Burning_Ember Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2007 Not for the equivalancy of the crimes committed by any means, strictly as a situational example of truth and lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2007 I MAY accept 'error by omission' (not Lying) but you'd think that when they knew the film was going to be ABOUT science and religion they would have ASKED for Pete's sake. I can't figure out why they wouldn't have.... The best I can come up with is that that they're just so arrogant, they assumed the film would reflect their own viewpoint because it's the only one??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 2, 2007 But the question is - was deceit intended? It is one thing for the website to have information meant to mislead to get their desired results, and it is another for the title and marketing strategy to be changed (as happens with multiple films, a normal occurrence actually) down the road. If an assumption was made by Dawkins based on one publication brief he read, then he is to blame for not doing his homework. He didn't even ask what the film was about. If he had asked directly, and been told directly it was something that it is not, then he would have a case. As is, his gripe is self-inflicted. Besides, if he is so sure of his position, then what is his worry? Unless he said things that only serve to prove the point being made in the film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Actually, yes, it is. Its called "lying by ommission." Ummm....I don't recall Ben Stein ever saying he was a Christian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Oh, and as far as the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum getting busted, here's a link to Mr. Behe's website: http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html Scroll down to the "Responses to Critics" section. He takes on all comers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 One of the reasons that ID got hammered at the Dover trial was that Michael Behe himself admitted that it was on a par with astrology. "Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science." About 500 years ago, most "scientists" believed (albeit incorrectly) that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Had you asked an early astronomer in the year 1500 if the geocentric model of the solar system was "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses ... that develop[ed] from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection ... [and] incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences" she would have probably told you YES! Put the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of "theory." In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put "astrology" under the NAS definition [of science] (note: we find this incredible today, but in his time, it was not scandalous that Newton was an astrologer). Today we know both astrology and geocentrism are totally wrong, and so nobody wants them taught as science in school. Further info: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_y..._astrology.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dave: Of COURSE there will be no admissions that they were fired because of their anti-evolution views. Of COURSE they'll give other reasons. Would you beleive that evolutionists may try to find ways to fire scientists who beleive in creation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 2, 2007 and I've never seen Ben Stein. Beuller, Beuller, Beuller... I don't know what they said to RD, but here's what they sent to PZ Myers: Hello Mr. Myers, My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion." At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment. We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement. Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Sincerely, Mark Mathis Rampant Films 4414 Woodman Ave. #203 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 www.rampantfilms.com A little research reveals that the film is mainly about two individuals who lost their job for quite different reasons. One lost tenure at University because he bypassed the peer-review process in order to get an ID paper into a scientific journal, the other because he couldn't raise enough funds, and although he was employed as an astronomer and physicist, he concentrated on biology instead, and wanted to teach an ID biology class. That might not be sacking grounds in a kindergarten, but it is at a university. Does "the little research" contradict what was told PZ Myers? Is he excused from not having asked for a more in-depth explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted October 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Didn't Dawkins do the same thing, with an interview in his film, the God delusion? Do tell! Well if the God delusion, I believe he interviewed Haggard, and cut out anything that made any sense from the film, though I don't like Haggard at all, Dawkins still did the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damo1 Posted October 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,822 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/16/1967 Share Posted October 3, 2007 from damo1 to davem hear is the link just go into the sight and you wil see what i saw as i have down loaded a lot of stuff for my self and i am still going over other stuff i have been reading this since tuesday night www.scienceagainstevolution.org simple once you are in side and you wil see for your self yet many brain heads can not admit what darwin admited as if they have something to prove even my mate who is a crime sceen investigator and who teaches at uni admits that darwin had the guts to admit he was wrong Darwin was wrong and he eventualy admited this fact before he died Darwins score card For Evolution more individuals are born than can survive there is a lot of variation in species Evolution depends upon inherited variations Against Evolution the laws governing inheritance were quiet unkown to darwin correlation of growth in breeding has side effects that limit variation inter crossing causes variations to revert to the norm the fossils record does not support evolution there are no living intermediate forms complex structers such as the eyes and echolocation could not have evolved instincts cant be explained by natural selection one cant breed diverse species to produce new fertile species DARWIN GOT IT WRONG fitness is more important than luck when it comes to survival features developed by exercise are in herited features diminshed by disue are inherited climate causes varitations that are inherited there is no limit to inherited change embroyos trace evolutionary develpmont rudimentary organs are proof that features diminshed by disue are inherited the fossils record would support evolution if it were more complex i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts