Well, I've been here a lot more than once, so maybe you didn't mean me, oochild, but as for folks who are "claiming all kinds of assertions" but "don't back it up", you are leading the way, by far.

But why should I discuss evolution with you, anyway?  Is it a subject in which you have some special expertise? Have you read the source liturature, including Origin of the Species?  Judging by your unwillingess to accept that Darwin was a Social Darwinist, I doubt if you even realized he had written The Descent of Man.  What is your idea of evolution based on -  your freshman Biology course, and a Richard Dawkins screed?  Is it even a subject I care about?  No, as a Christian, it does not matter to me exactly how, or to what timetable, God put things together.

So why does evolution mean so much to you?  

Hmmm....allow me to speculate here...as I channel the oochild thought process....

If God exists, Atheism is Wrong.  I don't wanna be wrong.. these people believe in God  ....  saying evolution didn't happen... this movie must suck, they ripped off Yoko...darn, I'm off track....lemme see here, Darwin said that he killed God, therefore, if I believe him, God does not exist...But Darwin was an a-hole...man, wish I hadn't Googled him, freaking Dasani....well, there's another a-hole.....some rock group nobody knows signed a release....must have been lied to....gotta get back on track here....boy, I hate bible-thumpers...and Stein...jewish bible thumper.....

So Starbucks1, you claim that Michal Moore lies but decline to even show me one. You claim that Heston was lied to, but can't provide the evidence to back this up. BTW, your links are blocked for me. I couldn't comb through them, looking for the proof you need to provide, even if I were so inclined. Just cut & paste one paragraph showing that Michael Moore lied to an interview subject, or stole copyrighted material.

I've shown evidence about the producers of Expelled & how they lied to participants to get them in the movie, & I've shown where they stole material for use in their movie, rather than going through appropriate channels. Now it's your turn.

PD, I'm basically done with the Darwin/Holocaust connection. If Darwin was responsible for Hitler & therefore this fact should negate his teachings, then Christianity is equally responsible for Hitler & its teachings should be equally negated. Now, answer my previous question to you: do you accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for life on this planet? I'll keep waiting fo rthe answer.

[spam code: FLRPY]!!!

Oohchild, note the edits above.  Of course, it was you, not Starbuck1, to whom it was meant to be directed.

So you're "done" with the Darwin/Holocaust connection, oohchild?  Lets review our exchange:

You claimed that this movie "mistakenly links Charles Darwin with Nazis & the holocaust". 

I pointed out that Darwin and Eugenics and the Nazi's were linked, and that this recent history is easily proven.   

You responded by claiming that someone had misused Darwin's ideas to promote Social Darwinism.

I cited Darwin's own writings to prove that he was a Social Darwinist himself.

And now, you're "done", but  not without dishonestly implying that I have claimed that the ugly facts of the man and his movement should "negate" his teaching.  

I made no such statement.   To the contrary, I specifically stated the opposite - that the sad truth of his movement and the ugly logic of his science had NO relation to the truth of falsity of his scientific claims.  Your representation otherwise springs from either  dishonesty or obtuseness.

I'd be done with it too.  You spend more time and energy attempting to disclaim other peoples opinions rather than providing evidence and rational explanations for your own views.  As such your views are so far pretty much irrelevant.  Oochild made some pretty convincing arguments. I don't see any convincing responses to her intelligent proposals. Your "link" between Darwinism and the Nazi's is debatable at best.  You link and site sources that are in no way a direct line of mainstream or modern thought on Darwin's theories by people much more accreditable and much more established than you.  The eugenics people are considered out in left field at best and are really ancient history at this point.  You obviously have very little grasp or understanding of the scientific method nevermind the ability to differentiate between radical propaganda and what is considered scientific truth.  Every single response you have made to Oochild shows that you really do not have a grasp of why the scientific method works and why it holds more credence than "testimonies of faith".

As well, if you know anything about Darwin at all, you would know he was initially a believer in the literal truth of the bible. He was "on your side" initially.  It was a very personal and difficult choice for him to question and eventually discount his beliefs based on the evidence he discovered.  The big deal is that he had an open mind, was a believer in the scientific method and was willing to look at the facts and come to an opinion beyond or different what he initially believed.  That is where you, and folks like you, do not measure up and why you are frequently discounted outside your own peers.  You do not have the ability, despite all your apparently intelligent discourse, to come to a conclusion that contradicts what you believe.  This is called a closed mind.   Anyone could argue with you and prove countless times their own point of view and yet you would discount it based on your beliefs.  That is the difference between a fanatic and a scientist.  A scientist will readily discount his theory and take up another if it proves to be more viable or more accurately conforms to observation. A religious fanatic will not, irregardless of the facts, and irregardless of the fact that there is no evidence to what they preach.  This is fundamentally why the scientific method works and why religion is dying in the modern age.  Religion is dying slowly but inevitably because the younger minds know better and are being brough up in an environment where its encouraged to question. And you can rail against that fact all you like.  But it doesn't change the fact that religion is going the way of the dodo (I would argue due to evolution by the way) and I welcome that new age, even if I might not be alive when they teach religion as an artifact of culture and history.  The future will laugh at such a quaint notion the same way we laugh at the quaint notions that there was a goddess of love called Aphrodite, or a god of the sea called Neptune, or a god of all gods called Zeus, and so on.

