner table!

"after 100 years, millions of dollars, and thousands of man-hours in labs around the world "

I'm sure a busy man like Keith can't be expected to spend much time looking at biology journals, so I thought I should interject that the above is a ... wildly inaccurate estimate. No, there isn't much research effort spent on abiogenesis, relatively speaking. Can't say I've ever come across a paper on it in Cell. Much more work being done on the other thing that Christian fundamentalists are misrepresenting: stem cell research.

"Scientists are purists and want only official scientific theory in the form of proving or disproving a hypothesis in the Science classroom, not a debate on theories or a forum for discussion on how life began."

"Darwinism does not involve HOW life began and even the atheist interviewed by Ben Stein in his recent movie concedes that life on earth was probably either planted here from elsewhere or created by a higher being."

Tyler DiPietro:

"Top ten is pretty remarkable considering only 1,000 screens in the scheme of things. ... Ah! The sweet smell of success!"

He's really trying, folks...

Just saw the movie. It was unutterably boring. I closed my eyes during the graphic holocaust scenes and ended up falling asleep for a bit. From their responses I'd say the audience was lacking in basic biological understanding, but true to this post, at a 2 PM Sunday showing in Seattle, there were only 35 people- 12 of them from our party, mixed in its support for ID.

Afterwards we adjourned to discuss the movie at a local restaurant. I sat across from one Casey, who I later realized was the infamous Casey Luskin. And I have to say, though we strongly disagreed on almost every issue, I like the guy. He was very warm and personable, and enjoyable to talk with. He comes across as a rather nice guy. It reminded me that so often, when we know someone as only words on a screen, it can be like driving in traffic, and we forget that there's a real human behind the car, or the words on the web.

Jeff Webber: (This is from Jeff's wife, Joanne.) The big question still unanswered and although admittedly not part of the Darwin Theory, is: How did life begin.... If we were created by a higher power, than how was the higher power created... Ultimately the big unanswerable question seems to still boil down to: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Smack dab in the middle of Expelled's opening day, the Ames (Iowa) Tribune reports that GUILLERMO GONZALES HAS FOUND A JOB for next year. He will be an associate professor at Grove City College, a Christian private college with an enrollment of about 2,500 near Pittsburgh, PA.

Although the school is primarily liberal arts, it has technical majors in mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering. Gonzalez said his initial responsibilities will be starting an astronomy minor program within the college's physics department and overseeing the college's new observatory. The school does not have a tenure track program but rather signs its professors to one-year contracts.

Gonzalez reported to the Tribune that he had difficulty finding another job. He said he has sent about 15 applications to both large public universities and private colleges around the country.

Did the Discovery Institute help him find a job? Will anyone offer odds on that? Anyone?

Jeff Webber: Scientists are purists and want only official scientific theory in the form of proving or disproving a hypothesis in the Science classroom, not a debate on theories or a forum for discussion on how life began. They believe these topics should be covered in social studies or other titled classes. They believe Darwinism is a valid scientific theory because it has not been disproved in the more than 150 years since the theory was put forth.

William Wallace: In $USD/theater, it ranked #5 at $2,997/theater, but was not too far from #3 (Prom Night) at $3,370 per theater. I wonder if the evolanders sneaking into the theater after buying tickets for a different film might have something to do with this. From hiding Behe's books in bookstores, to ripping off the creators of Expelled...par for the course, I guess.

Olorin: Smack dab in the middle of Expelled's opening day, the Ames (Iowa) Tribune reports that GUILLERMO GONZALES HAS FOUND A JOB for next year. He will be an associate professor at Grove City College, a Christian private college with an enrollment of about 2,500 near Pittsburgh, PA. Although the school is primarily liberal arts, it has technical majors in mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering. Gonzalez said his initial responsibilities will be starting an astronomy minor program within the college's physics department and overseeing the college's new observatory. The school does not have a tenure track program but rather signs its professors to one-year contracts. Gonzalez reported to the Tribune that he had difficulty finding another job. He said he has sent about 15 applications to both large public universities and private colleges around the country. Did the Discovery Institute help him find a job? Will anyone offer odds on that? Anyone?

The issue of Darwinism vs. Creationism vs. Intelligent Design is, from my perspective, an issue of semantics.

If that's your perspective, I would highly recommend a visit to the optometrist.

Olorin: Smack dab in the middle of Expelled's opening day, the Ames (Iowa) Tribune reports that GUILLERMO GONZALES HAS FOUND A JOB for next year. He will be an associate professor at Grove City College, a Christian private college with an enrollment of about 2,500 near Pittsburgh, PA. [....] Gonzalez reported to the Tribune that he had difficulty finding another job. He said he has sent about 15 applications to both large public universities and private colleges around the country.

15 Applications? this is "difficult finding a job?" I realize it's different between fields, but most academic biologists (myself included) would have been thrilled to find a job after only 15 apps.. I stopped counting after a while, but it was prob close to 60 for me.. colleagues of mine (w good publication records, grant records, etc.) took years and many more apps to land a job..Gonzalez is a whiner, plain and simple.

keith: Dan are you really that dumb. The thermonuclear basis for stars and their operations has been studied, theorized, and confirmed for decades. What planet are you from?

Why do some people keep bringing up (1) the origin of the universe and (2) the origin of life in a discussion on the theory of evolution? Isn't the theory of evolution a theory of speciation? Then why do some people attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it doesn't explain phenomena it never set out to explain in the first place? It's as if a poet who set out to write in the lyric mode were savaged by critics because the resulting poem did not adhere to the conventions of the epic. I teach critical thinking to freshmen composition students, and I'd love to understand the thought processes behind this peculiar state of affairs.

Just wait. The Expelled distributors will soon announce that they are withdrawing the film from theatres for safety reasons because they are afraid of the crush of the large crowds or because they have received threats of violence from Darwinists.

I read through Grove City College's biology course descriptions. They used the E-word only once, in Behavioral Biology, but I didn't see any signs of creationism or IDism in its course descriptions, and some hints they may teach evolution (one course description mentioned "morphological adaptation"). Maybe they just avoid the "evolution" word so as not to scare good christian parents off!

Jeff Webber: (This is from Jeff's wife, Joanne.) ...At a time when baby boomers are now at least middle aged, a large group of people have reached a point in their life where they are "waking up" to the realization that we are 'born to die'! We see death and dying all around us. (How many of us can reach middle age without experiencing the death of at least one friend or loved one?) At this point we are looking for answers, hoping our life has a higher purpose and deeper meaning. This movie raises some of the big existential questions many of us are grappling with at this time: What is the meaning of life? and, What value do we place on human life?

No Intelligence Allowed, being pitched as a documentary in a manner similar to Michael Moore’s fare, inherited a windy estimated $3.2 million

Elf Eye: What puzzles me is this: Why is it that people who wish to establish "a higher purpose and deeper meaning" for their lives so often feel that to do so they must tear down the theory of evolution? Can't they erect their own edifice of meaning without tearing down the edifice of science?

Did the Discovery Institute help him find a job? Will anyone offer odds on that? Anyone?

— Olorin

Dan: Yes, I really am that dumb! You were calling for experiments (not study, not theory, not confirmation) and I was so dumb that I thought no humans had performed experiments on the sun!

Why is it that people who wish to establish “a higher purpose and deeper meaning” for their lives so often feel that to do so they must tear down the theory of evolution? Can’t they erect their own edifice of meaning without tearing down the edifice of science?

— Elf Eye

Dan: Yes, I really am that dumb! You were calling for experiments (not study, not theory, not confirmation) and I was so dumb that I thought no humans had performed experiments on the sun!

Creationists have the dumb idea that "experiment" necessarily entails putting on a white lab coat and dribbling liquid into beakers. Hence Dan's vacuous comment.

I've noticed, just by appearances, that engineers tend to be the degreed folks that ardently assert religious infallibility, partly because (I'm only slinging conjecture here) it might be that a certain mindset craves absolute certainty over theoretical frameworks. Engineering deals in application, not in theory: one does not theorize a bridge will work or a building will stand. An engineer has books like Eschbach and older volumes that have extensive tables of square roots, logarithms and the like: no theory there.

So it should be no surprise that an engineer demands absolute numerics and proofs of what is, essentially, a fuzzy science that deals in populations and probabilities. Many also find fault with relativity and quantum physics for the same reason. If they aren't pushing biblical creationism they push the tired light theory of Arp because it doesn't require quantum physics or relativity.

I always wonder what it is like to fear the unknown with such rabid goggle=eyed fervor. Then I go back to living in my world of chaos.

Ric: Creationists have the dumb idea that "experiment" necessarily entails putting on a white lab coat and dribbling liquid into beakers. Hence Dan's vacuous comment.

Richard Simons, to keith the lying troll: I'm still waiting. Please could you give us your theory for the origins of the variety of life on Earth, and some of the evidence to support it. Please could you tell us what you perceive as some of the problems that are resolved by your theory?

keith, Liar For Jesus™ A bunch of meaningless blather and insults, but no theory or evidence

Jedidiah Palosaari: Just saw the movie. ... Afterwards we adjourned to discuss the movie at a local restaurant. I sat across from one Casey, who I later realized was the infamous Casey Luskin.

I'm only submitting talking points.
I know atheism is not equal to evolution, only the perception that fundies can make of it and alienate people who are against it. Given that creationism is christian based they can use that as a leverage against science (2+2=5).
Medved I think was offered a membership 'cause he's a national PR guy. I thought I posted here a short column he'd written in 2005 supporting the fundies & creationism, maybe on another story.
I also thought Sternberg was a "fellow" at the DI (perhaps they removed his name as his martyrdom would be questioned). However, Gonzalez is listed as a "senior fellow."
If people begin to realize that this fundie creationism stuff is junk science, good. But there's always a grass roots group who will piss on you every chance they get.

To JP and the other creos who insist that we must first describe how the universe came to be, then describe how life began before we can discuss evolution:

There are several theories of how the Earth came to have an atmosphere (It outgassed during the earliest stages, when vulcanism was prevalent, it arrived with comets, it was created in place)

However, we do not insist that the origin of the atmosphere be fully explained before we can study meterology. Meterology is the science of weather, AS IT IS CURRENTLY OCCURING, AND AS IT HAS DONE IN THE PAST. Knowing the origin of the atmosphere is irrelevant, it is sufficient to know that there IS an atmosphere, it is possible to study it, and make predictions.

The Theory of Evolution is much the same. It is irrelevant HOW life began (or the universe), what the ToE studies is what happens/happened to that life once it was already in existence.

Now, account for the cost of making the film (a few million perhaps? - anyone got hard numbers on that?)

Just an FYI, but for those who want a chuckle, go read a few of the user reviews over at IMDB.com. The vast majority of positive reviews (of which there are not many) fall into the 'erecting a strawman about freedom' category, which doesn't surprise me, but does make me shake my head. Not a single positive reviewer there (and this is pretty much true here as well) understands the difference between science and philosophy as the arguments all seem to be along the lines of "just because ID has a different take on how things began than evolution does doesn't mean that science should be allowed to ban it." sigh...

That said, the negative reviews do a very good job of summing up the fact that the movie just isn't very good.

stevaroni: Overall, the $1.2 million figure that the DI bandies about is only the tip of the iceberg. This pig is going to have to earn maybe 5 or 6 million before it even starts to pull even.

I must add a pet peeve I have about one particular creationist statement - the claims about 'believing in evolution'. Ugggh!!! Stating that one can believe in evolution is like stating that Lance Armstrong believes in bicycle riding, that Tiger Woods believes in golf, and that David Beckham believes in soccer. One does not "believe" in scientific theories - one either understands a theory and accepts the validity of foundational evidence that the theory explains or one does not, in which case either one doesn't use the theory in any practical sense and thus doesn't care about it, or does use the theory and then goes through the effort of presenting a hypothesis and an experiment that may falsify that which one does not find to be valid.

However, Gonzalez is listed as a “senior fellow.”

— DavidK

To JP and the other creos who insist that we must first describe how the universe came to be, then describe how life began before we can discuss evolution:

— Blaidd Drwg

Stevaroni: Overall, the $1.2 million figure that the DI bandies about is only the tip of the iceberg. This pig is going to have to earn maybe 5 or 6 million before it even starts to pull even.

Does anyone know if the DI revoked any fellowships due to poor productivity?

Frank J said:

Does anyone know if the DI revoked any fellowships due to poor productivity?

Pat K said: I’ve noticed ... that engineers tend to be the degreed folks that ardently assert religious infallibility ... a certain mindset craves absolute certainty over theoretical frameworks ... If they aren’t pushing biblical creationism they push the tired light theory of Arp because it doesn’t require quantum physics or relativity.

By the way, Pat, part of your post is accurate.

I actually do go out of my way to ignore quantum physics, but that's just because I really hate the math.

Dghousa: Note that every other movie listed did better on Saturday than on Friday, while Expelled dropped 25%. Sweet!

Pat K: I've noticed, just by appearances, that engineers tend to be the degreed folks that ardently assert religious infallibility, partly because (I'm only slinging conjecture here) it might be that a certain mindset craves absolute certainty over theoretical frameworks.

Since one of my friends was a producer of two of the Godfather movies, a Hollywood insider for 25 years, and teaches all the movie economics at a college let me enlighten the evo wire heads on the real world.

First it was 1. 1 million, then 2, then 3 and now approaching 4 million to date.

Second the movie business includes, USA screenings, separate European screenings, separate worldwide screenings, video rentals worldwide, and DVD sales;six unfolding revenue streams over perhaps 12 months.

You people need to take a short course in basic economics and financial analysis so you at least don't overrun your test tube allowances.

You can't even defend your own theory's core assumptions with other than handwaving so don't venture into the real world outside the lab as it only further exposes your asinine ideas.

Phantom , when you crawl out of the sewer each morning and up through the toilet, please close the lid and shower before getting on the net as the stench is coming out of my speakers.

Guess What! Still no answers, much more handwaving,foaming at the lips, and blather.

Dawkins was pretty clever with his ID comments in Expelled as he was doing the evolander shuffle by setting up another excuse for evolanders if and when ID presents a "signature" to use Dawkins words. It's the aliens, of course!!

Finally, it is nice to see my Christian friend PvM dominating the latest posts at PT.

— Salvador T. Cordova

keith: You can't even defend your own theory's core assumptions with other than handwaving so don't venture into the real world outside the lab as it only further exposes your asinine ideas.

Second the movie business includes, USA screenings, separate European screenings, separate worldwide screenings, video rentals worldwide, and DVD sales;six unfolding revenue streams over perhaps 12 months.

Guess What! Still no answers, much more handwaving,foaming at the lips, and blather.

I Am Labeled a "Creationist Apologist".... ...by Greg Laden. Or as one of my own commenters put it, "Either you really are just f***ing stupid, or you're a closet creationist in this blog group. Pick one." I won't be deleting that comment despite the profanity, because I want to have it all on the record--the record of what now happens at ScienceBlogs if you say certain thing that people don't want to hear. All this happened, I suppose, because I dared to point out the obvious: Expelled is a success. I mean, it's the eighth highest grossing political documentary of all time...after its first week. Randy Olson of course knows this, because he's, like, a filmmaker. But go ahead, ignore Olson. Keep on firing inward. Beat up on me. Call me (the author of The Republican War on Science) a creationist. This abuse will not stop me from continuing to call for serious introspection about the massive communication crisis we're facing in the science world. --Chris Mooney at ScienceBlogs, April 21

keith: , separate European screenings,

Actually, in several countries a higher population of storks per square mile is correlating with a higher birth-rate per 1000 humans....

A Slimey Sal appearance and he didn't even announce that Expelled's extraordinarily successful debut will be the last nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

Gee, Sal - you're slipping. This is ID's biggest victory since Dover, after all. Take pride! Puff out that chest, straighten that back, suck in that gut!

I like the fact that Expelled’s box office success

Frank wrote: Don’t forget us non-Christians who regularly defend Christians.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm

PvM you haven't the slightest idea what the plans are for the movie so don't blather on about such matters.

The last film these guys backed that the evo nazis hated was The Passion and it certainly had all these revenue streams.

If you think these people don't have a primary bottom line plan you are off the deepend.

Dorothy: Gee Mr. Evowizard of Doz what's behind your big curtain?

Evowizard: Oh ! That's where we keep the origin of life evidences and a copy of the first replicator.

Dorothy: I have come so far in my quest to understand how evolution all came about, but I sure would like to see the definitive , critical and necessary evidence for the logic to actually flow and be scientifically defensible. Please Mr Evowizard?

Evowizard: Sorry, but the evidence isn't quite ready yet , we're still working on it, but come back next century or just trust us we'll get there ..I mean it really doesn't effect anything to assume it happened.. see look at these walking whale bones, check out that spotted moth I just unglued from the sooty tree, and feel these gill slits.

Dorothy: Gee, at least the ID people and even the creationists can present some evidences and have a consistent set of logical hypotheses...hummmm!

Evowizard: Get the heck out of Doz you're Expelled you little ignorant fundamentalist!!

I try not to, and if I have, I’m sorry.

— Salvador T. Cordova

"...,red, blue, and green are primary colors."

So I suppose we can now guess at the color of the sky in Keith's world?

Now relurking.
~Gary

Econ 101 for evolanders:

Expelled was fifth in revenue per screen over the 3-day weekend.

Question: As an owner of multiple theatres would you drop the screens or perhaps pick it up as an addition for at least one weekend and drop say a movie doing half the revenue per screen?

http://www.youaredumb.net/node?from=1

Interesting comments, dont agree with everything this guy says but like his style...

Dorothy: Gee, at least the ID people and even the creationists can present some evidences and have a consistent set of logical hypotheses…hummmm!

— keith

I am surprised to see so many atheists here. Since there isn't a G-D, why do you care what people see on the weekend? I have to say that the movie was a boring watch, just like Gore's movie. I wish Stein would have been a little more theatrical with this movie but I realize he was trying to be himself. Some obvious points were missed, colonization by alien seedlings being the most ridiculous proffered by scientists, however, he touched most of the problems within the origin of species without causing everyone to fall asleep. Overall, I give it a five out of 10. Fairly typical for a documentary.

All of which is to admit that none of the evos have the slightest element of scientific defense of their little theory and cannot offer a scintilla of evidence for the critical foundational assumptions.

No on has any concept of what occurred before the end of that period. There was absolutely nothing identifiable in our understanding because there was no universe…absolutely nothing.

keith, master of projection: Guess What! Still no answers, much more handwaving,foaming at the lips, and blather.

PvM you haven’t the slightest idea what the plans are for the movie so don’t blather on about such matters.

FL: I like the fact that Expelled's box office success is causing y'all evolutionists to go HOG WILD on each other:

Very catchy there Keith (I tried to make it a little more honest for you):

"Evowizard: Sorry, but the evidence isn’t quite ready yet , we’re still working on it, " Hang on just a sec though *click* (opens a door into a room the size of a football field) Its not PROOF, 'cause NOTHING can be proven, but here on the left for the first 50 yards is SOME of the fossil evidence supporting our theory, the next 50 yards contains a few geological samples. Starting on the other side we have geographical bio-diversity info, and a selected bit of molecular data. Finally (looking somewhat sheepish), we started putting in the scientific papers detailing the supporting experiments but we ran out of room.

Dorothy: Gee, all the ID people do is point at that big book (I'm not sure what it is...its covered in brown paper) and mumble a lot!! Oh wait, they DID have a desk drawer with some books and a couple of papers in it. Hmmmm!

Have a nice day.

FL: I like the fact that Expelled's box office success is causing y'all evolutionists to go HOG WILD on each other:

You were calling for experiments (not study, not theory, not confirmation) and I was so dumb that I thought no humans had performed experiments on the sun!

I thought mathematics was a language of science, not a science in itself?

PT is not anti-Christ central like Pharyngula…

The last film these guys backed that the evo nazis hated was The Passion and it certainly had all these revenue streams.

The creationists here should stop the handwaving, they might pull a muscle

Aliens?!?!

Is he serious?

Hi there Keith.

I answered your questions as well as I could. Now how about answering mine? I'm sure if you could turn your extraordinary expertise onto them you could answer with no difficulty at all. Please could you give us your theory for the origins of the variety of life on Earth, and some of the evidence to support it. Could you also tell us what you perceive as some of the problems that are resolved by your theory?

Keith erred- "red, blue, and green are primary colors"

No. Actually, red, blue and yellow are primary colors. Green is a complimentary, the result of combining blue and yellow.

Rick
Artist and evo-nazi

"Expelled was fifth in revenue per screen over the 3-day weekend."

Why must you persist with the lies?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.php

Expelled was 9th this weekend, and next week, I promise you, it will be lower, not higher. Notice the list only goes to 12 slots (After which point, the movie is not in first-run mainstream theaters.)

What Expelled need was a strong weekend so that it could convince theater owners to get it on more screens. With an underwhelming per-screen revenue opening weekend, this movie is on it's way to DVD.

Thom lets add can't divide to yout evo list of failures. I said revenue per screen moron.

Rick please,
Good gracious evo science falls to the moron level.

The primary colors of light are red, green, and blue. ... The photography is based on the 3 primary colors: Red, Green and Blue (it is system RGB) ...

Yeah Rick the old color TV electron gun system RGY....LOL!

Now has anyuone seen any evidence to support the critical assumptions of evolution...anyone please send them on over.

Nope just dead silence, NADA, lots of spittle, however.

Rick Sez:

Keith erred- “red, blue, and green are primary colors”

No. Actually, red, blue and yellow are primary colors. Green is a complimentary, the result of combining blue and yellow.

No Rick, sorry to be the one to tell you, but the idiot troll was right for once.

Red, green and blue are the additive primaries, the wavelengths of light that the cones in our eyes react to. (rods react to more-or less all colors, but don't produce color vision).

Yellow is one of the subtractive primaries, it absorbs blue and reflects green and red.

The other subtractive primaries are Cyan and Magenta.

Because of the relative imperfection of most paint pigments, true subtractive color is difficult to achieve, and magenta and cyan are awkward colors to use for many subjects, so for practical reasons, many art teachers gravitate to red/blue/yellow instead of magenta/cyan/yellow, which are technically correct.

Rick Sez: Keith erred- “red, blue, and green are primary colors” No. Actually, red, blue and yellow are primary colors. Green is a complimentary, the result of combining blue and yellow.

Green is a complimentary
The term is "secondary." Complementary colors are pairs: violet-yellow, green-red, etc. And there are, of course, two color-wheels, one for pigment, in which red, yellow and blue are the primaries, and one for wavelengths of light, in which green actually is a primary (think of RGB monitors). Regardless, keith is a lying ignorant troll.

Rick R: Keith erred- "red, blue, and green are primary colors" No. Actually, red, blue and yellow are primary colors. Green is a complimentary, the result of combining blue and yellow. Rick Artist and evo-nazi

stevaroni:

Rick Sez: Keith erred- “red, blue, and green are primary colors” No. Actually, red, blue and yellow are primary colors. Green is a complimentary, the result of combining blue and yellow.

No Rick, sorry to be the one to tell you, but the idiot troll was right for once. Red, green and blue are the additive primaries, the wavelengths of light that the cones in our eyes react to. (rods react to more-or less all colors, but don't produce color vision). Yellow is one of the subtractive primaries, it absorbs blue and reflects green and red. The other subtractive primaries are Cyan and Magenta. Because of the relative imperfection of most paint pigments, true subtractive color is difficult to achieve, and magenta and cyan are awkward colors to use for many subjects, so for practical reasons, many art teachers gravitate to red/blue/yellow instead of magenta/cyan/yellow, which are technically correct.

And you're quicker than I am...

Keith asks Now has anyuone seen any evidence to support the critical assumptions of evolution…

Let's be sure that communication is occuring clearly, Keith. Since you are asking about "critical assumptions of evolution", which of those assumptions are "critical" according to your question?

Kieth Yammers; Since one of my friends was a producer of two of the Godfather movies, a Hollywood insider for 25 years, and teaches all the movie economics at a college let me enlighten the evo wire heads on the real world.

Second the movie business includes, USA screenings, separate European screenings, separate worldwide screenings, video rentals worldwide

DVD sales, six unfolding revenue streams over perhaps 12 months.

Question: As an owner of multiple theaters would you drop the screens or perhaps pick it up as an addition for at least one weekend and drop say a movie doing half the revenue per screen?

Bill G sez... And you’re quicker than I am…

PvM: What success ? Not by the standards set by Premise Media (10-12 Million revenues opening weekend) Sigh

FL: I like the fact that Expelled's box office success is causing y'all evolutionists to go HOG WILD on each other:

PvM: What success ? Not by the standards set by Premise Media (10-12 Million revenues opening weekend) Sigh

In any case Expelled appears poised to return a good profit.

PvM: Yes, and despite the success of the Passion, Expelled seems to have been unable to recreate this 'miracle' and for good reasons. The Passion was a movie about Christ, this movie is poor science, poor logic and makes Christianity look foolish

"Scandal is pornography for prudes."

David Steinberg

Hi all,

The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued this terse, but accurate, press release condemning the nationwide release of "Expelled" last Friday:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/media/0418aaas_statement.pdf

I found it linked at, of all places, Bill Dembski's Uncommon Descent website.

Regards,

John

I found it linked at, of all places, Bill Dembski’s Uncommon Descent website.

— John Kwok

I stand corrected. Peer review in action! :)

Actually, there's another dimension to seeing red/blue/yellow as "primaries" in 'paint world'.
When painting, r/b/y are the only colors it is necessary to buy in their pure forms. Red/blue/yellow
cannot be mixed by combining other pigments. Same with white. You might call them 'first replicators'. And, as has been said, all colors mixed together will form black. But it's a muddy, ugly black.

OK. Back to "Expelled"!

Rick R: Keith erred- "red, blue, and green are primary colors" No. Actually, red, blue and yellow are primary colors. Green is a complimentary, the result of combining blue and yellow. Rick Artist and evo-nazi

Artheist? Sounds like the name of a band.... ;)

Whatever excites your fiddlestrings, man ;-) You're welcome to it.

Arr! Arren't we starrting to sound like pi-per-rates? Yet another poof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, arright?

keith: The development of consciousness and self awareness as well as cognitive thought in the human context has absolutely no experimentally supported thesis as to an evolutionary origin, this after 100 years of study.

Dan: There are no experiments to support the claim that the sun works through thermonuclear fusion -- in fact, no experiments have ever been performed on the sun!

keith: Dan are you really that dumb.[?] The thermonuclear basis for stars and their operations has [have] been studied, theorized, and confirmed for decades. What planet are you from? Here is a nice article about the sun ...it's that big yellow ball you see most days in the sky when you're sober. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

keith: The development of consciousness and self awareness as well as cognitive thought in the human context has absolutely no experimentally supported thesis as to an evolutionary origin, this after 100 years of study.

Paul Burnett: I'm sure your detailed recollections of everything Casey said (about the movie, or about intelligent design creationism) would be greatly appreciated by many here.

Q: Keith asks Now has anyuone seen any evidence to support the critical assumptions of evolution… Let's be sure that communication is occuring clearly, Keith. Since you are asking about "critical assumptions of evolution", which of those assumptions are "critical" according to your question?

Steveroni,

At least learn to spell out my friends name correctly:

Gray Frederickson, son of the founder of ONG and the namesake of Frederickson Field house on the OCU campus.

If you noticed I said specifically that the capital was largely returned in the first week of showing , for sure in the first two weeks. After that the marginal revenue is very high.

Depending on the deal, say Blockbuster, the rent and DVD sales expenses to Premise would be nil and nearly pure profit. Walmart is also a good choice just ask Don Henley.

Yeah those 250 MM$ oil and gas and coal reserve studies I performed were just trivial and of course mineral economics are so straight forward on an after tax basis...you idiot.

Sorry, but if I have not shown Expelled and it's doing 3,000/screening and ranks fifth in the entire country then I am a moron if I keep a loser and pass on Expelled or at the very least reschedule the screen to share the time.

If I have one screen for Expelled doing 3K/screen showing at 1:30 4:30 pm and 7:30 and a loser doing 1,000/screen at 4:00 7:30 and 10, I would be smart to drop the loser late show and add Expelled as a late showing say 9:00.

Anyone who downgrades a movie that hits the top 10 across the country with half the screens of the top five is either ignorant or dishonest and probably both.

Feelings and observations are what evolanders confuse with scientific explanations that have robust evidentiary value, shown to be highly explanatory via experiementation, prediction, and varification, etc. Just so stories are not science.

The best book I have read is Restak's The Mind , and it adds precisely zero to evolutionary explanations beyond mere speculation.

"Sorry, but if I have not shown Expelled and it’s doing 3,000/screening and ranks fifth in the entire country then I am a moron if I keep a loser and pass on Expelled or at the very least reschedule the screen to share the time."

stevaroni:

Bill G sez... And you’re quicker than I am…

I get that all the time. Mostly from women.

I replied to Keith a few times last night in what I hoped was an accommodating (or at least non-insulting) tone and received some watery, tepid vitriol in return. Returning to this thread just now I see that he is still serving up his stock in trade which appears to be composed of roughly equal parts self aggrandizement, loudness and a refusal to respond to direct questions with direct answers. So very familiar; he sure as hell ain't the only godwhalloper locked into that MO.

I'd really like to tell him what an asshole he is but it would be a waste of everybody's time. Also, there is something deep within my baby eating, puppy bashing, morally moribund heart that prevents me. Something to do with empathy, or maybe its poor cousin, sympathy.

Even so, I find the image of an angel of light striking off his head with a "sharp two-edged sword" to be amusing and satisfying. (I fight this battle daily.)

Nevertheless, peace unto him, and long life. Long enough to at least learn some manners.

Expelled: propelled to box office top 10
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=62152

Keith,

Please could you give us your theory for the origins of the variety of life on Earth, and some of the evidence to support it. Could you also tell us what you perceive to be some of the problems that are resolved by your theory?

P.S. Your spelling is starting to deteriorate again. You must pay more attention to it!

I found at least one very positive review of Expelled (4.5 stars out of five), that basically reviewed the movie on the basis of what the reviewer hoped would be a persuasive argument for getting Jesus back into ALL classrooms where He belongs.

Kinda surreal, to argue that the movie makes its case by false representations, and be told that so long as Jesus benefits, false representations are just fine. ANY means are fine, in the service of God's Ends.

It isn’t doing $3000 per screening, moron. The amount per theater for the entire weekend was ~$3000 while amount per screening was ~$1000.

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Now that the final numbers are out, Expelled has been downgraded to 10th in total weekend gross.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.php?sort=gross_per_venue&rank_id=1768

One can plainly see that Expelled did not in fact have the fifth-highest per-theater average over the weekend. "The Visitor" had a whopping $9000+ per-theater average on only 18 screens. Many other independent films also had higher per-theater averages than Expelled. Thom Denick was, in actuality, correct in stating that Expelled was 9th in per-theater averages. And that's only using Rotten Tomatoes' numbers. Box Office Mojo counts IMAX figures as well, and if you include those, Expelled isn't even on the top 10 based on per-theater average.

Now, one could spin those numbers by just saying Expelled had the fifth-highest per-theater average out of the top ten films, but then, why not just say Expelled was the NUMBER ONE fictional non-fiction movie of ALL TIME?

From what I saw, I don't think this film will make it to a second weekend. This afternoon, I had to elbow my way into a crowd of 3 other filmgoers in a 160+ seat auditorium. Total take for that showing - $16.00. It was so riveting I nearly went to sleep.

