What is Digg?691 Comments
- iticu, on 04/20/2008, -30/+365Wait, that documentary wasn't a joke?
Oh god. - chrgrose, on 04/20/2008, -27/+238Its a documentary in that it documents the ridiculous logic of its producers. Should be rated R for retarded.
- americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -28/+222Basically, Ben Stein is calling out folks who believe in evolution and calling them close-minded, because they are unwilling to consider intelligent design as a plausible scientific theory. Really? They're the close minded ones? Because I thought the theory of evolution was founded by an open-minded gentelman who thought outside the "God created man in 7 days" box. This truly is a pot calling the kettle black moment.
- More4, on 04/20/2008, -20/+183dugg for the parental guidance warning: "“Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic."
- Ghostalker, on 04/20/2008, -18/+166And people wonder why America's kids aren't cutting it compared to the rest of the world. It's as if their parents are spoon-feeding them retardedness with a heaping desert of failure.
- moomeep, on 04/20/2008, -16/+157sleazy yes. documentary no.
- punkcat, on 04/20/2008, -16/+153dont pay to see it, you will only encourage the behavior
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -13/+140When they graduated from high-school.
- MoneyShot, on 04/20/2008, -11/+112Wow. Ben Stein? Well, add another name to my "famous douche bags to immediately dismiss" list. Probably right between Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise.
- Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -13/+105Don't pay, torrent it.
- CheeseburgerBro, on 04/20/2008, -19/+107I've evolved past the point of caring what sort of kludge-brained reprobate would consider this documentary tirade an example of valid argument.
I don't argue with dogs for eating their own faeces, thus I would not engage someone who takes this film seriously. - talonstriker, on 04/20/2008, -10/+93yeah, if you're going to see it for the comedy, pirate it.
- xaeon, on 04/20/2008, -21/+100If it comes out in the UK, I'm not quite sure whether I want to see to believe it, or just not bother going to save myself the embarrassment of shouting counter-arguments at the screen.
- pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -4/+73Oh science.
- betacmag4u, on 04/20/2008, -12/+80This documentary was total BS ...... everyone knows The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after a night of heavy drinking.
- Kabloink, on 04/20/2008, -11/+76I am glad to see some major media source being truthful about the film. The conservative papers here in Texas will most likely describe it as the greatest movie since the Passion of Christ.
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -3/+66PLEASE LEARN HOW THE DIGG ALGORITHM WORKS BEFORE POSTING ABOUT IT.
- Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -6/+69No, the reason I accept evolutionary theory is that it has overwhelming evidence supporting it. It has nothing to do with my lifestyle - which you also know nothing about.
Comparing my lifestyle, a quiet respectable one - I don't smoke or drink, I have a loving partner and I don't break the law - to a Christian or Muslim, blowing stuff up, preaching lies and ruining America. - DIGGINPHYSICS, on 04/20/2008, -20/+81Don't Waste Your Time, it was pathetic.
- yosserhughes, on 04/20/2008, -7/+67I have to smile when I see a comment about 'believing' in evolution.
It's like believing in gravity, so if you don't believe in gravity you float up in the air? - reddikilowatt, on 04/20/2008, -10/+70The problem is, those reprobates vote, write protest letters that keep television dumb, make Wal-Mart the cultural mecca for the country, and reproduce at a higher rate than you.
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -8/+68Don't waste two hours of your life on this crap. Don't even watch it for free.
- haxmire, on 04/20/2008, -10/+64This movie was complete crap. There was no evidence supported by the ID's and it was nothing but a bashing of science and non believers. The whole movie was BS. I would explain why but I am sure something else will pop up on digg explaining it. I tried to get my money back but I couldn't.
- americascynic, on 04/20/2008, -3/+57And validate it by giving it attention/money. That's all these controversial film makers hope for; that it creates enough of a stir to get it to the headlines and thus, more curious people in the box office.
- zakatov, on 04/20/2008, -5/+58The ad for this movie involves this guy in a biology class interrupting a lecture on evolution and asking the professor something to the effect of "but does it explain how life started". It's ridiculous. Theory of evolution does not and never has dealt with how life came from non-life, only how it proceeded to change once it did. I want to slap them to propagating this non-sense.
Okay, I'm done venting. - gernblansted, on 04/20/2008, -6/+57The sad thing is Ben Stein is smart enough to know better, which means Ben Stein is consciously attempting to manipulate his audience using propaganda techniques used heavily by the very source (Nazis) that he holds up as being a reason to expunge the theory of Evolution from oneself. From basic logical fallacies to making associations between unrelated subjects to using partial quotes to turn the quote on its head (a lie of omission), he's ironically working straight from Goebbel's playbook.
What does that say about Ben Stein? Does he just like 'HIS' money that much that he'll earn it that way? - inactive, on 04/20/2008, -6/+57fail.
- manningbowl135, on 04/20/2008, -2/+52What. the. hell. are. you. talking. about?
Atheists believe in evolution (some atheists) b/c it has more scientific basis than any other creation theories.
BTW what "anything goes" lifestyle? - DangerMouse9, on 04/20/2008, -15/+63Jeebus came to me last night and said if I didn't see and promote this movie he'd make me kill one of my eight kids, and then blow my trailer away with my devil wife. She's the devil because she drives by a science research center on her way to work at Burger Emporium. I don't want to kill little Brandine, so go see this movie.
- DIGGINPHYSICS, on 04/20/2008, -1/+49the movie, the article was spot on
- Darkhacker, on 04/20/2008, -7/+54I'm not so much turned off by Ben Stein because he's questioning evolution, but more so because of the alternative he is suggesting. There is nothing wrong with questioning existing science. Lots of things we thought we *knew* later turned out to be completely wrong.
