... against "A Scientist's Critique of Ben Stein's Expelled"

A Scientist's Critique of Ben Stein's Expelled
DonExodus2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3QHsUS3Lp4

[After remarks about atheists believing we came from mud and Creationists believing that too:]

You just substitute lightning + millions and billions of years for God.

4:54 "you have to ignore so much evidence"?

Check it out. Have a blog, and have commented on LOTS of evolutionist evidence (among some lighter articles).

Creation vs. Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

See if I ignored sth, feel welcome to :

• contact me over my "official" mail hgl@dr.com (dr does not mean I am a doctor, it means hgl @ mail . com was not available, and Nanterre University Library does not mean I am an employee, I am an "external reader" - my studies were by the way in Classics);
  
  
• answer me here;
  
  OR
  
  
• if I ignored a piece of evidence relevant to a particular article, comment under it there.

One thing, Distant Starlight I usually do not deal with on that blog, since my answer involves Geocentrism, and thus I answer on other blogs on that one.

5:34 "A creationist scientist doesn't exist, it's the same thing as an atheist priest."

• Some people on your side come very close to being priests of atheism (Dawkins, Myers, Coyne ....)
• Some Anglican and Lutheran (usually more often European than US versions) clergy are arguably very close to being atheist priests, that even happens (though less often) with Catholic clergy.
• The wording is very close on admitting atheism is a religion with scientists for its priesthood, since you are making a remark about clergy stating creationists are religiously inappropriate for role as scientists.
• And of course, you ignore that there are PhD Scientists who are using their scientific evidence to promote creationism. (You will perhaps be adressing that point in a minute?) (He didn’t.)

6:30 Hitler was not promoting atheism in an open way, but he was promoting Christianity getting updated to fit the régime (to fit the needs of the people, race etc, whatever the régime was about).

6:47 It would still be nothing compared to the damage caused by religion? Your saying crusade and showing inquisition seem to argue these two phenomena were somehow more of a death toll than Holocaust?

OK, if you are a revisionist and say 100,000 died in Holocaust, you may perhaps argue 200,000 died if you take Crusades, Inquisition together with Conquistadors. But some revisionists do place even Holocaust deaths at 200,000, and the Holocaust was more intense at that, since happening in 40-45.

If you go by the "six million" figure for Holocaust, you are heavily brainwashed by Protestants if you want to state Catholicism had a similar death toll in Crusades, Inquisition and Conquista taken together.

AND you are forgetting the Communist death toll in Soviet Russian 1917 to 1990 is probably superior to Holocaust (very conservative estimates of 1 million should be compared to revisionist figures like 100,000, and very large figures about Hitler, like 18 million including 6 for Holocaust + 6 for Germans and 6 for enemies of Germany or for non-Germans, should be compared to 90 million figure for Soviet Communism). It would be a very intriguing coincidence, which I don't believe in, if both the drastically low figure were correct for Communism and the drastically high one for Nazism. Even the opposite coincidence is likelier.

7:42 could it be he was trying to monitor the movie out of its intended direction? I mean, you embarass your employers or contractees, or what was it you said?

8:04 the image 5 in the comic is somewhat out of place ... as the one just before image nr 6. The comic leaves out LOTS of intervening scenes in which the atheists ARE denying in practise "that's your right". Also, it is out of place as after images 1 - 4, except 3, since there is a non-confessional case against abortion, sodomy and obscence art. Not sure it can hold together, but neither can most other non-confessional cases, including the one you are making.

8:23, you have not heard of fair use? "Ono’s lawsuit alleged the film used her husband’s song “Imagine” without permission, but a spokesman for Premise Media explained to WND that as a documentary, the movie is permitted to use a portion of the song without permission for commentary purposes under fair use laws." Expelled won the law suit.

Read more at 'Expelled' wins lawsuit over 'Imagine' song
Yoko Ono can't stop Ben Stein's intelligent design film from re-release
Published: 09/29/2008 at 6:00 PM
Drew Zahn
http://mobile.wnd.com/2008/09/76562/#PAGtk4HkSGUXtvtd.99

9:05, so, what you are saying is any film that argues anything must first of all be aware in advance of EVERY argument made by the one he's arguing against? Or that one cannot make ironic remarks (he might have heard of claims of speciation being observed and considered them as ridiculous compared to the point one is trying to make from them : like two populations of mosquitos, one of which in Underground, which no longer interbreed ... ri di cu lous)? Or are you imposing the academic standard of "knowing the status of the question" to a "question" as multifacetted as this one and to a film made for popular audience? Come ON! You are not proving producers of Expelled are dishonest, you are proving either you are or you are ignorant of general culture outside academia.

9:33 [Video quotes:

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish" / Jeffrey Kluger]

But a fishnet is not a valid argument. If fish could speak, they would consider it an argumentum baculinum - a fallacy.

9:46 "many of the holes Stein points out, evolution explains already"

THAT list would have been the matter of a really interesting video. THIS video isn't really interesting to myself, but some of my readers will be concerned.

One more thing : you made a point about Hovind at least supposedly quoting people and making their words mean the very opposite of what they were meaning.

For one thing, I am not sure you are very aware of logic. Logic is a system which allows the words of a man to have implications he was not aware of. If that is so, it is fair game for a man to quote his words and to point out certain implications.

However, you seem to be engaged in same thing. What you have to say about "evils of religion" was so taken from Chick Tracts and these from earlier 19th Century Anglicans or sth (the track may go back to Foxe via Voltaire), and yet, unlike Jack Chick, you do not mean one should get out of Catholicism in order to become a "born again Christian" type of Protestant or Evangelical, and neither he nor you is meaning what Foxe meant that one should get out of Roman Catholicism in order to become a Bible reading and bourgeois loyal to Elisabeth I (or Bess Boleyn) Anglican.

So, perhaps Chick was aware that Foxe might have been right about a thing while being wrong about its implications. And you that Chick might be right about a thing but wrong about its implications.

So, you are prepared to play the same game. In this case in the wrong place, because Chick and Foxe are wrong about Medieval Catholic history.

Even so, that makes you clearly inconsistent and possibly not honest in your denunciation of "word twistings" allegedly committed by Kent Hovind and others.