Ben Stein's new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was a surprise face in the top ten popping into the number nine spot with an estimated $3.2M. Averaging a mild $2,997 from 1,052 locations, the PG-rated film about creationism was aimed at Christian audiences by distributor rocky Mountain Pictures. Expelled was the only film in the top ten to see Saturday sales drop from Friday so a long life in theaters is not likely.

The numbers at Daily Box office for the weekend are no longer estimates.

Expelled cleared less than $3Million over the weekend, instead of the estimated $3.15Million.

It fell from generating $1.2Million on Friday, to only $775K on Sunday.

That movie doesn't bring in even $750 per day to a theater, on average, any more.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-04-18&p=.htm

Wonder if theaters will keep it around for a second weekend...

I am never disappointed by the obtuse nature of the analytical abilities of pig headed evolanders.

Expelled did about 3 MM$ in about 1,000 theatres (the numbers vary slightly from site to site on the web) or about 3,000/theatre.

The valid assumption is that Expelled did not show on more than one screen in very many theatres, perhaps none.

The normalized figure across the ratings is found by dividing the gross by alternately screens, engagements, theatres dependent on the web site, but the numbers being divided are all the same...LOL!

No one tells how many screens in a given theatre were dedicated to a particular movie, unless the theatre count includes multiple "mini theatres within a complex" at one physical location and that is not defined.

Thus the measure can rationally be interpreted as average total revenue across the same three days divided by the number alternately named theatres, engagements, or screens. Engagements is almost surely a quasi legal term denoting a single theatre complex regardless of the number of screens and showings per screen, etc. none of which is disclosed or defined.

Thus whether you choose to assume x number of showings over the period or just go with the numbers presented one would divide all the movies revenues by the same x so the "normalized" ranking of Expelled would still be fifth....quite extraordinary.

I may have to work in biology's behalf at the Higher Ed level to get the math requirements increased...science in the current hands is quite scary. Please tell me the statistical sample of evolanders cognitive abilities here is a lower limit outlier across the profession.

I think expelled is headed for church basements and dollar theaters real soon. It will probably have a couple of good days in the dollar theaters. Looks like it flunked. Guess everyone can go back to sleep.

Steve, a few hours ago said:

"If you think about studies of solar neutrino flux designed to test theories of thermnuclear physics, why is that not “an experiment on the sun” - there ain’t any other convenient neutrino sources locally."

Well actually, every beta decay provides a neutrino. Fred Reines and Clyde Cowan, who first detected the neutrino in 1956, calculated in 1951 that a nuclear reactor would generate a flux of 10^13 neutrinos per square centimeter per second.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html

The solar neutrino experiments of Raymond Davis and others were initially mostly noted for failing to detect as many neutrinos as theory predicted. (I went to a colloquium back in the early seventies which had the subtitle "No SNUs is Bad News".) The discovery that neutrinos have a very small rest mass and could oscillate in type between the Sun and here provided a solution the Solar Neutrino Problem.

George

"I am never disappointed by the obtuse nature of the analytical abilities of pig headed evolanders. Expelled did about 3 MM$ in about 1,000 theatres (the numbers vary slightly from site to site on the web) or about 3,000/theatre."

Harry,

That was the mens' head you elbowed your way into and some people don't like that sort of behavior.

So you geeks have astonished the world by projecting lower revenue in movies on Monday than during the weekend.

Anyone here familiar with the term exciting, stirring, motivating the base or did you think the intent was to convince evolanders to let ID participate in the scientific debate free of persecution and Nazi tactics.

Lets see how things go in socio-political terms across the country in the next year, how many states look at their science standards, how people are treated in academia by universities, etc.

You nerds may be right, but geez that would be a real first.

I am never disappointed by the obtuse nature of the analytical abilities of pig headed evolanders. Expelled did about 3 MM$ in about 1,000 theatres (the numbers vary slightly from site to site on the web) or about 3,000/theatre.

"No one tells how many screens in a given theatre were dedicated to a particular movie, unless the theatre count includes multiple “mini theatres within a complex” at one physical location and that is not defined."

Aw shucks Crudely got his little feelings hurt on the internet at the PT center for compassion and understanding.

Wa Wa Wa

Aw shucks Crudely got his little feelings hurt on the internet at the PT center for compassion and understanding. Wa Wa Wa

keith: Harry, That was the mens' head you elbowed your way into and some people don't like that sort of behavior. So you geeks have astonished the world by projecting lower revenue in movies on Monday than during the weekend. Anyone here familiar with the term exciting, stirring, motivating the base or did you think the intent was to convince evolanders to let ID participate in the scientific debate free of persecution and Nazi tactics. Lets see how things go in socio-political terms across the country in the next year, how many states look at their science standards, how people are treated in academia by universities, etc. You nerds may be right, but geez that would be a real first.

Expelled did about 3 MM$ in about 1,000 theatres (the numbers vary slightly from site to site on the web) or about 3,000/theatre.

— Keith Eaton

Please tell me the statistical sample of evolanders cognitive abilities here is a lower limit outlier across the profession.

The best book I have read is Restak’s The Mind , and it adds precisely zero to evolutionary explanations beyond mere speculation.

Dear Turdheads, the top movie Forbidden Kingdom was off almost 30% from Sat to Sun ,,suppose it's all done also.

Aw heck AL C. 88 Min off 32% Sat to Sun too bad Pacino is all done in.

Sarah Marshall off 28% same period.... all cooked for sure.

The great trend line/time series gurus of evoland have spoken once again, three data points to determine the course of the universe.

Sounds about right since 27 ape bones can define the so called human race evolution.

Like I said a a band of math illiterate turdheaded morons.

Last week someone wanted to bet on whether Expelled opened or not so let's see who wants to bet if it shows in theatres next weekend?

Maybe Little Richard Dawkins will sue them for making him look like an ass.

I have no feelings, Keith, most favored of the lord's children. I'm an atheist. Remember what they taught you about people like me?

May you live long and be humbled.

(Ok, I promise I wont feed him anymore. I'll just sit here quietly and finish eating this baby.)

keith: Dear Turdheads, the top movie Forbidden Kingdom was off almost 30% from Sat to Sun ,,suppose it's all done also... ... Maybe Little Richard Dawkins will sue them for making him look like an ass.

Apologies to engineers all around: obviously I put the cart before the horse. I've seen a number of folks on various boards touting an engineering degree and decrying evolution or other fuzzy concepts, but I was guilty of correlation equaling causation. Problem solving in general requires flexible thinking, so I guess it's just that some inflexible types survive a little better in engineering if they keep their heads down. Just also remembering a college room-mate who insisted he could be a biologist without accepting evolution.

He was a psych major within a month.

Dear Turdheads ...

Wow, that's like grade school level language ... you never cease to amaze, old man.

Maybe you can go over to the Kid's insults web page to get some fresh lingo: http://www.slangcity.com/insult/kids_insults.htm

Now that the actual earnings for Expelled have come in some conclusions can be reached. The earnings as per the Box Office site for the first weekend were $2,970,000.

Good enough, however, money was never going to be the measure of the film's success. In the run-up to the release, we were assured from the ID community that Expelled would rip the covers off the "evolutionary conspiracy" keeping ID down, that the great majority of fair-minded people would watch, be educated and demand academic freedom and fair play.

So the real question is, how many undecided people have watched Expelled?

If you assume that tickets cost somewhere between $7 and $10, let's use $8.50 as an average price. Given that, $2,970,000 translates into about 349,412 viewers.

That is far far less than the 2 million tickets the PR people for Premise wanted to call the opening a success.

Admittedly, there might have been more, based on all the discounted church group tickets that they supposedly sold. But in fact, that is irrelevent; those are viewers whom already agree with the film's premise. For there to be a "Great Awakening", you need a lot of undecideds to watch--however you wish to spin this, Expelled didn't get that and is unlikely to get it either.

Next point to look? Thursday, when we can see what the draw is from midweek church groups.

dpr

Dear Turdheads

— Keith

Worse, expelled seems to be dropping 17.8% from Friday to Saturday. What's up with that?

PvM: Actually $2,970,848 with Friday $1,145 per theatre, Saturday $941 and sunday $737. Or with 5 showings $220, $188 and $147 per showing. You do the math at $6 per ticket this is poor showing.

Jedidiah Palosaari:

PvM: Actually $2,970,848 with Friday $1,145 per theatre, Saturday $941 and sunday $737. Or with 5 showings $220, $188 and $147 per showing. You do the math at $6 per ticket this is poor showing.

Where in the US do you live where you get to go to movies for only $6, and how do I move there?!

Dude. Average price in Seattle is $10!

Jedidiah Palosaari: Dude. Average price in Seattle is $10!

heh, I can't recall paying less than 7.50 for a movie in CA for about 5 years now.

most are 8.00 or 8.50.

I'm pretty sure it's more than 10 in NY.

6.88 is the average?

damn, I'm gettin' ripped off.

or does that include matinee prices as well?

Seems Keith has lost it.

seems?

I continually wonder what value you see in letting him spew his filth everywhere, and don't tell me you think he represents any kind of creationist xian. It's pretty damn obvious he's nuttier than Larry Farfromsane.

even PZ tossed him in the dungeon.

he's worthless.

Wow, that’s like grade school level language … you never cease to amaze, old man.

DP Robin said:

"That is far far less than the 2 million tickets the PR people for Premise wanted to call the opening a success.
Admittedly, there might have been more, based on all the discounted church group tickets that they supposedly sold."

From what I read this actually works the opposite way : at least one of the Expelled bribes - oh sorry, inducements - is to send your ticket stubs back to get a refund.

Given this, the box office figures are a good measure of how many actually went and not an underestimate but they are a misleadingly high figure for the revenue the producers will actually see. This assumes, of course, that the Expelled producers are honest enough to stand by their pre-release promises on refunds......I'd love to see the fallout if these guys get caught ripping off the faithful.

stevaroni: By the way, if you had done a little research into film accounting, you'd know that a project with such a “long tail” presents a less than optimal payback structure. While nobody would ever actually complain about earning royalties for years, because of quirks in the tax code, the costs of creating the asset are disproportionately amortized against the first 12 months of earnings. That means if you get revenues that offset your costs in the first year, you get to write off said costs, if revenues don't cover costs, you loose much of the value of the remaining write-off. (This has been a sore spot among low budget producers for years, by the time they show their work at a festival and get some buzz going for distribution, the window is already closed for the write-off)

So, if the average ticket price is 6.88, and the 3-day take for Expelled was 2,970,848, then approximately 431,809 people saw the movie this weekend. That's not the number of eyeballs that Stein and company were hoping for.

keith: Just so stories are not science.

Would one be correct in describing all this as a media circus? Some sort of circus, anyway. It reminds me of something I read about that great and beloved son of Sweden, Carl Linnaeus. Quoting D.C. Peattie, in the READER'S DIGEST'S GREAT LIVES, GREAT DEEDS, 1966. "The years did not dim his curiosity and genial serenity. Still bright is many a lovable glimpse of him - lecturing to his students with his little girl on his knee, taking his dog into the church pew with him ...... or leading those field trips which were so popular that monitors had to be appointed to keep order in the crowd. So festive were these occasions that when his students marched back with him through the streets of Uppsala they made the walls ring with horns and kettledrums, until they disbanded at his door, raising the shout of VIVAT SCIENTIA!, and VIVAT LINNAEUS! And live long he did .....".

That, one supposes, is a description of a media event rather than a circus? Certainly a media something. Yes, certainly a something.

I suspect Linnaeus is laughing his head off, right now. I must confess to feeling a little amused, myself.

Elf Eye: ...... then approximately 431,809 people saw the movie this weekend.

As: 136 66.7% Bs: 7 3.4% Cs: 2 1.0% Ds: 2 1.0% Fs: 57 27.9%

Hi there PBH,

Last time I saw you around these parts was when you were lying, accusing me of saying something I did not say. Are you now ready to either admit you were lying or to retract your statement? Remember the Commandments?

Flint: I found at least one very positive review of Expelled (4.5 stars out of five), that basically reviewed the movie on the basis of what the reviewer hoped would be a persuasive argument for getting Jesus back into ALL classrooms where He belongs. Kinda surreal, to argue that the movie makes its case by false representations, and be told that so long as Jesus benefits, false representations are just fine. ANY means are fine, in the service of God's Ends.

EXPELLED: PROPELLED TO BOX OFFICE TOP 10
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=62152

Lucky for me, I only spent $4.00 on this film (matinee price in MI).

Of course, I would have had more enjoyment out of buying $4.00 worth of push-pins.

Monique - World Nut Daily = Non-credible source.

HTH :)

Would one be correct in describing all this as a media circus?

Some sort of circus, anyway.

Richard Simons: Hi there PBH, Last time I saw you around these parts was when you were lying, accusing me of saying something I did not say. Are you now ready to either admit you were lying or to retract your statement? Remember the Commandments?

Keith said:
I would be smart to drop the loser late show and add Expelled as a late showing say 9:00.

He actually might be on to something here, although 9:00PM might be a bit early. I see a better venue for this movie as a Friday 12:00 midnight cult classic. People could dress up in weird costumes, bring all sorts of paraphanelia to throw at the screen, quote their favorite lines along with the film, and pass around spiked kool-aid...

keith wrote: I admit it can be frustrating to follow the logic of a hypothesis with so many disparate variations, internal inconsistencies, lack of mathematical rigor, philosophically fallacious propositions in logical terms, and lacking in any sense of internal consistency.

Kevin B sez: Perhaps Kent Hovind’s accountant is helping them with the tax issues.

Dude. Average price in Seattle is $10!

jcmacc: Given this, the box office figures are a good measure of how many actually went and not an underestimate but they are a misleadingly high figure for the revenue the producers will actually see. This assumes, of course, that the Expelled producers are honest enough to stand by their pre-release promises on refunds......I'd love to see the fallout if these guys get caught ripping off the faithful.

Elf Eye: So, if the average ticket price is 6.88, and the 3-day take for Expelled was 2,970,848, then approximately 431,809 people saw the movie this weekend. That's not the number of eyeballs that Stein and company were hoping for.

One of the best points about the movie is that it has the atheist and evolutionist communities fuming, and I mean raging madly. Atheist Richard Dawkins’ website has been rolling with anti-Expelled articles for several days—before the movie even came out—the anger is visible in all corners of the site. There’s an old saying that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. Well, this time the whole pack is howling in unison.

Having seen the movie I can understand why Dawkins is so frothing mad over it: he comes across as a stuttering buffoon when interviewed. He’s not used to this. He’s used to a well-scripted scene with canned arguments, pocketed one-liners, favorable lights, cameras, and makeup—lots of rhetorical makeup. The same is true for the entirety of the anti-intelligence squad, many of whom get their guard-down interviews in the movie. You get to see Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse—all atheists or agnostics, all hostile to traditional religious faith, and all Darwinian evolutionists—each given their turn to explain their position, and explain how they view intelligent design.

MONIQUE BUTANI: EXPELLED: PROPELLED TO BOX OFFICE TOP 10 http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=62152

Larry: One of the best points about the movie is that it has the atheist and evolutionist communities fuming, and I mean raging madly.

Larry, 'creative' editing can make ANYONE come across as a blithering idiot - even GWB.
And are we CERTAIN that the interviews presented in the movie are exactly as they occured? Or did Stein interview, then re-shoot to remove any of his own fumbling and "umm"'s while leaving in sections in which the EvilEvolutionists(TM) were THINKING before they answered a question?

(Of course in GWB's case the editing technique is to simply let the camera run...)

Larry: Having seen the movie I can understand why Dawkins is so frothing mad over it: he comes across as a stuttering buffoon when interviewed. He’s not used to this. He’s used to a well-scripted scene with canned arguments, pocketed one-liners, favorable lights, cameras, and makeup—lots of rhetorical makeup. The same is true for the entirety of the anti-intelligence squad, many of whom get their guard-down interviews in the movie. You get to see Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse—all atheists or agnostics, all hostile to traditional religious faith, and all Darwinian evolutionists—each given their turn to explain their position, and explain how they view intelligent design.