However, proposing bronze age myths like gods, fairies, angels, leprechauns, unicorns, and magic to solid scientific evidence and claiming that the scientific community is a bunch of "poo-poo heads" and are "attacking freedom of speech" is ridiculous. I would not be surprised in the least if Ben Stein later came out and said the entire movie was satire.
My absolutely most favorite argument that creationists use is when they talk about something as complex as the human eye just "randomly forming" (excusing the fact that it was anything but random) and that it somehow "just happened". The solution: God did it! How exactly is that different from the "just happened" idea? Especially when you consider that no sane scientist ever claimed that all this "just happened"? - inactive, on 04/20/2008, -10/+56Anyone who says the NYT is "liberal" is nothing but a tool for divisive right wing journalists. Anyone who regularly reads will know that there is a mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints.
- Ramble, on 04/20/2008, -2/+45He didn't work there, and was leaving anyway.
Buried as FUD. - ziffel, on 04/20/2008, -2/+44How is expressing an opinion equivalent to declaring oneself an authority?
- flashback99, on 04/20/2008, -10/+51This movie is basically what happens if you don't study in school, believe in god and hence become so simultaneously retarded and arrogant that you metaphorically vomit over intelligent people with your creationist *****, giving a rat's ass to truth.
- Coven, on 04/20/2008, -1/+41you forgot the "/sarcasm"
- omnithought, on 04/20/2008, -6/+45Stay tuned for the anti-NYT comments which completely ignore the actual content of the article and the dishonesty of the movie, soon to be followed by vast threads "debating" evolution.
Or...we could just skip the ***** and simply say "Regardless of the source of this information, yeah, that movie pretty much blows." - SquigglyP, on 04/20/2008, -3/+38"Godwin's Law: The Movie"
It should have been a musical. - Jio666, on 04/20/2008, -2/+37The Sternberg Incident is put straight here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth ...
- nylrym, on 04/20/2008, -4/+39Wrong! If I work at a holocaust memorial, and I espoused antisemitic views (see what I did there Ben?), I should be fired. If a scientist (working as a scientist) posits theories based on ideology instead of good science, he should be fired. Religious freedom would not excuse a geologist for saying the Earth is flat either.
Buried as inaccurate. - galore, on 04/20/2008, -1/+35It's code for "people enjoying sex".
- flashback99, on 04/20/2008, -3/+36Its says Ben Stein is a gigantic *****.
- DarkLance, on 04/20/2008, -9/+42Well, let's see, they ARE a news source... I think that qualifies them
- snds, on 04/20/2008, -5/+38It's thoroughly amusing to see the religious right call scientists and the greater scientific community "close-minded." All scientists are open-minded by the nature of their profession in that they are always open to change in established theories and laws if there is direct, repeated, observable proof of said change. What the religious call "close-mindedness" is just scientists asking these ID followers for their proof to disprove the -Theory- of Evolution.
When a religious person starts quoting scripture as fact, a scripture that was written by man, who is by nature fallible, and scripture that has been re-written dozens of times in the past 1000 years to suit the need of the politically powerful (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048 ... scientists just won't take dogmatic, andecdotal "proof" seriously. The scriptures are not observed fact since so many of the books in the bible were written well after the events occurred and were presented through many generations of word of mouth storytelling. Word of mouth stories pass on through so many people that the original story can be lost or completely changed over time as people add personal touches of the fantastic and overbearing variety to the original story elements to make the story more interesting to those who have not yet heard it. The more outrageous the more interesting, especially in the time of Christ.
To scientists, a faith in a supreme being who is not directly observable, is not irrefutable evidence that evolution did not occur. Granted there are missing links abound in the theory of evolution, but that's exactly it, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And right now it is the best one that fits the bill through observable fact not faith based dogma. Many ID followers tend to follow the reasoning of "God works in mysterious ways" an excuse so blatantly naive and facetious that it's the very reason creationists aren't taken seriously in the debate about this very serious topic.
"Expelled" paints a picture, just like all documentaries, about one particular side of the story. There are never two sides accurately presented in these kinds of documentaries (see Michael Moore). If the editors had actually left in all of each of the interviews, the story would have been painted differently than ID supporter Ben Stein would have liked. I agree that the NYT review was at best flaunting its liberal bias. But I do not think that proponents of ID should be so quick to place praise on this film especially if they are "open-minded." If anyone is truly open-minded they will look for evidence, unaltered and unedited about both sides and will make a decision without any pre-existing personal or religious bias.
Personally, I believe that both ID and Evolution can live together pretty well. It's just that those who are proponents of the ID belief don't think about time like scientists do, in fact they take the bible's perspective of time as reality as we perceive it, not reality as how God could perceive it (since, you know, He created time and could manipulate it any way he pleased). Time is subjective to where you observe it. We observe time based on the 24 hour movement of the earth or a 7 day week. God is non-corporeal, and to him 7 days could very well have been several million years. And thus, there is evidence (and observable fact based on the advanced studies into time-space done by scientists today) that these two opposing theories could co-exist in some form and fashion. - fmaxwell, on 04/20/2008, -3/+35Are you so Internet-ignorant that you don't understand that he was yelling at the parent poster?
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -2/+33Dessert*
- pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -8/+39they sure were leftist when they helped spread lies to promote the iraq war. people like judith miller and bill krystol sure are leftist.
- had3l, on 04/20/2008, -4/+35Those comments in the bottom of the page are just too stupid to be true
- drlha, on 04/20/2008, -0/+30The difference is Boston Legal is not a documentary.
- whatsrequired, on 04/20/2008, -4/+34No matter what you do, don't give the fools your money. See it to be able to win an argument (living less than two hours from the everloving creation museum, I think I fall into that category) but definitely don't let your cash encourage this junk science.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 695 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is