digg

Join DiggAbout

Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed (Expelled parody) watch!

youtube.com — The Stork Theory

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • laceym, on 04/18/2008, -2/+135There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.

    Unlike the original Stork Theory, the modern, sophisticated "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) merely points out that there are gaps in the orthodox Sex Theory, and that current sonogram imaging is unreliable. Moreover ATT does not specify that babies are necessarily brought by storks but by "large birds unspecified" (although many individual ATT theorists PRIVATELY believe it is a stork).
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+54I don't see how the stork theory is incompatible with science. LET ME BELIEVE!
    • Fartbandit, on 04/18/2008, -12/+1oh i see what you did there!
    • Fartbandit, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9To explain my above comment that seems to be in the process of being buried... the "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) comment above is merely a cut and paste from richarddawkins.net. Still a brilliant and more than relevant comment that parodies I.D. perfectly which is why i dugg the comment up... :)

      http://richarddawkins.net/article,2478,Sexpelled-N ...
    • sk11, on 04/18/2008, -2/+19why are the scientists (or whorologists) soooo afraid of ATT? why do thwy hate ATT soo much? their are lots of holes in the THEORY of whorology. womans holes are obviously not big enough for babies to come out from. the reason women get fat is cus they eat too mch fat foods when they worry about the stork coming or not. teaching kids about whorology just leads to more aids. this is why society is getting so wrong.
    • noprtyaff, on 04/18/2008, -24/+1Believe in evolutionism if you want to. That is your God given right. However, people should not be discriminated against for keeping an open mind. Or, because they refuse to be indoctrinated by the molecules to man religion. Have a nice day.
      • kelt65, on 04/18/2008, -0/+14This isn't about your freedom to believe in stupid nonsense. That was not, and is not, at stake. You can be as idiotic as you want to be. The problem is that you're pushing it on us.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+18You're not being discriminated against. You are just excluded from intelligent conversations for your complete lack of logic. We don't have to pretend that your silly little ideas that you can't even defend are somehow meaningful and we certainly don't owe you any kind of respect for believing in idiotic things. So if you can't defend your ideas, shut the ***** up. Either you have arguments or you don't, but don't come to us and ***** wine about how you're being discriminated against because your "God" didn't give you the intelligence to recognize the logical from the absurd.
      • Fordi, on 04/19/2008, -3/+9Dude, it's all well and good what you choose to believe on your own time. Still, don't think scientists are being 'closed minded' when they shoo you off; the question was asked already - and refuted, properly.

        "What if it could be shown that a designer was necessary for life to become as complex and varied as it is?" The idea was posited, and evaluated. The original math was done*, and showed a possibility - but was later found to be a flawed test. The math was redone**, and showed that a designer wasn't necessary.

        So yeah, not closed minded. Dead argument. Moving along, nice weather out lately, yeah? I think I'll go for a walk.

        * The original math was this:
        (a) Given the information found in the common 90% of the genome shared by all living critters, the chances of getting one that works is nigh astronomical.
        Other pseudo maths include:
        (b) 'Irreducable Complexity', the idea that if you take a single part away from a working organic machine, it is no longer useful to the organism (what good is half an eye?);
        (c) informational loss due to natural selection;
        (d) thermodynamic violation (that a more complex thing cannot come from a less complex thing);
        (e) the fine-tuned universe (the idea that, were any of the universal constants significantly different, life could not have arisen)
        (f) Specified complexity (that things that are both specified (containing of useful information) and complex (containing of large amounts of information) must have been designed)

        **
        (a) The original statistical model failed to take into account basic genetic theory, that is, it was a 'roll of the dice' model. The appropriate model to use is the 'black box' model, which uses a pattern of variance via mutation and other means, and pareing via natural selection. With a dice model, a survivable result comes in O(n) time, n being the total number of possible combinations for a genome. With the black box model, it becomes O(log(n)), which fits very well into the approximately known timeline for abiogenesis.
        (b) There has been shown no viable example of irreducable complexity. Testability is based on an inability to show a possible mutation path that gains an advantage at every step. It doesn't matter if we really know the path for certain; if a possible one can even be hypothesized, the system is not irreducably complex (a defocused eye is more of an advantage than no eye).
        (c) It is true that natural selection necessarily loses information, however, there is information added in the multiple forms of mutation (genetic interference, transcription errors, and the like), which is then /filtered/ by selection. The result is that new information is added to the genome each generation, then brought down only to what is useful in the survival of the genetic host.
        (d) Thermodynamic law #2 states that in a closed system, entropy must increase (data loss occurs constantly). Energy input is needed to maintain or increase information in a system. Conveniently enough, we've got this huge ball of fire raining radiant energy down on us continuously - thus, the Earth is not a closed system, and thus, locally speaking, doesn't have to obey law #2 except where we create a closed system within it (it should be noted that there is no such thing as a truly closed system).
        (e) This argument comes, primarily, from a lack of imagination. If the universal constants were different, and self-replicating entities formed, life would simply be adapted to those universal constants, rather than our own.
        (f) There are many instances of specified complexity in the natural world that are observably not designed, but generated by the interaction of natural forces. Meanwhile, requirement of a designer only shifts the question of creation to the designer: who made him?
      • sgtpppr, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3You can't claim 'discrimination' because people debate you and you don't want to. You always have the right to believe whatever you want, but don't claim people are discriminating or oppressing you because they don't agree and call you out on your flawed logic. Your only real defense is to say you don't use logic or rational thinking at all and thus cannot debate on their terms. At least then you're being open and honest and the other person can just move on.
    • kaelyiesta, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Once a scientific journal has peer reviewed a submission on Stork theory, and has accepted the evidence presented and hypothesis has turned to theory then I'll agree that it should be taught in publicly funded schools. Meanwhile, there has not been one peer reviewed research paper on the subject. It's just a bunch of supposed scientists wishful thinking. Consensus does not mean evidence. Say whatever you believe all you want, but until there is some evidence on the subject it should remain just that: a belief. This is what the scientific method is all about. Speaking your mind is one thing, but until there is evidence for what you claim, and has been thoroughly reviewed it should not be considered for public schools. Keep stork theory in mythology and out of science until the scientific method has validated it.

      And this goes for all the other variants of these supposed 'theories' as well, ST, ATT and the even crazier Pelican Theory.
  • ZBox, on 04/18/2008, -1/+41Teach the stork controversy IMHO.
    • Pezza131214, on 04/19/2008, -1/+0Sure, In a social studies class.
  • whyoung, on 04/18/2008, -2/+76"Tempt not the wrath of Big Bird least ye be condemned to an eternity of feathers and gizzard stones." 1 Tweety 4:20
    • nevpayne, on 04/18/2008, -1/+33And I will lay (eggs) down upon those with great omelette's and with furious poaches those who attempt to pluck and behead my road-islands!

      Beakiziel 5:17
  • dontaskagain, on 04/18/2008, -3/+50This is so stupid, everyone knows babies are re-incarnated monkeys that did a good job.
    • blackchrisp, on 04/19/2008, -2/+0Dude, I have to hang out with more people like you...
  • Harabeck, on 04/18/2008, -7/+36It's just as viable as ID. Great video.
  • evilcaptain, on 04/18/2008, -4/+18It's funny cause it's true!
  • fuzionmuse, on 04/18/2008, -9/+4This movie is going to F-L-O-P...
  • beloitpiper, on 04/18/2008, -3/+45FINALLY the people will hear what the mainstream media has been suppressing for too long! If their "sexual reproduction" theory is so solid, why can't we just present the Stork Theory (ST, for short) and argue it?
    • skidooer, on 04/18/2008, -2/+22The "sexual reproduction" advocates are afraid of being labeled discriminatory toward the Stork Theory advocates, a phenomenon known as catching Stork Theory Discrimination (STD, for short).
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/18/2008, -1/+68FACT: babies are bigger than vaginas.