MattusMaximus: Yeah, and I notice that Ben Stein and company went out of their way to avoid interviewing religious scientists like PvM, Francis Collins, Keith Miller, and Father Coyne who all say that ID-creationism is hooey.

PvM:

Jedidiah Palosaari: Dude. Average price in Seattle is $10!

Seattle is hardly 'average'

MattusMaximus:

MattusMaximus: Yeah, and I notice that Ben Stein and company went out of their way to avoid interviewing religious scientists like PvM, Francis Collins, Keith Miller, and Father Coyne who all say that ID-creationism is hooey.

Sorry. Ken Miller.

Everytime an evolutionist responds, it only further proves that they're not really interested in science (which screams for a desgner/creator/etc) as much as they are in disproving God.

Dawkins has no answers about origins... except for the possibilty that aliens may have seeded our planet. Right!

This is why atheists and militant evolutionists will always be in the minority. The evidence point to someone who obviously started the process. For Dawkins, it's ET.

Turns out Christianity isn't the only thing that takes faith.

Mr. Biggs: you seem to be at least half lucid, which is possibly grounds for congratulations in this queer set-up. There's a lot of phantomreading goes on here, as you know.

Are there species or aren't there? Last time I was knocking about in these parts the opinion was somewhat divided on that question. It's also divided on whether there is or there isn't an entropy barrier that stops certain hypothesized chemical (and other) processes from occurring.

I get intrigued by 'testable' hypotheses that can't decide what they are testing, and under what rules they are to be tested. Currently, and, indeed, in the past, when I attended lectures, TYRANNOSAURUS and, indeed, tens of thousands of other genetically distinct species, many of them clearly identifiable in the fossil record, were, indeed, species in the Linnaen meaning. Therefore they were not in a process of constant transition to the next species. But this observation, itself, as we know, along with all of science, is in a state of continual transition. Thus, species exist for the purpose of observation, then abruptly become meaningless for the purpose of having a media circus. Not Linnaeus's type of media 'circus', mind you. Or have I got it wrong?

Then we could investigate thermodynamics. All processes of nature by definition follow the guidelines of good old enthalpy vs. entropy. Sure enough, get enough localised heat, and the overall process of disorganization (having to do with entropy) can be reversed in some measure. Thus we get those lovely crystalline minerals and even deposits of gold and diamonds. All these mineralization procedures, and, indeed, all natural processes, ultimately follow quantifiable energy pathways. In the case of chemical reactions, a chemical engineer can advize of the precise calories/kilojoules involved.

Who has done the calorie calculations for the C + H + ..... conversion to a protein? Anyone got the figures handy?

Apply enough heat and pressure a la good old mother nature to C + H + ....., and you might get, say, diamond, or at best, a complex silicate mineral.

That's not to say there wasn't an unrolling of life. You can get the C + H + P + O + ..... bizzo to happen, logically, rationally, testably, .... by factoring in organization. We'll re-name that, information, so as to be religiously neutral. Information can overcome the entropy barrier. No amount of raw heat energy (the enthalpy aspect) can do so, in the case of these complex organic structures. Well, I didn't invent enthalpy and entropy tables. Ask a chemical engineer. Is physical chemistry applicable to the unrolling of life, or is biology somehow exempt?

Answer the decent, reasonable questions, and leave the circuses to the politico-religious set.

Oh, and the "Clergy Letter Project" someone mentioned says...

"...the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God..."

Is "God-given" a scientifically acceptable term these days?

More tasty truth from Joel McDurmon...

By now many readers on the web are aware that Dawkins and his American evolutionist counterpart, “PZ” Meyers, tried to crash the premier of Expelled in Minneapolis, MN last month. I can only imagine that the producer, Mike Mathis, held this event when and where they did because the American Atheists Conference 2008 was held there at the same time. They were hoping for some headline grabbing stunt from the inevitably reactionary godless. Dawkins and Meyers lined up but were halted by security after Mathis noticed Meyer’s name on the ticket list. He was escorted out, and Dawkins was left holding the popcorn. Dawkins, however, reports that Mathis was so stupid as not to notice him—the most high-profile atheist in the world—and let him pass, and also so deceitful as to give false reasons for evicting Meyers. Our informative atheist gives all kinds of reasons why we should regard Mathis as doltish and dishonest, and yet never mentions the fact that he himself snuck-in by using his unfamiliar “real” name “Clinton” when signing in. So much for up-front honesty. Left a bit of the story out there, Clinton.

Great Animations
Having been sheared and left naked before the world, Dawkins and the rest of the anti-intelligence flock are bleating unendingly, trying to impugn the movie in every way possible. But perusing their comments just a bit you’ll find that they critique everything except the real argument. They don’t like how the movie was made, they call it amateurish, shoddy, second-rate; they make fun of some of the editing and the humor; and they can hardly write a paragraph without the label “creationist.” But when all is done, precious little is said of the actual point of the movie—that anyone who has an inkling of respect for intelligent design is immediately persecuted and marginalized in academia, journalism, and education.

So Dawkins’ troop is content to caricature and strain over tiny issues, certainly hoping to distract readers from the real issue under consideration. They have accused the film makers of stealing an animation of the cell from a previous effort done for Harvard University. They provide not a shred of hard evidence to back up the claim. Some of the ID spokesmen have already rebutted the idea.1 This story may yet develop, but the animation was clearly given its own independent citation in the movies credits, so I’m not sure why the evolutionists are pursuing the line. Perhaps they didn’t like the show enough to sit and read the credits afterward.

But the heart of the message remains: proponents of intelligent design are discriminated against, persecuted, and pressed to the fringes if not pushed out altogether. This movie has simply provided clear evidence and awareness of a trend that has been running powerfully in the undercurrents of American education for decades. This is due to the nature of evolutionary thought as a competing worldview: It will not allow any rivals. This has been known for some time. One lawyer who reviewed Darwin’s legacy wrote,

most of higher education is dogmatic and irrationally committed to affirm evolution and to suppress creation science, not on the basis of scientific evidence, but in disregard of that evidence.2

The atheists now feel their worldview slipping. They have nothing to fight with except control of schools and maintaining ridicule of God. Any respectable theory that may allow room for God—and anyone who entertains such as theory—must be wiped from human consciousness, and bereft of influence. Scores of examples could be cited. The movie gives some prominent cases. There are hundreds more.

Shorter Larry: "The second coming has arrived."

Tyler DiPietro: Shorter Larry: "The second coming has arrived."

Larry,

Most of that claptrap has been addressed, and debunked, numerous times here. Repeating it doesn't make it "truth", but I can see why a creo might hope so.

PS, Who is Joel McDurmon and why should anyone care what he thinks? As I said, it's just a regurgitation of the same disproven, dishonest ID/creo fabrications. Someone who'd pass that crap along without fact-checking doesn't deserve any more respect than someone who forwards chain mail.

GLUTEUS MAXIMUS AS IN "MATTUS MAXIMUS" IS THE "BUTTOCKS" WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT US"
YOUR MOTHER NAMED YOU APPROPRIATELY!!! OR DID YOU PICK THAT NAME YOURSELF!!!

MONIQUE BUTANI: GLUTEUS MAXIMUS AS IN "MATTUS MAXIMUS" IS THE "BUTTOCKS" WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT US" YOUR MOTHER NAMED YOU APPROPRIATELY!!! OR DID YOU PICK THAT NAME YOURSELF!!!

Like most of us here, I have been reading PT on almost a daily basis for at least 4 years. Does this cycle ever stop? IDiots and creotards call for "waterloo in dover" "April 18th the Great Awakening" there was Kansas, New Mexico, too many "victories" to name. The dates arrive for their much heralded victory and they totally fail. Undeniable absolute failure. Everytime. Then they show up here and crow victory.

Our movie is doing 1/4th as good as we anticipated. WE R TEH WIN!!!!111!!!1!!! Waterloo! Waterloo! Waterloo!

MONIQUE BUTANI: GLUTEUS MAXIMUS AS IN “MATTUS MAXIMUS” IS THE “BUTTOCKS” WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT US” YOUR MOTHER NAMED YOU APPROPRIATELY!!! OR DID YOU PICK THAT NAME YOURSELF!!!

MattusMaximus: Amazing… I didn’t know they were allowing the criminally insane access to the Internet these days. The wonders never cease.

So is Larry going to explain why none of the proponents of Intelligent Design have ever bothered to demonstrate how and why Intelligent Design "theory" is a science, or even why Intelligent Design "theory" should be regarded as a (potentially) superior alternative to the Theory of Evolution, or even how Intelligent Design "theory" can scientifically describe anything, yet, feel that it's necessary for them to argue that Intelligent Design "theory" must supplant the Theory of Evolution?

EXPELLED: PREDICTED TO HIT TOP OF CHARTS.

MONIQUE BUTANI: EXPELLED: PREDICTED TO HIT TOP OF CHARTS.

Stacy S.: Ummm... By who?

MONIQUE BUTANI: EXPELLED: PREDICTED TO HIT TOP OF CHARTS.

Larry: More tasty truth from Joel McDurmon...

(Dawkins)never mentions the fact that he himself snuck-in by using his unfamiliar “real” name “Clinton” when signing in. So much for up-front honesty. Left a bit of the story out there, Clinton.

Dawkins and (et al are) trying to impugn the movie in every way possible. But perusing their comments just a bit you’ll find that they critique everything except the real argument.

They have accused the film makers of stealing an animation of the cell from a previous effort done for Harvard University. They provide not a shred of hard evidence to back up the claim.

But the heart of the message remains: proponents of intelligent design are discriminated against, persecuted, and pressed to the fringes if not pushed out altogether.

Oh dear. Monday's figures just in: -68.8%

Again I ask - aliens seeding earth is better science than ID?

No it isn't, but it does allow Dawkins to avoid God... at least for awhile.

I thought larry foofooman wasn't welcome here?

Number 52:

Stacy S.: Ummm... By who?

MONIQUE BUTANI: EXPELLED: PREDICTED TO HIT TOP OF CHARTS.

Maybe this one: http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom

PBH,

Follow your own advice, "Answer the decent, reasonable questions, and leave the circuses to the politico-religious set." and answer my question to you. Are you now ready to admit you were lying when you accused me of saying something I did not say or can you back up your statement? Does it not bother you that you are knowingly violating one of the Commandments merely because you have an excess of pride?

Larry: Again I ask - aliens seeding earth is better science than ID? No it isn't, but it does allow Dawkins to avoid God... at least for awhile.

Larry: Again I ask - aliens seeding earth is better science than ID? No it isn't, but it does allow Dawkins to avoid God... at least for awhile.

Damien Trotter: Oh dear. Monday's figures just in: -68.8%

By way of saying goodbye to this thread I quote Mr. Natural from Zap comics, courtesy R. Crumb.

"Well. That was quite a session."

This has really been a lot of fun. Let's all get together and do it again real soon!

To be fair, all movies had a 55-75% decline on monday according to Boxofficemojo …..however on further review…..wait for it…. Expelled is the only movie in the top 50 (and that includes “Alvin and the Chipmunks”) to have a drop in Saturday earnings. Ouch

Copernic,

You might consider an MRI to make sure a tumor hasn't eaten half your brain cells.

Look dumb butt! For 100 years people in the materialist sewer pig cult have been striving mightily to demonstrate a natural material abiogenesis scenario that would yield a first replicator capable of being the ultimate common ancestor via RM and NS. Neither exist, neither have an ounce of evidence, neither have a working hypothesis that hasn't been laughed off the page of any journal in science.

Robert Shapiro and Crick and Hoyle and other top notch people have disposed of every theory you babble about 25 years ago and continue to do so.

Any one don't me...just read Shapiro's Origins or Denton's Theory in Crisis, etc..

All of these weenies are full of lies and crap when they spout about new research, new proposals, new concepts for either of these critical issues.

These is nothing to support their claims, NADA, zero and anything to the contrary is pure BS...period.

All they have to do is furnish the evidence, lab results, papers in proof, detailed descriptions...answer... zero, NADA, nothing, period... game over.

Okay, I'll bite. Keith, I'll concede your point for the sake of discussion. What do you think happened, and when? Show your work or it doesn't count. If you have no alternative, then why do you care if you think the scientific possibilities have no support?

Hmmmmmmmmm! One day after the weekend and another nonprofit think-tank goes up at a major university, sponsored in part by the DI.

The cast is a very impressive group of cross-disciplinary scientists with substantial achievements in academia and research and publishing.

Cambridge has a new site up on the full breath of Atheism from teh 18 century forward.

Check out Uncommon Descent site and get ready for continued success in getting ID further entrenched in American's thinking.

It means that the search for how life originated and how it became diverse must include alternatives and variations that take stock of the current state of the scientific theory of evolution, it's strengths and weaknesses, but also support the new ideas of intelligent design at the nano level of the cell to widen the perspectives of research and discover what design elements, approaches, concepts , and features can be found and co-opted for scientific and technological progress.

It means people who wish to specialize in such approaches to investigation and analysis are encouraged, not scorned, not ridiculed, not persecuted, but included as willing and able partners in the pursuit of truth including research funding, facilities, publication opportunities, and openness.

If the efforts by the evolution community and its more radical elements had embraced ID as suggested it is likely that after the last decade either certain truths would have evidenced or it would have been discredited and abandoned.

I doubt such openness and opportunity will be extended by the evolutionary special interest complex as the conventional wisdom never remits willingly.

Keith said: "Look dumb butt! For 200 years people in the creationist sewer pig cult have been striving mightily to demonstrate a miraculous abiogenesis scenario that would yield a first replicator capable of being the ultimate design via ID and NT.* Neither exist, neither have an ounce of evidence, neither have a working hypothesis that hasn’t been laughed off the page of any journal in science."

That is what you meant, isn't it?

==================
*-Natural theology

JBIGGS,

I am flattered to be compared ( perhaps appropriately) with one of the greatest minds in history, Aristotle.

I will appreciate you links to data illlustrating the repeated abiogenesis, first replicator, and macroeveolutionary events that have been repeatedly observed, studed, analyzed, experimentally varified under the inductive methodology.

Philip Bruce Heywood: Then we could investigate thermodynamics. All processes of nature by definition follow the guidelines of good old enthalpy vs. entropy. Sure enough, get enough localised heat, and the overall process of disorganization (having to do with entropy) can be reversed in some measure. Thus we get those lovely crystalline minerals and even deposits of gold and diamonds. All these mineralization procedures, and, indeed, all natural processes, ultimately follow quantifiable energy pathways. In the case of chemical reactions, a chemical engineer can advize of the precise calories/kilojoules involved. Who has done the calorie calculations for the C + H + ..... conversion to a protein? Anyone got the figures handy? Apply enough heat and pressure a la good old mother nature to C + H + ....., and you might get, say, diamond, or at best, a complex silicate mineral. That's not to say there wasn't an unrolling of life. You can get the C + H + P + O + ..... bizzo to happen, logically, rationally, testably, .... by factoring in organization. We'll re-name that, information, so as to be religiously neutral. Information can overcome the entropy barrier. No amount of raw heat energy (the enthalpy aspect) can do so, in the case of these complex organic structures. Well, I didn't invent enthalpy and entropy tables. Ask a chemical engineer. Is physical chemistry applicable to the unrolling of life, or is biology somehow exempt? Answer the decent, reasonable questions, and leave the circuses to the politico-religious set.

• deGroot and Mazur, Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
• Prigogine and Stenger, Order Out of Chaos
• Prigogine, From Being to Becoming,
• Nicolis and Prigogine, Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems: From Disssipative Structures to Order Through Fluctuations
• Kauffman, The Origins of Order

Keith: "Hmmmmmmmmm! One day after the weekend and another nonprofit think-tank goes up at a major university, sponsored in part by the DI."

Not only that... After three years, the biologic Institute web page has something more that an "under construction, top secret" sign. Hopefully it will soon join its role model, the Tobacco Institute, with a series of flawed studies.

I see that the first research paper from the public-relations lab, "Leaping into Ignorance," is already up.

Olorin, I missed your links to the evidence for the subject critical assumptions ....oh yeah you don't have any ...almost forgot. But you BS is funny in a sad sort of way.

keith: It means that the search for how life originated and how it became diverse must include alternatives and variations that take stock of the current state of the scientific theory of evolution, it's strengths and weaknesses, but also support the new ideas of intelligent design at the nano level of the cell to widen the perspectives of research and discover what design elements, approaches, concepts , and features can be found and co-opted for scientific and technological progress.

SWT,

Thank you so much for revealing the flaws in the PBH "information" nonsense. He has been trashing up threads for weeks now trying to convince people of something. I honestly don't know what it is he wants us to believe since he will never come out and say it. He posts the same nonsense on every thread regardless of the topic and then absolutely refuses to answer any questions, including defining the terms he is using. It's classic pesudo-science mombo jumbo as far as anyone can tell.

Apparently he thinks that "information" is required in order for entropy to be overcome, he won't explain exactly why. Apparently he doesn't believe that energy is enough to temporarily counteract entropy, or something like that. Apparently he thinks that this information is transmitted to DNA through photons that are processed in the earth's magnetic field. He won't say how or why this happens either. He won't say where the information comes from, or who creates it or why they do this. He does always insist that his studies are real "science" and "bible based". I have no idea what that means, but apparently it means that all other scientists are wrong about everything for some unknown reason.

He has broken the rules here repeatedly and will probbly be moved to TBW again eventually. Thanks again for pointing out the flaws in his argument for those of us who are less well versed in thermodynamics. If you do try to reason with him, be prepared for all sorts of crazy incomprehensible arguments, butchered english, inappropriate and mangled idioms and wild personal attacks. The guy seems to need to be an expert in something or other, not sure exactly what.

Just so no one assumes SWT has a lock on the relevent subject material I can assure you there are equally gifted scientists and engineers who would beg to differ with him.

Certain extensions to SLOT has advocates who demonstrate that information is a very important aspect of thermodynamics as well as energy, heat, and more traditional state variables.

Among those would be Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen and also Joachim Lay.

Hi Keith!

I see you are back again in full flight. Are you now ready to answer my questions? Please could you give us your theory for the origins of the variety of life on Earth, and some of the evidence to support it. Could you tell us what you perceive as some of the problems that are resolved by your theory?

Look dumb butt!

"Certain extensions to SLOT has advocates who demonstrate that information is a very important aspect of thermodynamics as well as energy, heat, and more traditional state variables."

Cite them, and the relevant papers.

Keith wrote:

"Certain extensions to SLOT has advocates who demonstrate that information is a very important aspect of thermodynamics as well as energy, heat, and more traditional state variables."

Well, you better inform PBH about that. He claims he just used the term to be "religiously neutral" (i.e. he didn't want to use the term God).

PBH apparently claims that organic molecules cannot form spontaneously from constituent atoms, or something like that, it's really hard to tell with him. Of course it is well known that exactly that process has been observed and can be reliably reproduced in the laboratory with no input of information at all. Oh well, he never did define the term "entropy barrier" anyway, so who knows what hs is on about.

For those who wish a more factual presewntation:

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’”
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.”
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

“We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.”
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

Every author acknowledges the information content and concept as related to complex systems in the themodynamic context.

Paul Burnett:

Jedidiah Palosaari: Just saw the movie. ... Afterwards we adjourned to discuss the movie at a local restaurant. I sat across from one Casey, who I later realized was the infamous Casey Luskin.

I'm sure your detailed recollections of everything Casey said (about the movie, or about intelligent design creationism) would be greatly appreciated by many here.

"Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by SELECTION (emphasis mine), rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]"

And there you have it folks. The information in biological systems comes from selection, no great mystery. Simple organic molecules can arise without the input of information and when self-replicating molecules such as RNA arise they can be acted on by selection to create organization. No photons processed by the magnetic field, no supernatural intervention required.

Now of course Keith will demand all of the molecular details for a process that occurred over three and a half billion years ago. Interesting that he didn't have any references more recent than 1984 and most from sixties and seventies. I wonder if any of the authors he cited concluded that it was impossible for biological systems to evolve naturally?

For those who wish a more factual presewntation:

— Keith Eaton

The section Keith quotes from that article is apparently making the argument that localized decreases in entropy such as thermodynamic annealing are not real, then quotes people who say they are real but insufficient to explain biological features. I must have missed the ascent of biologists attributing adaptation to crystallography rather than selection.

And they wonder why we call them IDiots?

Check out Uncommon Descent site and get ready for continued success in getting ID further entrenched in American’s thinking.

keith said: Copernic, You might consider an MRI to make sure a tumor hasn’t eaten half your brain cells. Look dumb butt! For 100 years people in the materialist sewer pig cult have been striving mightily to demonstrate a natural material abiogenesis scenario that would yield a first replicator capable of being the ultimate common ancestor via RM and NS. Neither exist,neither have an ounce of evidence

neither have a working hypothesis that hasn’t been laughed off the page of any journal in science.

Robert Shapiro and Crick and Hoyle and other top notch people have disposed of every theory you babble about 25 years ago and continue to do so.

Any one don’t me…just read Shapiro’s Origins or Denton’s Theory in Crisis, etc..

All of these weenies are full of lies and crap when they spout about new research, new proposals, new concepts for either of these critical issues.

These is nothing to support their claims, NADA, zero and anything to the contrary is pure BS…period.

All they have to do is furnish the evidence, lab results, papers in proof, detailed descriptions…answer… zero, NADA, nothing, period… game over.

"I must have missed the ascent of biologists attributing adaptation to crystallography rather than selection."

I mean "crystallization" here. Posting late at night sucks.

And if a Magical Sky Pixie were the ultimate cause of life, where did this entity come from? Turtles all the way down?

keith: For those who wish a more factual presewntation: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp “‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ As will be discussed, the role of natural selection in evolution is to transform the structurally complex systems generated according to thermodynamic principles into organized systems." [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

Larry: The evidence point to someone who obviously started the process. For Dawkins, it's ET.

The great thing about this discussion, is the blatant hypocrisy when you consider the fact that this film is being vilified by the very open-minded left, who will argue to the death that alternative lifestyles should be celebrated, embraced and encouraged. Yet the alternative lifestlye of believing in a creator, is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemmed as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion. We are the inner-city ideologies, while the brillant bourgeoisie live in Beverly Hills and New York City.
http://townhall.com/columnists/NinaMay/2008/04/22/response_to_movie_expelled_proves_its_point_man_has_not_evolved?page=full&comments=true

"Yet the alternative lifestlye of believing in a creator..."

How's life out there on whatever planet you live on?

So after all the yelling and blather the bottom lineremains teh same not a single response to the challenge now some 20 years old in my experience....I am laughing at you weenies!!

SWT one point is that across all the references the indispensibility of information in processes of life in the context of the thermodynamics and chemistry is precisely 100% counter to your silly statements.

Prigorine neatly sums up the situation by noting that none of his far from equilibrium work is capabale of explaining biological structures in an abiogenic sense.

Of course Lay's book on thermodynamics includes an entire
chapter 13, pg 304 on the subject of the informational formulation of the laws of theremo in considerable detail. That was 25 years ago and the subject has become even more widely integrated, recognized, and understood since.

Stanton is full of BS again and offers not an iota of evidence for his claims, mischaracterizes even that paper, can't read Prigoprine's statement on the subject, and offers not one scintilla of evidence for the rebuttal to the original challenge.

Stanton there is a great body of truth in science, philosophy, religion and elsewhere that is centuries old as age has no definitive impact on truth, it has to be overturned or demonstrated that newer revelation is superior and demonstrable and varifiable.

In the subject area your team is on its butt with zero evidence so quit your BS.

So its as usual, evos presenting half the story, unrelated papers, bluff, lies, and ad hominems.

Monique,

I am glad you were able to find the [CapsLock] key. It is not the belief in a creator that is being reviled. What is being reviled is the belief that some have that, along with a belief in a creator, there is a requirement to ignore evidence, lie about evidence, vilify others and to misrepresent other people's opinions and attitudes, all with the express aim of imposing their particular view on the rest of the world.

Keith said: So after all the yelling and blather the bottom lineremains teh same not a single response to the challenge now some 20 years old in my experience

I as well as many others are being told by some very reliable sources on the QT that this movie: Expelled has brought out alot of questions/doubts to the table of evolution and that alot of grants to these universities and other places... across the county will be suspended down the line...They strongly suspect that many of these professors will find themselfs unemployed in this field somewhere in the near future. Especially now with the financial situation in this country and elsewhere which "doubles" their problems...

Monique- So ID is now an "alternative lifestyle"? Wow. Run that one past the DI.

Well, I don't live in BH or NY, just a shitty suburb in Phoenix. But even I know you're an idiot.

keith: SWT one point is that across all the references the indispensibility of information in processes of life in the context of the thermodynamics and chemistry is precisely 100% counter to your silly statements.

Prigorine neatly sums up the situation by noting that none of his far from equilibrium work is capabale of explaining biological structures in an abiogenic sense.

Monique,

You're probably right. This country has been so poorly managed for the last eight years that we are headed for truly dire economic times. The first thing to go will probably be the arts, then science. As long as religious fundamentalists control the money, they will be all too happy to return us to the dark ages so their favorite myths won't be exposed to the light of reason and evidence. They might even use such things as the fradulent arguments made in the movie to justify their biases to an unsuspecting public.

However, that won't mean that Darwin was responsible for Hitler. That won't mean that evolution is not true. All it will mean is that a gullible public will once again be duped by those with a religious agenda and more hard times and economic woes will follow.

Science has the potential to solve many of our economic problems. However, in this country religious beliefs and conservative ideologies have been allowed to restrict science in many areas. Lack of foresight and lack of imagination have hampered our efforts as well. We will definately pay the price, but it won't be because science has let us down. It will most likely be because our scientific heritage has been abandoned and we have sold our souls for the promise of heaven.

the troll Kieth sez... Certain extensions to SLOT has advocates who demonstrate that information is a very important aspect of thermodynamics as well as energy, heat, and more traditional state variables

"The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." - Henri Carnot, 1824

MONIQUE BUTANI: ...this movie: Expelled has brought out a lot of questions/doubts to the table of evolution....

Especially now with the financial situation in this country and elsewhere which "doubles" their problems...

Yet the alternative lifestlye of believing in a creator, is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemmed as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion.

Keith,

Back to the personal attacks I see. Well knuckle head, I offered much more proof than you have of anything. Quote mining thirty year old papers doesn't prove anything, especially when you have completely missed the point being made by the authors.

You asked for a molecular description of the first replicator, I provided one. There is much evidence to suggest that RNA was central to the first replicator, you just have to read papers that aren't over thirty years old. You don't like it, that's too bad. I will be more than happy to provide the exact ribonucleotide sequence of the first replicating RNA molecule for you, just as soon as you present your alternative explanation and your evidence. Twenty years and still no alternative. Still trying to claim that no one has responded. Man, what a retard.

OK Keith, I give up. I admit that no one will ever have enough evidence to convince you that the first replicator could not arise naturally without supernatural intervention. Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that God did it. That is where this has been going for twenty years right? OK, now that that's out of the way, all of the rest of evoutionary theory is still fine. God works in mysterious ways.

Thanks again to SWT for having the patience to respond to so much nonsense.

Monique fantasizes... Expelled has brought out alot of questions/doubts to the table of evolution ... alot of grants to these universities and other places… across the county will be suspended ... many of these professors will find themselves unemployed in the near future.

The RNA first world was discredited totally and comletely 25 years ago and carefully crafted experiments to yield miniscule RNA segments in anything but primal abiotic conditions is simply ridiculous as regards abiogenesis.

You nutbags can't even google up Shapiro's books on Universal Lifeforce, after he gave up on abiogenesis under any extant model whatsoever, as did Kenyon, and Crick.

When are you goofballs going to learn that some chemical experiment carried out with planning, intellect, equipment, lab environments that develop one or more amino acids, a six molecule polypeptide, a spittle of RNA (often aided by molecular information in one form or another) has not one damn thing to do with the sequence of events necessary to materialistically evolve the first celluar organism capable of self sustained life.

The RNA first world was discredited totally and comletely 25 years ago and carefully crafted experiments to yield miniscule RNA segments in anything but primal abiotic conditions is simply ridiculous as regards abiogenesis.

Philip Bruce Heywood: Mr. Biggs: you seem to be at least half lucid, which is possibly grounds for congratulations in this queer set-up. There's a lot of phantomreading goes on here, as you know.

Are there species or aren't there?

It's also divided on whether there is or there isn't an entropy barrier that stops certain hypothesized chemical (and other) processes from occurring.

I get intrigued by 'testable' hypotheses that can't decide what they are testing, and under what rules they are to be tested.

keith eaton, Master of Projection: Olorin, I missed your links to the evidence for the subject critical assumptions ....oh yeah you don't have any ...almost forgot. But you BS is funny in a sad sort of way.

Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, earning $1.2 million at the box office in its first day and earned $2,970,848 for its opening weekend ($2,824 theater average). Originally, Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer, "said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, "Fahrenheit 9/11", the best launch ever for a documentary." Reviewing Expelled's opening box office figures, Nikki Finke of the Los Angeles Weekly wrote that considering the number of screens showing the film, the ticket sales were "feeble", demonstrating "there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign." Finke further wrote, "So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood". (Just for comparison purposes: left-wing Michael Moore's most recent Sicko made $4.4 million its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 made $23.9 million its opening weekend from 868 venues.)" Joshua Rich of Entertainment Weekly said the movie "was a solid top-10 contender" and "[t]hat's a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters." In contrast, IMDB wrote that the film "flopped", and "failed to bring out church groups in big numbers".

keith wrote: JBIGGS, I am flattered to be compared ( perhaps appropriately) with one of the greatest minds in history, Aristotle. I will appreciate you links to data illlustrating the repeated abiogenesis, first replicator, and macroeveolutionary events that have been repeatedly observed, studed, analyzed, experimentally varified under the inductive methodology.

Keith waxed ignorantly: When are you goofballs going to learn that some chemical experiment carried out with planning, intellect, equipment, lab environments that develop one or more amino acids, a six molecule polypeptide, a spittle of RNA (often aided by molecular information in one form or another) has not one damn thing to do with the sequence of events necessary to materialistically evolve the first celluar organism capable of self sustained life.

And BTW you blithering idiot, the existence of questions without answers doesn't invalidate science. That's why those precious questions you've been parroting without understanding all these years don't mean jack. You'd know that if you had 1/10 of the education you claim you have.

But by all means, keep displaying the ignorance, arrogance, basic grammar and spelling errors of your frustrated inner 10th grader and pretending you're a successful person. Obviously fantasy is all you've got.

Oh, and BTW twit, hugely financially succesful people don't retire at 62 - they retire at 35 like I did. You are so clueless even your lies are lame.

It would also appear that FANTASY is all you got!!! especially with words like "HUGELY" on your MIND!!! but more in line with words like "TWIT" in describing yourself!!!

If his brain is as small as your faith, you're both in serious trouble.

Kieth yammers: The RNA first world was discredited totally and comletely 25 years ago and carefully crafted experiments to yield miniscule RNA segments in anything but primal abiotic conditions is simply ridiculous ...

Thanks again to SWT for having the patience to respond to so much nonsense.

I think you mean PBH. RBH is a gentleman of excellent understanding, intelligent discourse, and a truly sexy beard.

