Comments for The blog for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed http://expelledthemovie.com/blog The Movie Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:55:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 Comment on The silent hand…and the expelled. by AndrewBoldman http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/10/#comment-50708 AndrewBoldman Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:06:05 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/10/#comment-50708 Hi, good post. I have been woondering about this issue,so thanks for posting. I’ll definitely be coming back to your site. Hi, good post. I have been woondering about this issue,so thanks for posting. I’ll definitely be coming back to your site.

]]> Comment on As the producers of Expelled we want to THANK YOU for the overwhelming positive reception audiences have given the film around the country. by Kirk MacPherson http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44892 Kirk MacPherson Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:00:42 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44892 Awesome documentary! I didn't get to catch it in the theater, however I bought the DVD from Wal-Mart before they sold out. :) Awesome documentary! I didn’t get to catch it in the theater, however I bought the DVD from Wal-Mart before they sold out. :)

]]> Comment on Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog by Jeff Teachworth http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/#comment-44801 Jeff Teachworth Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:19:16 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/#comment-44801 Intelligent Design??? - Higher powers than the fish in a fishtank might have designed it but the fish will never fully discover this, they don't have the mental tools. These designers move around outside their tank and the fish have no sensory means to provoke them into a complex communication. The fish also don't speak any of the languages of earth men to have a meaningful discourse about our world. Yet the fish might still get fed routinely through no effort of their own by a caring owner who is beyond their perception. Kicker: When the fish die, we owners can do nothing to produce an extended life after death for them. My Point: Even if higher powers in the universe were looking after man, there may still be a limit to our conscious existence. We have no way of knowing because each time we discover a new paradigm, it is still another larger mysterious fishtank we find ourselves in. Intelligent Design??? - Higher powers than the fish in a fishtank might have designed it but the fish will never fully discover this, they don’t have the mental tools. These designers move around outside their tank and the fish have no sensory means to provoke them into a complex communication. The fish also don’t speak any of the languages of earth men to have a meaningful discourse about our world. Yet the fish might still get fed routinely through no effort of their own by a caring owner who is beyond their perception. Kicker: When the fish die, we owners can do nothing to produce an extended life after death for them. My Point: Even if higher powers in the universe were looking after man, there may still be a limit to our conscious existence. We have no way of knowing because each time we discover a new paradigm, it is still another larger mysterious fishtank we find ourselves in.

]]> Comment on We’ll take Lincoln Day over Darwin Day…any day. by jrodmc http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/#comment-44736 jrodmc Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:33:12 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/#comment-44736 It's worldview. If God appears tomorrow, and unequivocally explained all the mysteries of the universe in nice, small sentences, with the best multimedia slide deck ever created, folks who don't want to accept it, would find some "alternate universe" to strive for, to go live and continue to evolve in, randomly. Faith is just that. Faith. You can accept the comprehensibility of existence as just a roll of the dice, or you don't. All the big words and conflicting Phd's throwing studies and findings at each other won't change the underlying fact that science depends on comprehensibility, and the need for the universe to lend itself to discovery. And why that is so is not scientifically explainable. It’s worldview. If God appears tomorrow, and unequivocally explained all the mysteries of the universe in nice, small sentences, with the best multimedia slide deck ever created, folks who don’t want to accept it, would find some “alternate universe” to strive for, to go live and continue to evolve in, randomly.

Faith is just that. Faith. You can accept the comprehensibility of existence as just a roll of the dice, or you don’t. All the big words and conflicting Phd’s throwing studies and findings at each other won’t change the underlying fact that science depends on comprehensibility, and the need for the universe to lend itself to discovery. And why that is so is not scientifically explainable.

]]> Comment on Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog by Tim http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/#comment-44387 Tim Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:18:49 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/#comment-44387 The odd thing I have with evolutionists is that by the very nature of their theories, they should have absolutely no moral opinion or emotional response to anything creationists or ID believe. Without God in the picture, there are no moral absolutes to base their opinions on. In fact, to have opinions in the first place implies a moral precedent. If evolutionists conclude that we are all just a bunch of chemicals that will disappear into oblivion after death, then they should not be at all bigotted, insulting and filled with rage toward those who believe otherwise. This is confusing. Unless their anger reflects a level of fear. Fear that they may be wrong. Romans 1 just calls them fools. Playing the odds, one should always fall on the side of believing in a creator who can save one from sin and hell, for the following reason: If a believer is right, than he will be in eternal paradise. If he is wrong, then he simply disappears, and has nothing to lose. The athiest, on the other hand, has a rougher go of it. If he is right, then he simply dies and disappears, but if he is wrong, he faces a God who judges sin, and being found wanting, will spend eternity in the punishment of hell. And eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong. The other thing that evolutionists/athiests do in error is place science as the zenith of all human knowledge and experience. There are things thst science can not explain. Explain faith, love, hope for example. The odd thing I have with evolutionists is that by the very nature of their theories, they should have absolutely no moral opinion or emotional response to anything creationists or ID believe. Without God in the picture, there are no moral absolutes to base their opinions on. In fact, to have opinions in the first place implies a moral precedent. If evolutionists conclude that we are all just a bunch of chemicals that will disappear into oblivion after death, then they should not be at all bigotted, insulting and filled with rage toward those who believe otherwise. This is confusing. Unless their anger reflects a level of fear. Fear that they may be wrong. Romans 1 just calls them fools.