      Take that sexual intercoursists.
      • mackii, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2and todays winner of the internet is....
      • Fordi, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4It's been shown in scientific studies that vaginal openings can distend. Stupid storkist. Haven't you even ever *seen* a vagina??
        • nullifidian0, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Remember, having a vagina is a *SIN*.
        • beloitpiper, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4I don't have to. My book of Mother Goose tells me that the stork brings babies. That book is Truth, and if you say it's fake, you're a religious bigot.
  • Hetman, on 04/18/2008, -2/+38I thihk we should teach both in schools and let the kids decide. It is only fair.
    • greenflyhigh, on 04/18/2008, -4/+0well yeah why not! seems to be deal with [almost] everything else these days! i am not jesting....
    • fuzionmuse, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3I don't think you should present an unscientific, unprovable, and unfounded religious idea in school. Evolution can be tested by the scientific method, yet creation and ID CANNOT. You can't test it against anything, therefore it's just as founded as the flying spaghetti monster. Do you want that taught in schools too? Schools are places for FACTS and scientific thought, not theology.
      • Hetman, on 04/18/2008, -0/+13Im not talking about ID. Im talking about the difference between the reproduconists vs the Stork Theory, or STS theory as it is refer to as. Teach both!!!!
      • Matri, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4Don't take this the wrong way fuzionmuse, but we do agree with you. It's just that you're spoiling the mojo of the moment here.
  • kmb1794, on 04/18/2008, -6/+3ooooh Burn.
  • KidVicious, on 04/18/2008, -2/+78"As a sex maniac, I'm pretty hostile to the rival stork theory." -Richard Dawkins

    Hilarious.
    • bbardlbradd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+20Richard Dawkins indoors with glasses and wine, proclaiming that he is both hostile to an idea, and a self proclaimed sex maniac. He is /the/ scientific badass of the 21th century.
    • ThunderLeg, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9"Scientific badass." Now there's a phrase that should be used more often.
  • tieInterceptor, on 04/18/2008, -3/+26stork theory is true! big science is afraid to teach the controversy! we are being oppressed!!!!

    at least I KNOW that they will all regret this heresy when the flying spaghetti monster sends them all to hell!
    • fasda, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2You just broke one of the most important commandments for shame.
    • ClevelandBrown, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2The flying spaghetti monster is nothing like the biblical god, he doesn't smite and is not vengeful.
      • BikeRanger, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Maybe He'd smite them with hookers and send them to the beer volcano.
  • givemereplay, on 04/18/2008, -32/+7How long will it be before we recognize how ridiculous the attacks on theology are? Do the uber-atheists not realize that they are every bit as extreme and out of scientific bounds as the believers? Giving a corporeal form to an ethereal being (whether it exists or not) is crazy. The flying spaghetti monster is a great way to parody the concept of a god, but it sounds equally ridiculous when you apply that argument to gravity.

    "Sure guys, an invisible force is pulling you down, and pulling everything towards each other. It's a giant ***** invisible panda that pulls us all down to the ground. All hail the Giant Gravity Panda! You Gravitards are pathetic. Dawkins for life!"
    • IHaveIssues, on 04/18/2008, -2/+12There is a big difference between attacking something and laughing hysterically at it.
    • Schrodinger2, on 04/18/2008, -3/+19Gravity can have strong mathematical and observational evidence provided for it. What a ridiculous analogy.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 04/18/2008, -2/+20"Sure guys, an invisible force is pulling you down, and pulling everything towards each other." True statement, testable, repeatable.

      "It's a giant ***** invisible panda that pulls us all down to the ground. All hail the Giant Gravity Panda!" Speculation, untestable.

      The Scientific Method is great for sorting through the *****...
    • orangefly, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so
      much being pulled down as I am being pushed....
      yes a friends ref....
    • Myztry, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Gravity does not exist. The Earth simply sucks...
    • DarkReign16, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Except that the claim of gravity is backed up by evidence, both mathematical and observational. Saying things are pulled down is kind of stupid, because it's more like two masses attracting one another. The Earth is ***** massive, hence, the gravity, the mass of the earth basically creates a "dip" in spacetime, and if you get close enough, you are attracted to the earth, and it is attracted to you. Direct observational evidence includes the following, light from a star behind a satellite (moon) was VISIBLE, despite it blocking it entirely (during an eclipse). This is only possible if the light bends around the gravity of a massive object. Einstein can be thanked for all that, btw.