Rilke's Granddaughter: I think you mean PBH. RBH is a gentleman of excellent understanding, intelligent discourse, and a truly sexy beard.

Perhaps one of our resident creationists can answer something for me. Ever since the debate over Intelligent Design began, its proponents have been assuring us that ID is not about a supernatural designer. In fact, if you go here you can see Casey Luskin (not a "Darwinist," incidently) making that exact argument.

So bearing that in mind, here's my question: what's so silly about hearing Richard Dawkins discuss the possibility if the DI itself presents "E.T." as a serious contender?

News Alert!!!

Yoko Ono has sued the creators of Expelled for copyright infringement:

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2320158220080423

I can't wait to see how this plays out in court - and when Yoko is finished with the makers of Expelled, whatever is left will likely be mopped up by the Harvard/XVIVO lawsuit :)

Yoko Ono has sued the creators of Expelled...

I, as well as many others are being told by some very reliable sources on the QT that this movie: Expelled has raised many doubts to the table of evolution and that many grants to the universities and other places arcoss the country will be lost/suspended down the line. They suspect that many of the professors may find themselfs unemployed in this field somewhere in the future, especially with the financial situation now in this country and elsewhere.

Monique, you've said that before. It's just innuendo, in'it? Do you have anything to support this rumor-mongering?

Of course not, she just makes shit up like the rest of them and pretends she's thinking.

Monique appears to be basically cutting and pasting her crazed statements. I say don't respond; let her wallow in her own crapulance.

Do not feed the trolls...

It would appear that the ONLY reason why you’re retired at 35 is because you’re collecting disability from a mental disorder. Evolution has failed you terribly because if you’re d..k is as SMALL as your brain, you are in serious trouble!

— Shy Monique

Thanks for reposting that Reginald. And I thought Keith was bad. Sheesh.

I state once again; noone has ever witnessed a new gene created via mutation. Stacy S. replied genes evolve to take on new roles. Evolve from existing genes, and that always results in death, or disfunction, or inability to reproduce, and a loss of genetic information. But maybe if i write a clever 'wink, wink' we can continue to uphold the belief that millions and billions of new gene pairs were generated from no existing genes at all!! Then, they were passed on to a new generation to a more complex organism trillions of times. mutations are smart! Go mutations plus time!

marv: I state once again; noone has ever witnessed a new gene created via mutation. Stacy S. replied genes evolve to take on new roles. Evolve from existing genes, and that always results in death, or disfunction, or inability to reproduce, and a loss of genetic information. But maybe if i write a clever 'wink, wink' we can continue to uphold the belief that millions and billions of new gene pairs were generated from no existing genes at all!! Then, they were passed on to a new generation to a more complex organism trillions of times. mutations are smart! Go mutations plus time!

genetic information can be shown to easily increase? when does this happen? Jean Lamark would be so proud! Come on genes, I really want to be taller lets think real hard together and........ ignorance=putting hope in mutations

Duplication followed by point mutation. Marv, if you're going to say something stupid, try to say something not quite so easily SHOWN to be stupid.

duplication....dna flipping....mitosis.....mutation....all of existing genes. existing. duplication is not making more complex. it is not creating from nothing. Duplication is duplication. I must be stupid, I thought duplication from nothing is nothing. But here, I guess I must have to be super smart to believe duplication from nothing equals everything!

marv: genetic information can be shown to easily increase? when does this happen? Jean Lamark would be so proud! Come on genes, I really want to be taller lets think real hard together and........ ignorance=putting hope in mutations

marv: duplication....dna flipping....mitosis.....mutation....all of existing genes. existing. duplication is not making more complex. it is not creating from nothing. Duplication is duplication. I must be stupid, I thought duplication from nothing is nothing. But here, I guess I must have to be super smart to believe duplication from nothing equals everything!

marv: I state once again; noone has ever witnessed a new gene created via mutation. Stacy S. replied genes evolve to take on new roles. Evolve from existing genes, and that always results in death, or disfunction, or inability to reproduce, and a loss of genetic information. But maybe if i write a clever 'wink, wink' we can continue to uphold the belief that millions and billions of new gene pairs were generated from no existing genes at all!! Then, they were passed on to a new generation to a more complex organism trillions of times. mutations are smart! Go mutations plus time!

Well marv, you did specify ""increase"; and so we're not duplicating "nothing" and then varying it. We're duplicating what YOU said was there to start with. You are pretty stupid if you said "increase" when you meant "create de novo". Kinds shot yourself in the foot there.

who said anything about god? and still every example you all have graciously pointed out needs an existing gene. I guess ive been had. Go mutations!! Oh wait, like my biology teacher said.. well between miller urey and cells there really was a lot of time. Duplicate of nothing equals nothing. Divergence of nothing equals nothing. Divergence of existing does not equal more complex. Shot myself in the foot again by stating the obvious.

P.S. I sure do appreciate all of you explaining this to dumb ol' me. If only I was smart enough to think something came from nothing.

Marv,

What are you babbling about? Of course every gene comes from a previous string of DNA, be it a gene, a pseudogene, junk DNA or whatever. We are not advocating miraculous creation. The thing is, sometimes cell division goes wrong and an extra chomosome is produced or sometimes chromosome duplication is faulty and a single piece of DNA gives rise to two pieces of DNA. The extra chromosome or piece of DNA can then mutate and give new information. Why is this concept so difficult for you?

BTW, what exactly do you mean by 'information'? You see, it is a word used almost exclusively in this context by creationists / IDers. They are very reluctant to say just what they mean by it and how it can be measured, so whenever a biologists says, 'Here's some new information.' they reply, 'No, No. That's not what we mean.'

P.S. (Question to everyone else - why do people who think that essentially all biologists are wrong believe themselves to be brilliant? Does it never occur to them that just possibly they have the wrong end of the stick?)

marv wrote: P.S. I sure do appreciate all of you explaining this to dumb ol’ me. If only I was smart enough to think something came from nothing.

Marv, you want an abiogenesis website, not pandasthumb which deals with the evolution of a replicator. IE, the evolution of something.

Marv wrote:

"I state once again; noone has ever witnessed a new gene created via mutation."

Marv, you have been sadly misinformed. In fact, gene duplication followed by divergence has been demonstrably responsible for the production of lots of genes. Check out the thread on the evolution of the placenta for one example. Here are a few more examples:

Hox genes
Hemoglobin genes
Olfactory genes

Now, if you want to argue about the term "witnessed" then I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Remember, no one has "witnessed" your liver either. If you want to argue about the origin of the first gene, that is a separate issue. We've already been down that road on this thread.

Now, what has any of this got to do with the lying and stealing in Expelled? Did the movie address any scientific issues? Did they present any evidence? Did they claim that no new gene was ever created by mutation?

Marv, if you actually want to learn something, here is a fine paper that discusses how complexity evolves in biological organisms. It also includes a proper definition of information as it is used in biology. If this paper doesn't answer all your questions then you can do an exhaustive search of the literature via Pub Med. If you still haven't found what you are looking for then you may have a novel idea for a research grant. Good luck in your endeavor to increase your scientific knowledge.

SWT. Thanks for all those references. I wonder what Lord Kelvin would be thinking. More on that, later. I keep hearing from my old mate, R. Simons. He wishes me to get back on the straight and narrow, with the Commandments.

Here's a commandment. Repeat these words: "DO NOT AT PANDAS THUMB THY NOSE SCRATCH". Repeat it. Hmmm. Doesn't have any rhythm, as a mantra. O.K., we'll add something. Let's see.. yes, green, botanical ... . Add in, leaf, leaf, leaf, leaf, by way of a somewhat subdued sort of refrain. Now repeat this: "DO NOT AT PANDAS THUMB THY NOSE, SCRATCH leaf leaf leaf leaf DO NOT AT PANDAS THUMB THY NOSE scratch leaf leaf leaf leaf ... keep going, get that rhythm ... you might make it a partial repeat, as, "DO NOT AT PANDAS THUMB THY NOSE scratch leaf leaf leaf leaf scratch leaf leaf leaf leaf DO NOT AT PANDAS THUMB THY NOSE scratch, etc.... keep it going now. Repeat that regularly in public. You will get surprising results.

I'll give you another commandment next entry if you wish - be my guest.

Mr. Biggs somewhere informs us that TYRANNOSAURUS was given birth to by ALLOSAURUS and in turn gave birth to a snake. Only he didn't write in such clear terms. Common descent, eh?

Someone whose handle I have lost openly avows spontaneous generation of life or the near equivalent thereof, and is backed up by assenting experts, in droves.

And the news is that the chemists now have the results in on the entropy and enthalpy figures for the chemical reactions that lead to the unaided formation of complex proteins from their dissociated constituent atoms, and it happens just as easily as crystallizing feldspar from a magma.

Entropy is measured in heat 'energy' (calories, joules, or whatever) per degree Kelvin. It is measured in the following way. In theory or in practice a machine - yes, literally, a machine - is set up that exactly reverses the action. When the action - such as a chemical reaction - is perfectly reversed, the 'work done' by the action is subtracted from the 'work required' to reverse the action. The resulting difference tells us how much more disordered the universe became, as a result of the action. It is measured as, say, joules per degree Kelvin. (Enthalpy is measured, say, in joules per kg.)

Unlike feldspar, which in a real, if unseen, sense, can be 'observed' forming from its constituent elements in magma, complex organic molecules have never, either in theory or in practice, been 'observed' forming from their disparate component elements. No machine can be set up, in theory or in practice, to reverse a procedure which isn't happening naturally. So the entropy cannot be determined; presumably, it tends towards infinity. The only way to overcome this barrier is to insert something from outside the inorganic world - say, intelligent design.

Why don't we all try Mr. Simons's commandment. Ask, and we could find some more commandments. No wonder there's a media circus. Where are the fundamentals? What are you people talking about?

marv: who said anything about god? and still every example you all have graciously pointed out needs an existing gene. I guess ive been had. Go mutations!! Oh wait, like my biology teacher said.. well between miller urey and cells there really was a lot of time. Duplicate of nothing equals nothing. Divergence of nothing equals nothing. Divergence of existing does not equal more complex. Shot myself in the foot again by stating the obvious. P.S. I sure do appreciate all of you explaining this to dumb ol' me. If only I was smart enough to think something came from nothing.

The only way to overcome this barrier is to insert something from outside the inorganic world - say, intelligent design.

PBH misrepresents: Mr. Biggs somewhere informs us that TYRANNOSAURUS was given birth to by ALLOSAURUS and in turn gave birth to a snake. Only he didn’t write in such clear terms. Common descent, eh?

And the news is that the chemists now have the results in on the entropy and enthalpy figures for the chemical reactions that lead to the unaided formation of complex proteins from their dissociated constituent atoms, and it happens just as easily as crystallizing feldspar from a magma. Entropy is measured in heat ‘energy’ (calories, joules, or whatever) per degree Kelvin. It is measured in the following way. In theory or in practice a machine - yes, literally, a machine - is set up that exactly reverses the action. When the action - such as a chemical reaction - is perfectly reversed, the ‘work done’ by the action is subtracted from the ‘work required’ to reverse the action. The resulting difference tells us how much more disordered the universe became, as a result of the action. It is measured as, say, joules per degree Kelvin. (Enthalpy is measured, say, in joules per kg.)

Unlike feldspar, which in a real, if unseen, sense, can be ‘observed’ forming from its constituent elements in magma, complex organic molecules have never, either in theory or in practice, been ‘observed’ forming from their disparate component elements. No machine can be set up, in theory or in practice, to reverse a procedure which isn’t happening naturally. So the entropy cannot be determined; presumably, it tends towards infinity. The only way to overcome this barrier is to insert something from outside the inorganic world - say, intelligent design.

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote: Mr. Biggs somewhere informs us that TYRANNOSAURUS was given birth to by ALLOSAURUS and in turn gave birth to a snake. Only he didn’t write in such clear terms. Common descent, eh?

J. Biggs:

PBH misrepresents: Mr. Biggs somewhere informs us that TYRANNOSAURUS was given birth to by ALLOSAURUS and in turn gave birth to a snake. Only he didn’t write in such clear terms. Common descent, eh?

Actually if I had said this I would have been wrong. But since it is really you who said it, guess what? I have conveniently provided a list of the Family Tyrannosauridae: [Snip]

Philip Bruce Heywood: SWT. Thanks for all those references. I wonder what Lord Kelvin would be thinking. More on that, later.

And the news is that the chemists now have the results in on the entropy and enthalpy figures for the chemical reactions that lead to the unaided formation of complex proteins from their dissociated constituent atoms, and it happens just as easily as crystallizing feldspar from a magma. Entropy is measured in heat 'energy' (calories, joules, or whatever) per degree Kelvin. It is measured in the following way. In theory or in practice a machine - yes, literally, a machine - is set up that exactly reverses the action. When the action - such as a chemical reaction - is perfectly reversed, the 'work done' by the action is subtracted from the 'work required' to reverse the action. The resulting difference tells us how much more disordered the universe became, as a result of the action. It is measured as, say, joules per degree Kelvin. (Enthalpy is measured, say, in joules per kg.) Unlike feldspar, which in a real, if unseen, sense, can be 'observed' forming from its constituent elements in magma, complex organic molecules have never, either in theory or in practice, been 'observed' forming from their disparate component elements. No machine can be set up, in theory or in practice, to reverse a procedure which isn't happening naturally. So the entropy cannot be determined; presumably, it tends towards infinity. The only way to overcome this barrier is to insert something from outside the inorganic world - say, intelligent design.

Richard Simons wrote: I think by now it is well established that Philip Bruce Heywood is a liar who does not hesitate to put words into people's mouths then attack them on the basis of what they did not say. I intend to remind him of this fact, and to point it out to casual visitors to this site, at frequent intervals.

I have noted your lucidity, J.Biggs, and I also note your decency and support of science. As you can readily discern, no matter how many intermediaries we insert in the process, TYRANNOSAURUS was a discreet genetic unit which by definition could not be part of a true 'blood' lineage of constant change and no genetic fixity. That doesn't mean it wasn't part of an evolutionary (unfolding) lineage. Modern research is showing how. I explain this at my site.

Regarding the thermodynamics. I have been 35 yrs trying to get my head around this topic and I have in that time encountered very few people who have a full grasp of it. It is not an easy topic. There is almost unending misconception, and it is often on the part of genuine people. What I wrote above, stands, to the best of my knowledge. But my court of appeal is W. Thompson (Lord Kelvin) himself. Read his quotations, on the 'Net, if you wish. He was a major co-founder of that foundational science. His record in this area - not in all areas - is unimpeachable. He totally dismisses, on the grounds of hard Physics, any conception that inorganic materials can self- organize or produce life, unaided.

Sir Richard Owen, pioneering palaeontologist, likewise dismissed the theorizing of his junior - Charles Darwin. He wasn't perfect, either - but his record in this area stands, as does that of Kelvin, in physical chemistry. Personally, I'm not about to jump off the vehicle that got us here - systematic science.

Entropy is measured in heat ‘energy’ (calories, joules, or whatever) per degree Kelvin.

Again, if you are having trouble with this concept, you’re not ready to pass an undergraduate thermo class. You might want to pick up and study a copy of Smith and van Ness, Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics.

Philip Bruce Heywood: Regarding the thermodynamics. I have been 35 yrs trying to get my head around this topic and I have in that time encountered very few people who have a full grasp of it. It is not an easy topic. There is almost unending misconception, and it is often on the part of genuine people. What I wrote above, stands, to the best of my knowledge. But my court of appeal is W. Thompson (Lord Kelvin) himself. Read his quotations, on the 'Net, if you wish. He was a major co-founder of that foundational science. His record in this area - not in all areas - is unimpeachable. He totally dismisses, on the grounds of hard Physics, any conception that inorganic materials can self- organize or produce life, unaided.