Playing the odds, one should always fall on the side of believing in a creator who can save one from sin and hell, for the following reason: If a believer is right, than he will be in eternal paradise. If he is wrong, then he simply disappears, and has nothing to lose. The athiest, on the other hand, has a rougher go of it. If he is right, then he simply dies and disappears, but if he is wrong, he faces a God who judges sin, and being found wanting, will spend eternity in the punishment of hell. And eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong.

The other thing that evolutionists/athiests do in error is place science as the zenith of all human knowledge and experience. There are things thst science can not explain. Explain faith, love, hope for example.

]]> Comment on As the producers of Expelled we want to THANK YOU for the overwhelming positive reception audiences have given the film around the country. by The Phantom http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44322 The Phantom Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:14:04 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44322 i guess the real issue for any evolutionist -really - is...if there IS a God...bugger!!!! maybe we should all pray to richard dawkins, or better still...the ALIENS. i guess the real issue for any evolutionist -really - is…if there IS a God…bugger!!!!

maybe we should all pray to richard dawkins, or better still…the ALIENS.

]]> Comment on As the producers of Expelled we want to THANK YOU for the overwhelming positive reception audiences have given the film around the country. by IT Staffing http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44051 IT Staffing Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:42:04 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44051 btw in commenet #102, the phrase should be "I think “ID”’s most bitter *opponents* are just too wary..." btw in commenet #102, the phrase should be “I think “ID”’s most bitter *opponents* are just too wary…”

]]> Comment on As the producers of Expelled we want to THANK YOU for the overwhelming positive reception audiences have given the film around the country. by IT Staffing http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44035 IT Staffing Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:50:49 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/10/#comment-44035 Even assuming that so-called intelligent design is the only alternative to evolution that unimaginative minds could come up with, it would be an incomplete answer. Because first of all, life *on earth* _could_ have been designed, much as scientists are now on the verge of assembling artificial life from DNA. And if the evidence eventually points to that, then I see no reason why we couldn't accept that. But, short of using the ridiculous, scientifically indefensible notion that a God-creator was responsible, now we have to answer the question WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER(S)? So yes, it is quite possible that life on earth was "intelligently" originated, but that would just mean we have more answers to seek elsewhere and BY NO MEANS VALIDATES ANY EXISTING RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. Even assuming that so-called intelligent design is the only alternative to evolution that unimaginative minds could come up with, it would be an incomplete answer.

Because first of all, life *on earth* _could_ have been designed, much as scientists are now on the verge of assembling artificial life from DNA. And if the evidence eventually points to that, then I see no reason why we couldn’t accept that.

But, short of using the ridiculous, scientifically indefensible notion that a God-creator was responsible, now we have to answer the question WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER(S)?

So yes, it is quite possible that life on earth was “intelligently” originated, but that would just mean we have more answers to seek elsewhere and BY NO MEANS VALIDATES ANY EXISTING RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.

]]> Comment on ABOUT by porntubehappy http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/06/#comment-43653 porntubehappy Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:00:59 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/06/#comment-43653 I love your site! I love your site!

]]> Comment on Expelled from ‘Expelled’ by Burnster http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/04/#comment-43321 Burnster Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:36:38 +0000 http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/04/#comment-43321 And I suppose you wrote for Jimmy Carter? If I remember correctly, ID was being taught long before the existence of Darwin's theories. The definition of theory - a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena. But of course your argument would be to make your statement that ID is not theory. The next question is who are you or anyone else to make that argument? Are you all of the sudden the intellectual supreme beings who have the only correct answers to life on Earth? Or is it more basic than that and it is you are just afraid to be proven wrong. I think that is the force behind the reason and the reason for the conspiracy to "Shut Up" those who question your theories. Honestly, (really be honest)wouldn't you agree Josh? And I suppose you wrote for Jimmy Carter? If I remember correctly, ID was being taught long before the existence of Darwin’s theories. The definition of theory - a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena. But of course your argument would be to make your statement that ID is not theory. The next question is who are you or anyone else to make that argument? Are you all of the sudden the intellectual supreme beings who have the only correct answers to life on Earth? Or is it more basic than that and it is you are just afraid to be proven wrong. I think that is the force behind the reason and the reason for the conspiracy to “Shut Up” those who question your theories. Honestly, (really be honest)wouldn’t you agree Josh?

]]>