I obviously don't know you personally, but I feel pretty confident after reading what you write, even watching you argue against that Jim characte that you are on the same level as him. You just have different radical views. You put the blinders on and can't truly make a definitive argument for your own views.  In fact you can't argue against that Jim character because he doesn't take your bait and give you something to chop down.  Your entire viewpoint hinges on being able to attack other people's views.  You are the Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.  In any case, thats my take.  I might be wrong, but I doubt it. ;)

And while I'm at it:

http://richarddawkins.net/a...

:)

oohchild, I knew I would not convince you of the Truth about Moore, apparently you refuse to see the forest because of the trees in front of you, thats fine, why the links are blocked for you I dont know, but the truth is easliy found about Moore, its like looking for corruption stories about the Clintons, there everywhere, just some people choose not to believe them, but anyway, it looks like you have bigger disagreements here than with me, so, I'll turn this over to scootso and PD, by the way I disagree with scootso about religion, it will die soon?, enevitable?, I dont think so, and 90% of people in this country agree with me, I'll go with the majority on this one,

Scottso, from what that I wrote did you conclude that I am "a believer in the literal truth of the bible"?

I am not, and I know that I've never said, or even hinted otherwise.  That, among other things, make it obvious that you are not responding to what I have written, but to some straw-man of your own invention. 

As for your happy notion that eugenics advocates are "ancient history", and "out in left field" or that their advocates are unaccredited boobs, that is sadly mistaken. 

James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, leader of the Human Genome Project, and Nobel Prize winner is famously a loud, mainstream and accredited advocate of eugenics, for example.  A little too loud for some after he recently made remarks that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but that was only the latest of his statements that I would guess you, and oohchild, would find distasteful, including his advocacy for the abortion of potential homosexuals.

Then there is another Nobel Prize winner, Austrailian Macfarlane Burnet, who developed a plan to counter an invasion of Australia "by overpopulated Asiatic countries ... directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions".  - in other words, genocide.

Be assured that even though he died in 1985, that "his theories on immunity and "clonal selection" provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering".

These stories are not hard to find, if you want to look.  In my opinion, they are to be expected from people whose training is, for technological advantages, geared to viewing people as objects and compilations of parts.

I don't know how to explain this so you can understand, Starbucks1, but I'll try one more time. You made the claim that Michael Moore lied to a participant in order to gain their appearance in one of his movies, & the possible walk-out by Heston (but you weren't sure about the particulars on that one.) I need you to just show me, with the important part of the link highlighted so I can believe your claim. I certainly shouldn't have to sift through several pages of info in order to back up your claim. Why do you expect me to do your work for you? Did you also have kids in high school do your homework for you?

I have another question for you, too. You wrote: "[religion] will die soon?, enevitable?, I dont think so, and 90% of people in this country agree with me, I'll go with the majority on this one,"

So, if you had been born in India where the majority of the folks are Hindu, do you think you would be Hindu? Do you think that the main reason people are the religion they are is because of geography, or possibly just majority-rule?

(BTW Scott, thanks for your input dude!)

Progresso, the straw-man argument is that you need to pick out one phrase and, because it does not literally and to the letter apply to you personally, make it appear as if that dismisses everything I said.  Nice try. ;)  Anyone can see I was explaining the fact that Darwin was a "religious" man in that context.

And as for pointing at an extremely few (and very, very much a minority) well established scientists that happen(ed) to hold views supporting eugenics, does not make that any less out in left field and non-mainstream.  If it was mainstream there would not have been such an issue about it, would there?  Its not very hard to see the response of their peers which denounces those ideas.

So there were some Catholic priests that were guilty of pedophilia.  Does that mean Catholics are a majority of pedophiles?  Of couse not.

Your "evidence" is lacking.

In any case I'm done with the thread and won't be responding anymore.  I just wanted to give some support for Oochild who I think was very brave posting this article here.  Its been very amusing reading the non-responses. ;)

Ok oohchild, links not working for eh, heres one lie, Moore intervied a Solider and misled him,

Michael Moore Being Sued For Big Fat Lie In Fahrenheit 9/11

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said yesterday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Damon seems to "voice complaint about the war effort" in the movie, according to the lawsuit.

