Yuku free message boards

Rambo123UK wrote:

---

The film is a creationist film. The premise is that those people questioning evolution in schools are thrown out of the system or shut up to protect evolution. Now, as has been pointed out, this isn't true, but even if it was - so what? they aren't questioning the evolution for any scientific reasons, but theological ones. Creationism isn't science, it's mythology. So-called "intelligent design" is just creationism repackaged to try to sneak it into science classes as the thin end of the wedge for creationism.

And not content with saying that these people have been persecuted for their stance of not wanting to teach science in a science class, they then go on to try to say that Darwin was the reason for Hitler, fascism and Nazism. Again, not true, but then why expect the truth from creationists?

We agree on more than we disagree on. I know this is a creationist film. The difference between me and you is that I actually listen to opposing views to see if maybe they are making points that are essential to the argument or not. If not then I move on. I havent seen this movie and probably wont until dvd but Im not going to shit on it before I even know what its about. Thats the difference between you and me....an open mind.

BTW, what they say about Hitler is true and everyone knows it.

Rambo123UK wrote:

---

There is no valid opposing viewpoint to evolution. There is no dissent based on scientific disagreement but on a theological one.

Creationism is not the alternative to evolution, ignorance is. Creationism is a deceitful attack on knowledge by those who simply don't like the facts.

Be careful your mind is not so open you brain falls out.

Sentence #1 I agree with.

Sentence #2 is half true (the first seven words) the rest is a personal opinion that makes you sound no better than a fundie religious nut but of the opposite religion.

Sentence #3 you stole from somebody else who already said that like 5 times on another board. How original.

Rambo123UK wrote:

---

You agree with #1, but not #2. Of course it follows from #1 that if there is no valid scientific argument then any argument must simply be an attack on science. And if you know there is no valid scientific attack, any attack is therefore knowingly false, and thus deceitful, proving #2 to be correct.

#3 I came up with myself (I've used it here before as well) but I have also seen it has been said before (paraphrased by Dawkins, IIRC).

No, you stole it from Dawkins you plagiaristic liar. I knew I'd seen that somewhere!

Quontir wrote:

---

WordClock wrote:

---

True that. The review you posted was really good but biased. I would like to read a review of the film from someone who doesnt give a damn either way about being right or wrong. I suspect that may be too much to hope for which means I might actually have to get off my ass and go see it. But Forgetting Sarah Marshall is first.

The Scientific American review is the best review you'll get. Plus that have a listing of all the lies th efilm peddles. Tell me though, is there some universe in which liars get special treatment? If so, then that's where you need to go...

Thats where I need to go? Care to explain your childish comment or do you even know what the hell you talking about? Typical atheist bigotry.

Rambo123UK wrote:

---

Quontir is obviously of the same opinion as me - that if a creationist is not simply stupid then he must be a liar.

Well you certainly have the right to your opinion. But I'm not a creationist in the typical sense of the word because I accept what I understand of evolution and have my doubts about creation (though I expect ID may be compatible with evolution). Call me what you like but don't call me a liar, I have no agenda hence no reason to lie. I'm not going to argue with these scientist, they obviously know more than I do but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that they could be wrong from time to time.

Rambo123UK wrote:

---

You should recall that ID is not science but simply a weapon of creationists...

It can be used as a weapon for creationist and has but it is not limited to that. Before I argue any further I'd like to know your definition of both ID and Creationism.