      So there...pwned.
      • Ramble, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's not clear what is the cause of gravity, we still need to link quantum theories and relativity together, gravity may just be another force caused by a particle, in fact I'd put my money on it.
    • ElbertF, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Gravity is not a pulling force.. Is the result of bend space-time. So there.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2Don't pretend to say you know what causes gravity because the brightest minds in science don't know what causes gravity. Gravity most definitely exists and we have excellent equations that show how it effects objects, but no one can tell you where the force of gravity comes from.
        • nullifidian0, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Yet...
        • ElbertF, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Actually I thought Einstein's theory was pretty much widely accepted. I didn't say gravity doesn't exist, but most likely it doesn't act like little invisible hands reaching out and pulling you in.
          • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Well you are wrong. No one knows what causes the force of gravity. Some scientists believe it is caused by a particle and somehow this particle can move between dimensions and isn't in our dimension all the time which helps to explain why gravity is so weak compared to electromagnetism.
    • Fordi, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Dude. That was *BRILLIANT* sarcasm.
  • 4LI3ER70, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Great! Now I have something to watch when my roommate sexiles me from our double.
  • blackturtleus, on 04/18/2008, -4/+12I'm still wondering about Stein's actual intentions for making Expelled. Is it supposed to be a double Colbert kind of thing where he pretends to advocate one position, but is actually advocating the opposite by showing how ridiculous the first position is? Or is it even more complicated than that? He seems bright enough to understand that ID is not science and so it would seem that he is either cynically trying to get rich by appealing to ID enthusiasts or he is actually making fun of them in a manner that they will never be able to figure out. This whole thing is somewhat perplexing at so many levels.
    • zeebo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+18Even the most intelligent people can fall into the trap of putting ideology before reality.
      • dagnome1984, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9But that is based on the possible false assumption that Ben is intelligent.
        • insllvn, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6Ben Stein is very well educated. He is well read, and knowledgeable on a great degree of subjects. This does not make him intelligent. There is a distinction between knowledge and intelligence. You may be right, Ben Stein may simply be a stupid man with a good education.
      • Metasquares, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1The litmus test for this is "Is there anything that would make him concede that his position is wrong?"
    • enri, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1That's actually an interesting point. Stephen would even do interviews with other news sources in character (until recently). Ben doesn't seem to be playing it over the top though, which make me think he is being serious.
  • akkibaba, on 04/18/2008, -4/+56Stop oppressing us with your "science" and "evidence".

    I demand that stork theory be given equal time in classrooms, because we don't know everything that is to be known about childbirth. After all, no Digg user has seen the act of reproduction, ever.
    • TekTrixter, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Seen, yes. Participated, not so much.
  • arcanistherogue, on 04/18/2008, -3/+26Goddamn Dawkins is daft.

    The stork was obviously delivered by another stork.
    • Myztry, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9Which came first. The stork or the egg...
      • Harabeck, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1In this case it would be the stork or the... other stork?
      • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5The Stork works in mysterious ways.
      • insllvn, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7Jesus. Jesus came first.

        Of course, that is just what Mary Magdalen said...
      • catbeller, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2The first stork was delivered by himself. It's a mystery not meant to be explained. It's what faith is all about. You must search for what feels right to you, and it had damned well better be Storkism. Or we'll picket your business.
    • carpespasm, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Way to make a strawman. Asking where the stork came from is a false question. The stork doesn't need to be delivered because it has always existed.
  • rodelero2, on 04/18/2008, -14/+1as
    a
    sex
    MANIAC
    I
    am
    hostile to the rival stork theory
  • Hetman, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2What is this so called after birth that big science always talks about? Its disgusting and heresy to believe God would subject a baby to such a sight.
  • wesniles, on 04/18/2008, -19/+4what a waste of time...
  • rodted2, on 04/18/2008, -17/+3Stein is a god
  • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -3/+19I don't see why the scientific community is so scared of a little skeptical inquiry into their cherished theory of Reproductionism. Frankly, I think the idea that we humans are merely the godless results of a bunch of dirty sex liquids mixing inside a woman's vagina to be offensive. It's fairly obvious that the theory of Reproductionism has led to one of the deadliest activities we've ever carried out, Abortion.

    Now I'm not saying that godless Reproductionism leads to abortion but, never mind that's actually exactly what I'm saying.

    If these scientists are so sure of themselves why don't they just let us talk, then they can blow us out of the water and call us fools!
    • nycmac247, on 04/18/2008, -13/+1"inside a woman's vagina"
      are you misogynist or do you just not know anatomy?
      • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9You don't get satire do you? I'm merely portraying human reproduction as accurately as evolution is portrayed in creationist propaganda.
    • ClevelandBrown, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0I see what you did there.
  • Zippo, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Thank "god" this movie isn't being shown at the theaters where I live.
  • Fartbandit, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2Stork theory?? but my parents told me they found me under a gooseberry bush... :(
  • UltraDavid, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2Haha loved the repeated Bad to the Bone riff, hilarious.
  • yaywowyay, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8Jebus, Ben Stein has really embarrassed himself. Lightning hitting a puddle! /rolleyes
    • Fordi, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Well, to be fair, he never actually argued against any of the abiogenesis theories; just kind of laughed them off, like they were too ridiculous to consider.

      Which is fine. No one cares if Ben Stien, and economist and actor, takes an abiogenesis theory seriously; it's not really his field. What's important is that the people in biology take them *very* seriously, rigorously testing each one as it comes along.
  • dagnome1984, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Where can I find those clips of Dawkins?
  • iancorey, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3Tedious. Good concept. But tedious.
    If I never hear that Bad to the Bone riff again it will be too soon.
  • plaing, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2reductio..
    • comradevik, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4funny how almost everything about religion can be proven wrong by logic.

  • bobartig, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9I'm rather impressed that Richard Dawkins either 1) At some point used the phrase 'Stork Theory', or 2) Recorded a few scenes for this vid.
    • insllvn, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2The video is based on a logical argument he has used in refutation of intelligent design. Dawkins came up with Stork Theory, and its more sophisticated cousin the Avian Transportation Theory. What makes it really bad ass is him admitting to being a sex maniac.
      • catbeller, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Well, he IS married to Leela (Dr. Who fame). She'd have made me into one.
        • insllvn, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1RICHARD DAWKINS IS MARRIED TO LEELA??? Damn everything I learn about the man makes him a little bit more my hero.
  • ClevelandBrown, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Yes, we all know Ben Stein is a tool.
  • rectagon, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Unless the stork is a timeless being... there ain't no hope of this theory working.
  • provoko, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2DIGG NOT SAVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • sampsonresume, on 04/18/2008, -6/+1The Creation Guys Episode #001 (National Center for Stupid Excuses)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsby091zvnE
    • ComradeGoby, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Is that a parody? I hope so...

    • sensor, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Your arguments and comment are seriously stupid... especially about the teacher. I read your blog entry where you say that she was fired because what she did was not in her job description. She was the DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE and the link she emailed into the mailing list WAS SCIENCE RELATED.
  • ScienceDoc, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8Always remember: "You never want to confuse a good story with facts". And, "In circular reasoning, there are no loose ends".
  • kpaphysicist, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Dugg for the over used guitar riff - i rofled a little bit in my mouth.
  • MarkusGarvey, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Ben Stein is an idiot...
  • HandyMann81, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1great movie man
  • verkon, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1the stork is just something thought up by women who come home with a baby.
    "Oh hi sweetie, what you got there?"
    "Oh, just something a stork dropped by"
  • HyperZiper, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1why did they take this out form the front page?!?!
  • mathyouski86, on 04/19/2008, -6/+1WTF I POSTED THIS ARTICLE WAY BEFORE ! I WANTED MINE TO REACH THE FRONT PAGE!!! http://digg.com/world_news/Sexpelled_No_Intercours ...
  • mathyouski86, on 04/19/2008, -5/+1who ever reposted it stole it from me. buried
  • kingvitaman, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1another funny expelled parody. this time dealing with an alchemist "expelled" from chemistry classrooms.:)

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=W8DPFkWlhRI

    Bring back alchemy to chemistry and astronomers to the astrology departments!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.