But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the "excruciating" pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

Damon wasn't expressing any opinion about the war, the suit charges, but rather extolling the drug.

"I just want everybody to know what kind of a guy Michael Moore is, and what kind of film this is," said Damon. He has appeared in two films attacking "Fahrenheit" -"Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11."

Lie Number 2, interview with Charlton Heston, calling him a racist, clearly tricking him into what he thought was another interview, thats the only way he would have agreed to it

an interview at the home of Charlton Heston, Hollywood legend and president of the NRA.

The resulting confrontation is almost unbearably painful to watch, as Heston begins the interchange looking robust, masterful, confident and charming and then, under Moore's blatantly unfair and needling questioning, slowly crumbles to the sad status of a frail old man with Alzheimers, of which Moore knew, and took advantage of,despicable. At first, Moore demands explanations for Heston's appearance at NRA rallies in Colorado and Flint, Mich., shortly after the gun-related tragedies there. Then he moves on to try to force his prey into a corner over America's persistently high homicide rate (without acknowledging the dramatic declines of recent years).

Finally, with Moore flaunting his favorite example of "safe, peaceful" Canada, and pushing relentlessly for some basis for America's more numerous murders, he forces a reluctant, uncertain suggestion from Heston. "I don't know," the great actor begins, and then tentatively mentions the greater racial diversity in the United States.

Mr. Moore pounces on this statement, and virtually accuses Heston of racism – never acknowledging (or telling his audience) that the current president of the NRA enjoyed a personal friendship with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated more prominently in the civil-rights movement and its marches than any other major Hollywood star. Unwilling (or unable) to make this point himself, Mr. Heston merely disconnects his microphone, gets up out of his chair and walks away from Moore and his camera

Now, on the religion point, scootso said religion will die soon, I was addressing his point, that I dont think it will die soon at all, and most people would agree with me, not because we are the majority, because its a personal choice,

So there you have it oohchild, just a few of the lies and distortions from his movies, but let me guess, you dont believe any of it and Moore is one of your favourite filmakers, right?,

 

Gimme a break, scottso - if by stating: 

"if you know anything about Darwin at all, you would know he was initially a believer in the literal truth of the bible. He was "on your side""  you didn't mean to say that I was a believer in the literal truth of the bible, then just say so. 

As for the rest of that rant, what was there to respond to?  You accuse me of not knowing, or not understanding a lot of things...I thought I would let that lie.  Frankly, it sounded like you addressing some Elmer Gantry - following rube of your imagination, not me.

As for outcry at Watson's remarks, there was a political outcry, yes - for obvious reasons.  The notion that there is no differences between races, however much it flies in the face of Darwin's theory of competitive advantage, and resulting new species generation, Watson's statement violates our modern secular religion and so had to be disciplined. 

Had that outrcy been limited to the traditional religious community - as it was during the period when eugenics quite openly proclaimed its aims - the religious community would have been criticized for "not understanding the scientific method", and been told that such backwardness was "why the scientific method works and why religion is dying in the modern age", just like you do now and as others told them then.

I commend you, oohchild, madkow and scottso for attempting to educate the religious conservatives responding to this thread. To borrow from the Borg..."futile" is the word.

Organized religion = power & money = war...

Very nice Starbucks1. Now we have something to work with, thanks.

In your first example, there was no lie to the soldier in order to induce him to be interviewed. The soldier you are referencing was never interviewed by Michael Moore. I also believe his case was thrown out of court. The clip of this soldier was deemed acceptable under "fair use" rules. That's not lying, and that's not stealing. The producers of Expelled lied to many of the scientists about the name & intent of the film.

Your next example again shows no deception by Moore. I saw that interview. Heston was well aware of who Moore was & what his film was about. Is the claim that Moore "ambushed" Heston with a barrage of difficult questions a fair one? Probably, but that's not deception. It's not lying, and it's not stealing. The scientists interviewed for Expelled were lied to about the production company making this film, so they didn't know who the makers of this film were.

Christians (& Jews) lying & stealing to produce a movie. "By their fruits shall you know them." Yep, that's the ticket.

PD, if you don't intend to negate evolution by linking Darwin to Hitler & eugenics, then what is your point here? This is obviously the intent of Stein & the producers/director of this documentary. Stein has said as much himself. Many of the reviews I've linked to & read say the same thing: the intent to mistakenly link them (& therefore negate "Darwinism") is obvious from the images & voice over by Stein. Maybe you should read a few of the reviews concerning this piece of propaganda. This is straight out of the Wedge Document.