Personally, I'm not about to jump off the vehicle that got us here - systematic science.

Philip Bruce Heywood: Unlike feldspar, which in a real, if unseen, sense, can be 'observed' forming from its constituent elements in magma, complex organic molecules have never, either in theory or in practice, been 'observed' forming from their disparate component elements.

I saw the Wed. returns for Expelled, As I thought, there was a spike, but it comes to only $7.00 more per theater compared to Tues.--that is only one ticket more, per theater over 4-5 showings!!!.

Gee, and I thought I was anemic!!! (I am transfusion dependent, have about 2/3 the HG of the bottom of the "normal" range for HG, and am on SS disability).

dpr

J. Biggs: Snakes on the other hand are not even in the dinosauria taxon. There is some debate on whether snakes are the descendants of mosasaurs (extinct aquatic reptiles) or burrowing lizards, such as varanids. None the less there is no indication that snakes are a direct descendant of tyrannosaurus. Your misrepresentation of common descent is as simplistic as it is ridiculous.

Keith just gets funnier and funnier. It's like he's channeling John Lovitz's pathological liar persona.

"I know the guy that worked on The Godfather."

Right.

"Just ask my wife... Morgan Fairchild. Whom I've seen naked..."

Richard Simons: I think by now it is well established that Philip Bruce Heywood is a liar who does not hesitate to put words into people's mouths then attack them on the basis of what they did not say.

Fill me in on that, Dan. I'm sometimes a bit slow. Is there a significance in the 1:30 to 4:30pm? Did I miss something here?

SWT: Euclidian geometry or whatever it is hasn't changed in several millennia, has it? Fill me in on where the fundamental, mathematically based principles of thermodynamics, a la Kelvin, can, or have, changed.

Let's get this straight. In Dan's lab, starting at 1:30, we get up the primordial soup in a bucket - correct recipe, disparate elements - and by 4:30 we get something approaching DNA. We keep accurate heat readings and calculate the entropy. Publish this experiment, will you? Let the world hear about it, man. They had proof that dust gave rise to lice. A pity microscopes came along.

Thankfully, the 'microscope' of recent technologic advance is getting into focus. Facts, man - get me facts. I recognize your committment to science.

Philip Bruce Heywood: SWT: Euclidian geometry or whatever it is hasn't changed in several millennia, has it?

Fill me in on where the fundamental, mathematically based principles of thermodynamics, a la Kelvin, can, or have, changed.

Let's get this straight. In Dan's lab, starting at 1:30, we get up the primordial soup in a bucket - correct recipe, disparate elements - and by 4:30 we get something approaching DNA. We keep accurate heat readings and calculate the entropy. Publish this experiment, will you? Let the world hear about it, man. They had proof that dust gave rise to lice. A pity microscopes came along.

Thankfully, the 'microscope' of recent technologic advance is getting into focus. Facts, man - get me facts. I recognize your committment to science.

phantomreader42:

Richard Simons: I think by now it is well established that Philip Bruce Heywood is a liar who does not hesitate to put words into people's mouths then attack them on the basis of what they did not say.

I thought that was established weeks ago. :)

Stanton wrote: Snakes are, for all (taxonomical and genetic) purposes, the most successful taxon of lizards in the History of Earth. Also, either way, they are descended from varanoid lizards, as, they either evolved from mosasaurs, who in turn, are also descended from a lineage of shore-dwelling varanoids called the aigialosaurs, or snakes are descended from burrowing varanoids from the Late Cretaceous, though, fossil evidence currently favors the former explanation.

Facts, man - get me facts.

J. Biggs: I am certainly not an expert in cladistics, however, I do find it very interesting. Thank you for giving us the most current information on the subject.

Mike Elzinga:

Facts, man - get me facts.

Exactly as expected; just like a demanding, spoiled brat, with the same immaturity and anger management problems as Keith.

PBH yammers; Let’s get this straight. In Dan’s lab, starting at 1:30, we get up the primordial soup in a bucket - correct recipe, disparate elements - and by 4:30 we get something approaching DNA

It would help Philip’s standing if he took a moment outside of his gnawing mania to actually recognize facts before he boldly demands them.

http://christiannewswire.com/news/45596387.html

I don't think the origin of snakes is so simple. From what I've read from an Australian Authority (Prof. Shine); the whole CLASS REPTILIA is something of an enigma, and snakes are a real can of worms.

SWT: No-one (yourself included, of course) is saying that thermodynamics doesn't apply to complex organic molecules, especially molecules that are components of living things. Since living things are a part of nature, thermodynamics must apply. That paper you linked me to seems to me to be an effort to get thermodynamics up to a level where it can adequately 'handle' living systems. It certainly does not show a pathway for the accidental gathering together of disparate chemical elements into a living organism. But I'm not sure that you personally are suggesting spontaneous generation of life, anyway. We shall leave spontaneous generation aside. Everyone to their own beliefs - but beliefs aren't to be confused with empirical measurements, and no empirical measurements of entropy for spontaneous generation of life exist, for the obvious reason that it doesn't happen in our biosphere, either in theory or in practice, so the measurements cannot be made.

Turning to already existing complex organic molecules, with which the paper seems more concerned: if I may quote: "Obviously, in a town, in a living system, we have a quite different type of functional order. To obtain a thermodynamic theory for this type of structure we have to show that non-equilibrium may be a SOURCE OF ORDER. Irreversible processes may lead to new types of dynamic states of matter .... ". This paper is trying to get a framework up to explain how the remarkable and complex procedures in living things conform to the laws of physics. Perhaps you might look more deeply into my proposals at my site. That's exactly what science is meant to do - find the pathway. So why have I been hearing that science equals common descent evolution, when the paper you quote me declares that science is endeavouring to get some sort of thermodynamical understanding of what really happens?

This origins conundrum is science's problem, not religion's problem. I say it again: fix the science, leave the religion out.

PBH,

No one here can "designate" you to a "mental asylum". How could anyone do that anyway? I don't think that the word means what you think it means. Now, based on some of your unfounded assertations, your almost pathological refusal to learn, your mangled use of the english language, your use of undefined and undefinable terms and your dogged insistence on the validity of your own incomprehensible techno-babble, one might indeed conclude that you should be confined in an institution for the mentally unstable.

The point that Mike was trying to make (I think), was not that every fact must be known in order for a scientist to form a hypothesis. The point (I think) was that unless you know what scientists have already discovered you cannot possibly know what questions have already been addressed and what important questions remain. In short, why do you always assume that you know more than anyone else when your have not even bothered to learn the basics in the field? That kind of self-imposed delusion could indeed be evidence of some advanced form of schizophrenia. And yet you persist in your wild assertations, even after it has been pointed out to you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Why do you continue to embaress yourself in public?

One last time, the sun provides energy for all of the life processes on earth. It does not provide information. The photons are not processed, they do not transfer information to DNA. If you think that the science needs fixing then do some experiments, prove something in the lab and then publish it. If you think that BIG SCIENCE is against you, prove everyone else wrong. If you really have some evidence of anything, publish it. No one else is going to "fix the science" for you because no one else has any idea what your problem is. How can you leave the religion out" when your entire approach is "bible-based"? You are the one who desperately needs to convince someone of something. If the answer is so clear to you then why do you care if anyone else understands it or not?

Your mindless ramblings have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread. You have broken the rules here more than once. I really don't see why anyone reads anything you write. You should be "designated" to the bathroom wall.

Anyone got the latest numbers on Expelled at the box office?

MattusMaximus said: Anyone got the latest numbers on Expelled at the box office?

I haven't seen any ads lately ... anyone else? (not that I'm complaining) :-)

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I don't think the origin of snakes is so simple. From what I've read from an Australian Authority (Prof. Shine); the whole CLASS REPTILIA is something of an enigma, and snakes are a real can of worms.

Nobody said that it was simple and the evolutionary history of snakes provided here wasn't meant to be complete by any means. You provided the example in the straw-man you erected based on me saying I accept common descent, and not ID/creationism. Reptilia is somewhat outmoded and more in accordance with Linnaen taxonomy as it is paraphyletic because by classical definition it commonly leaves out birds which are the descendants of dinosaurs (part of the reptilia class). It could easily be made monophyletic with the inclusion of birds. At this point many cladists prefer the grand-clade Amniota which includes lizards, birds and mammals. Using cladistic analysis it is possible to trace the ancestry of practically all known extant and extinct organisms with a high degree of accuracy.

This origins conundrum is science's problem, not religion's problem. I say it again: fix the science, leave the religion out.

I agree that the origin of the first replicator is a scientific problem, however, it is not really addressed by evolutionary theory which addresses what happens to populations of biologic organisms (which obviously exist). And I couldn't agree more with leaving religion and science separate entities. Why don't you go to AiG or Uncommon Descent and tell them to quit trying to put their religious ideology into the science class room? As far as fixing science, I think we all know that science is always a work in progress, but that doesn't mean we scrap the best explanations we have and replace them with Goddidit or some other vacuous non-explanation.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I don't think the origin of snakes is so simple. From what I've read from an Australian Authority (Prof. Shine); the whole CLASS REPTILIA is something of an enigma, and snakes are a real can of worms.

This origins conundrum is science's problem, not religion's problem. I say it again: fix the science, leave the religion out.

Perhaps you might look more deeply into my proposals at my site.

SWT said:

MattusMaximus said: Anyone got the latest numbers on Expelled at the box office?

I can't believe you'd ask such an off-topic question ... oh, wait ... http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-04-25&p=.htm

Why am I not surprised by this. These retards have lied and misrepresented everything and everyone at every step along the way. They spent millions on publicity for a "documentary". They let thousands of people see the movie for free. Now they have apparently rigged it so that the movie will continue to play long after it would have disappeared. Then of course they will claim that it was the most successful documentary in history and will have the rigged numbers to prove it.

Oh well, none of this nonsense will make ID science. I wonder what excuse they will come up with to explain the lack of science in their "documentary"? Who repressed them this time? After this, no one will be able to say thet they didn't know that ID had no scientific content.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: SWT: No-one (yourself included, of course) is saying that thermodynamics doesn't apply to complex organic molecules, especially molecules that are components of living things. Since living things are a part of nature, thermodynamics must apply. That paper you linked me to seems to me to be an effort to get thermodynamics up to a level where it can adequately 'handle' living systems. It certainly does not show a pathway for the accidental gathering together of disparate chemical elements into a living organism. But I'm not sure that you personally are suggesting spontaneous generation of life, anyway. We shall leave spontaneous generation aside. Everyone to their own beliefs - but beliefs aren't to be confused with empirical measurements, and no empirical measurements of entropy for spontaneous generation of life exist, for the obvious reason that it doesn't happen in our biosphere, either in theory or in practice, so the measurements cannot be made. Turning to already existing complex organic molecules, with which the paper seems more concerned: if I may quote: "Obviously, in a town, in a living system, we have a quite different type of functional order. To obtain a thermodynamic theory for this type of structure we have to show that non-equilibrium may be a SOURCE OF ORDER. Irreversible processes may lead to new types of dynamic states of matter .... ". This paper is trying to get a framework up to explain how the remarkable and complex procedures in living things conform to the laws of physics. Perhaps you might look more deeply into my proposals at my site. That's exactly what science is meant to do - find the pathway. So why have I been hearing that science equals common descent evolution, when the paper you quote me declares that science is endeavouring to get some sort of thermodynamical understanding of what really happens?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Then we could investigate thermodynamics. All processes of nature by definition follow the guidelines of good old enthalpy vs. entropy. Sure enough, get enough localised heat, and the overall process of disorganization (having to do with entropy) can be reversed in some measure. Thus we get those lovely crystalline minerals and even deposits of gold and diamonds. All these mineralization procedures, and, indeed, all natural processes, ultimately follow quantifiable energy pathways. In the case of chemical reactions, a chemical engineer can advize of the precise calories/kilojoules involved. Who has done the calorie calculations for the C + H + ..... conversion to a protein? Anyone got the figures handy? Apply enough heat and pressure a la good old mother nature to C + H + ....., and you might get, say, diamond, or at best, a complex silicate mineral. That's not to say there wasn't an unrolling of life. You can get the C + H + P + O + ..... bizzo to happen, logically, rationally, testably, .... by factoring in organization. We'll re-name that, information, so as to be religiously neutral. Information can overcome the entropy barrier. No amount of raw heat energy (the enthalpy aspect) can do so, in the case of these complex organic structures. Well, I didn't invent enthalpy and entropy tables. Ask a chemical engineer. Is physical chemistry applicable to the unrolling of life, or is biology somehow exempt?

This origins conundrum is science's problem, not religion's problem. I say it again: fix the science, leave the religion out.

Mike, you forgot to add Philip Bruce Heywood's dishonesty, for example his propensity to falsely attribute to people things they did not write. I confess I have not visited his site but your description of it is how I imagined it to be, given the twaddle he writes here.

Richard Simons said: Mike, you forgot to add Philip Bruce Heywood's dishonesty, for example his propensity to falsely attribute to people things they did not write. I confess I have not visited his site but your description of it is how I imagined it to be, given the twaddle he writes here.

SWT & J. Biggs, I think this page is getting full. I have been where you are in a sort of a way. Let me tell you, I admire devotion to a cause and obedience to that in which one has been trained. I add the observation that it may well be essential to think along the lines of Common Descent and 'Progressing Science', in order to maintain one's job and one's sanity.

It took about 10yrs for my subconcious to work through it all. That was after I had ceased contact with people and work situations that kept feeding it in. The worst it will do for anyone is to maintain a sort of subconcious nit-picking. It is an academic aside - nothing more. Strangely enough, I found it impossible to actually verbalize those teachings without insulting at least some one. And that, more than anything else, kept the subconcious prickling and prickling, until I got rid of the incongruities.

If one talks up Common Descent, as hard line, 'blood' lineage, one immediately implies that all men are not equally human, potentially insults those of different races, runs foul of the Constitution, overrides the plain interpretation of the fossil record, makes the man in the street who handles animals scratch his head, and plainly contradicts various religions, especially the one whose Bible asks, "Can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine, figs?" Having designated human rights activists, zoo-keepers, systematic palaeontologists, and especially adherents to sincere Christianity, to near idiocy, one then proceeds to undermine the public's confidence in science, technology, and nature itself, by using phrases such as "science in a state of progress". Yes, well, we hope it's progressing where it needs to and not suddenly finding that some of the things it has been doing are completely erroneous. An engineer would hope so.

If one thinks about it, the few people one does not in the end insult are those dedicated disciplinarians such as oneself, and a smattering of militant atheists of an anarchistic bent. Any of them around here?

Like I say, we most of us admire devotion to duty. It may take time to re-program - progressive science right now is progressing right along the lines that that thermodynamics paper is suggesting. Novel states of matter, atomic rearrangement through quantum information applications, cloning (asexual reproduction) with re-programming of the clone theoretically possible, etc., etc.. Relax the minds, gentlemen, and let the subconcious do its work.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: If one talks up Common Descent, as hard line, 'blood' lineage, one immediately implies that all men are not equally human, potentially insults those of different races,

If one talks up Common Descent, as hard line, ‘blood’ lineage, one immediately implies that all men are not equally human, potentially insults those of different races

I see. So if one says that different races do not share common descent, then that does not imply that other races are not human?

Do you have any control at all over how crazy you sound?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: If one talks up Common Descent, as hard line, 'blood' lineage, one immediately implies that all men are not equally human, potentially insults those of different races,

Richard Simons said: Hey, PBH, are you ready to apologise to J. Biggs and I for accusing us of writing things we did not write?

PBH,

Once again you demonstrate that your objections to evolutionary theory are ideological and not at all scientific. Once again you show that you would rather be politically and religiously correct than to actually learn the science. Once again you accuse others of doing exactly what it is that you are doing.

Now Phil, please explain to all of us how the theory of evolution and common descent demands racism. Does modern genetics support your assertation? Please explain to us exactly how the fossil record is incompatible with common descent. Why is it that every scientist in the world seems to have missed this most obvious fact? Are they all blind and stupid compared to you? And please, please, please tell us exactly what "atomic rearrangement through quantum information applications" has to do with common descent. Do you think that this is where new species come from? Well speciation is occurring every day, so you must have some evidence for this idea then, right?

Your devotion to disrupting threads with blatant nonsense is not admirable. Is it your duty to display your ignorance at every possible opportunity? Why not at least comment on the topic of the thread? Here is a clue for you Phil, removing yourself from the scientific community for ten years and comtemplating your navel will not get you any scientifc answers. Apparently it will only generate a lot of crackpot ideas and insure that you will not understand the advancements made by science in the meantime.

Let me tell you, I admire devotion to a cause and obedience to that in which one has been trained. I add the observation that it may well be essential to think along the lines of Common Descent and ‘Progressing Science’, in order to maintain one’s job and one’s sanity.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ...It took about 10yrs for my subconcious to work through it all. That was after I had ceased contact with people and work situations that kept feeding it in. The worst it will do for anyone is to maintain a sort of subconcious nit-picking. It is an academic aside - nothing more. Strangely enough, I found it impossible to actually verbalize those teachings without insulting at least some one. And that, more than anything else, kept the subconcious prickling and prickling, until I got rid of the incongruities.

Stanton said:

Richard Simons said: Hey, PBH, are you ready to apologise to J. Biggs and I for accusing us of writing things we did not write?

Phillip Heywood would sooner be able to swallow a camel than attempt to gather the courage to swallow his planet-like pride and apologize for his actions.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: So, I hear that the plagiarized animation is still in there.

Did anyone beside the makers of this film really expect it to do that well? There is no need to censor someone that nobody is listening to, right?

It took about 10yrs for my subconcious [sic] to work through it all. That was after I had ceased contact with people and work situations that kept feeding it in. The worst it will do for anyone is to maintain a sort of subconcious [sic] nit-picking. It is an academic aside - nothing more. Strangely enough, I found it impossible to actually verbalize those teachings without insulting at least some one. And that, more than anything else, kept the subconscious [sic] prickling and prickling, until I got rid of the incongruities.

If one talks up Common Descent, as hard line, ‘blood’ lineage, one immediately implies that all men are not equally human, potentially insults those of different races, runs foul of the Constitution, overrides the plain interpretation of the fossil record, makes the man in the street who handles animals scratch his head, and plainly contradicts various religions, especially the one whose Bible asks, “Can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine, figs?” Having designated human rights activists, zoo-keepers, systematic palaeontologists [sic], and especially adherents to sincere Christianity, to near idiocy, one then proceeds to undermine the public’s confidence in science, technology, and nature itself, by using phrases such as “science in a state of progress”.

If one thinks about it, the few people one does not in the end insult are those dedicated disciplinarians such as oneself, and a smattering of militant atheists of an anarchistic bent. Any of them around here?

Like I say, we most of us admire devotion to duty. It may take time to re-program - progressive science right now is progressing right along the lines that that thermodynamics paper is suggesting. Novel states of matter, atomic rearrangement through quantum information applications, cloning (asexual reproduction) with re-programming of the clone theoretically possible, etc., etc..

Relax the minds, gentlemen, and let the subconcious [sic] work.

Jared said: Did anyone beside the makers of this film really expect it to do that well? There is no need to censor someone that nobody is listening to, right?

J. Biggs said: here is a fine paper that discusses how complexity evolves in biological organisms. It also includes a proper definition of information as it is used in biology.

Stanton said: Snakes are, for all (taxonomical and genetic) purposes, the most successful taxon of lizards in the History of Earth. Also, either way, they are descended from varanoid lizards, as, they either evolved from mosasaurs, who in turn, are also descended from a lineage of shore-dwelling varanoids called the aigialosaurs, or snakes are descended from burrowing varanoids from the Late Cretaceous, though, fossil evidence currently favors the former explanation.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I would love to know how sea snakes fit into this picture. The references I have dragged up so far paints them as evolved from land snakes, which would make another sea-land crossing by these "shifty" creatures.

Thanks Stanton! Next time I see (a video) of them, I will certainly remember their interesting journey to the habitat they use now.

Stanton said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I would love to know how sea snakes fit into this picture. The references I have dragged up so far paints them as evolved from land snakes, which would make another sea-land crossing by these "shifty" creatures.

Sea snakes of today are essentially a group of marine cobras.

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I would love to know how sea snakes fit into this picture. The references I have dragged up so far paints them as evolved from land snakes, which would make another sea-land crossing by these "shifty" creatures.

Sea snakes of today are essentially a group of marine cobras.

I've seen lots of them in the South China Sea. Is that their primary habitat? They get pretty large in cross-section.

Ugh! Snakes! - I came to find out how poorly the piece of crap movie was doing and I'm reading about snakes! Yuck - I hate snakes.
(My son has a snake and I make him keep it on the back porch)

So, since we are "OT" anyway ... as I am trying to catch up with posts, I am wondering why PBH is posting here anyway?

He said it took him 10+ years to "break" from his academic side (unless I am misinterpreting)and "see the light".

Is he trying to convert people? Is he trying to do his recruiting via the Internet rather than the usual method of knocking on people's doors?

We consider that historical biology should be open to all empirical possibilities, including design -- and see the molecular biological system of organisms, of which RNA is so stunning a part, as exemplars of design.

Detecting design is not a matter of subjective intuition. To see design as a real causal possibility, however, one must break free of the constraints of naturalism.

Steveroni,

I personally could give a flip whether you read the paper or not. My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can't present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

Your and others continued intellectual dishonesty is appalling. The authors of that paper are incapable of "ignoring the natural evidence" and ID is absolutely dependent on all observations and only admits to an alternative interpretive construct devised under strictly scientific methods but open to, in the case of biologic life, intellectually inspired and enabled designs where the methodology so indicates under the laws of probability and statistics, etc.

Apparently, the trolls are touchy today.

But still no actual evidence, Kieth.

You can yammer all you want, but there is still nothing on the table from your team, other than "Gee whiz, this is just toooooo complicated to understand". Hardly a persuasive argument, considering the demonstrable limits of ID "understanding".

keith said: My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can't present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

Keith said: My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought.

keith said: Steveroni, I personally could give a flip whether you read the paper or not. My role is to give equal time to the arguments of evolanders who claim to explain the entire biological world yet can't present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator and claim that its LOGICAL to consider it unnecessary to explain such because of an arbitrary definitional line drawn to conveniently exclude these two critical events that are the pillars of such a train of thought. Your and others continued intellectual dishonesty is appalling. The authors of that paper are incapable of "ignoring the natural evidence" and ID is absolutely dependent on all observations and only admits to an alternative interpretive construct devised under strictly scientific methods but open to, in the case of biologic life, intellectually inspired and enabled designs where the methodology so indicates under the laws of probability and statistics, etc.

It’s the same sort of line that exists between the explanation of how a row of dominoes falls once one is falling, and the explanation of how the very first one fell. Evolution is, at a basic level, simply one huge chain reaction, so it should only take a moment’s reflection to understand why that which begins a chain reaction is likely to be very different from what sustains it, AND that the theory of how a chain reaction is sustained is not in any way dependent on how it got started in the first place.

Hi there Keith!

You've not been around for a while. Have you been applying your intellect to the question people have repeatedly asked but that so far you have been unable to answer? What is your explanation for the tremendous variety of life we see on earth?

There is no magic poof involved in my post. It's called being open to a non-materialist explanation for the origin of life and its diversity through the full force of all scientific inquiry including the paradigm of ID which does exist, has been illuminated, and contains techniques and approaches toward detecting design already in existence in forensics, pattern recognition, and such.

The arguments of wait until next year, we're almost there, etc. have been coming out for 75 years without a single result of consequence.

The thing that puzzles me is that I don't see ID as replacing evolution but rather modifying its reach and method.

The work of Shapiro and his many peers on the leading edge of studying the genome and the cell in great detail in the bacteriological level have demonstrated abilities to effect rapid, significant, functional change that virtually ignores RM and NS and is effected by genetic engineering, mobile elements, sensory driven reconstruction of the entire genomic and cellular apparatus. It is a view dominated by information systems of a most sophisticated nature and the full range of capabilities exposed when coupled with the manufacturing and quality control aspects of the DNA and cellular apparatus.

Since bacteria are plausibly the most primitive and earliest life forms we have significant data on and about it seems these capabilities could have been built into the first life by intelligent design.

It must be stressed that your insults have absolutely zero impact on me as the weakness of your dogmatic and unsupported position is simply laughable.

There is no magic poof involved in my post. It’s called being open to a non-materialist explanation for the origin of life and its diversity through the full force of all scientific inquiry including the paradigm of ID which does exist, has been illuminated, and contains techniques and approaches toward detecting design already in existence in forensics, pattern recognition, and such.

The thing that puzzles me is that I don’t see ID as replacing evolution but rather modifying its reach and method.

Since bacteria are plausibly the most primitive and earliest life forms

it seems these capabilities could have been built into the first life by intelligent design.

It must be stressed that your insults have absolutely zero impact on me as the weakness of your dogmatic and unsupported position is simply laughable.

At the risk of being "off topic", I just checked the Box Office returns through Tuesday.

Expelled has made $5,617,447 in 12 days out. It is ranked as 11th. Of the 10 films ranked ahead, only one, Deception, has grossed less, but has been out less than half the number of days of Expelled.

Again, I realize that mere money is not the important point, but the number of people seeing the film is the point. In this, you have to conclude that Expelled is a failure and up to this point won't accomplish the tremendous societal effects predicted by its supporters.

dpr

Kieth- there's a very easy way to shut up all the "evolanders." All it requires is a simple two step process:

Step 1- Describe an actual ID hypothesis.

Step 2- Describe how this hypothesis could be tested by the scientific method.

Until someone- ANYONE- in the ID movement comes up with a way to do this, ID will continue to be ridiculed as what it is- just so much rhetorical hot air.

So here and now Keith, take your shot at immortality. Do what Behe, Dembski, and all the rest have been unable to do. Bring ID into the realm of science. Give us a hypothesis, and a test. Come on, do it. Just one.

keith said: There is no magic poof involved in my post.

keith said: the paradigm of ID which does exist, has been illuminated, and contains techniques and approaches toward detecting design already in existence in forensics, pattern recognition, and such.

keith said: The arguments of wait until next year, we're almost there, etc. have been coming out for 75 years without a single result of consequence.

keith said: have demonstrated abilities to effect rapid, significant, functional change that virtually ignores RM and NS

keith said: Since bacteria are plausibly the most primitive and earliest life forms we have significant data on and about it seems these capabilities could have been built into the first life by intelligent design.

keith said: the weakness of your dogmatic and unsupported position is simply laughable.

Well it has taken me a few days to read the 21 pages of posts and I've seen the same creationist crap and have been thinking that I need to make some analogies to help the lurkers, because it is useless to try to educate the trolls.

I have seen many good analogies on why evolution does not have to explain abiogenesis to work. The analogy of weathermen not having to know how the atmosphere formed is a good one. On the complaint that you can extrapolate evolution back to pre-biotic chemistry is irrelevant. The domino analogy is also great. The falling of the dominos is independent of the first one falling though they may share the same effects, ie a strong breeze that blows over the first one may still slightly effect the falling of all the others…but the falling of all the dominos is not dependant on it.

I laugh at creationist when they get into useless techno babble. I thought the whole thermodynamics argument was put to rest but we have creationist that try to chime in with big words that they either don’t understand or wilfully ignore the real world situations with. Another tried and true tactic is to scream “No evidence has ever been presented…”, let me use the exact quote “yet can’t present a scintilla of evidence for either abiogenesis or the first replicator” shows the creationist wilful ignorance/out right lying. In the great words of Rev Dr Lenny Flank “You are a liar. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought.”

You rely on other creationists and lurkers to take your word for it and not actually follow any of the links provided by others here that shows the work being done in the field of abiogenesis.

Will we ever know what the first replicators where? No. Will we ever have a plausible model that can be demonstrated on what they first replicators might have been? I believe yes and we are making good progress in this field. Even if we figure out a way to get a form of “life” to form it doesn’t mean this is the way it happened.
There are multiple paths that early life probably took. We’ll probably never know what happened here on earth exactly but we can get a good idea of what happened.

Yelling at the top of your lungs that there is no evidence does not make the evidence go away. It only makes the educated people know you are a stupid immature individual. While it might attract other ignorant people, wilful or not, to you it doesn’t change the fact that you are only a group of ignorant people.

In the end it doesn’t matter if this movie makes 50 million dollars. Complaints here shouldn’t care much about this movie making money. The movie will fail no mater how many people go see it as long as enough of those people understand that the whole movie is nothing but trash propaganda.

It's real simple Keith. If you want your pet idea considered as science, present a positive, testable ID hypothesis and the means whereby it might, even in principle, be tested and falsified. If you can't or don't want to, your idea isn't science. That is fine; think whatever you want, just don't try to convince people it's science.

As it is, your side is like a winless little league baseball team trying to convince everyone that you should be considered the football World Cup champions because the Italian team has never scored a single touchdown. You're not trying to play the sport, your arguments reveal that you don't know how it is really played, and your on-field performance at the sport you actually do play (religious apologetics) pretty much sucks. Please, stick to baseball.

Flint wrote: Bacteria have been evolving as long as any other organisms.

Since most bacteria reproduce multiple times a day, one could say that bacteria have undergone far more evolution than most other oganisms on the planet.

Since most bacteria reproduce multiple times a day, one could say that bacteria have undergone far more evolution than most other oganisms on the planet.

we’d probably want to find the path with the minimum number of generations.

Boo said: Kieth- there's a very easy way to shut up all the "evolanders." All it requires is a simple two step process: Step 1- Describe an actual ID hypothesis. Step 2- Describe how this hypothesis could be tested by the scientific method. Until someone- ANYONE- in the ID movement comes up with a way to do this, ID will continue to be ridiculed as what it is- just so much rhetorical hot air. So here and now Keith, take your shot at immortality. Do what Behe, Dembski, and all the rest have been unable to do. Bring ID into the realm of science. Give us a hypothesis, and a test. Come on, do it. Just one.

stevaroni said: Our ancestors looked like bristle cone pines?

Speaking of clonal organisms, considering their ages it really should be "oldest living individual" above.

There are some funguses found in Michigan that appear to be essentially immortal, challenging the definition of what it means to be "an individual". These have been genetic individuals (clones) since forever. They weigh many tons and cover acres. Certainly they are alive. Are they organisms? Not exactly. Well, are they colonies? Well, not exactly. Things be different in the fungus world, see.

Just saw excerpts from an interesting film on the subject that quoted Einstein, a physicist, Rabbi's, a reverend, a Muslim group, Hindus, and personal experience. Some was about creationism and evolution not being mutually exclusive. http://www.vesselfilms.us/whatmean.htm

PvM said: The problem is that there is no theory of ID and that any request for a detailed description of how ID explains something is considered to be a 'pathetic' request. The conclusion is simple: ID is and remains a scientifically vacuous concept. That so many Christians are misled to believe otherwise is tragic as they end up looking foolish.

Don’t you need hypotheses before you come up with a theory?

Again, to return to the topic, I see that Expelled is only showing in 6 theaters in my area, down from 8. Also, while last week it was being shown 5-6 times a day, it is now being shown no more than 3 times a day, except for one theater that is showing 6 times.

My guess is that it'll be down to 1-2 theaters next week, and then relegated to "dollar theaters" thereafter.

dpr

Expelled theatre counts (according to BoxOfficMojo) are now down to 402 (-254 on last week). With takings around the $110 mark per screen, I'd doubt that it's going to be around for to much longer ... except on DVD that is, unfortunately.