 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, for people that shoot themselves in the foot, this one had to an
RPG. PZ Myers, a fairly well known, but hardly world wide known, name in
the so called debate between 1 AD theology and 2008 AD science, and who
was interviewed, (or more like mugged), for the movie Expelled, has been
expelled from the line for the movie in the Mall of America. He was
there in the twin cities, with his family, and other atheists, to attend
a convention *for* atheists. I will leave the punchline of who **did**
get let in instead for those reading the post (Hint: This person **is**
known world wide, and they also misused interview material from him in
it).
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
Its nearly an hour since I started reading the comments on it, and I
still feel like laughing my ass off.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ouch!
This ID movement is lame, even though I believe there really is an Intelligent
Designer after all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, for people that shoot themselves in the foot, this one had to an
> RPG. PZ Myers, a fairly well known, but hardly world wide known, name in
> the so called debate between 1 AD theology and 2008 AD science, and who
> was interviewed, (or more like mugged), for the movie Expelled, has been
> expelled from the line for the movie in the Mall of America. He was
> there in the twin cities, with his family, and other atheists, to attend
> a convention *for* atheists. I will leave the punchline of who **did**
> get let in instead for those reading the post (Hint: This person **is**
> known world wide, and they also misused interview material from him in
> it).
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
>
> Its nearly an hour since I started reading the comments on it, and I
> still feel like laughing my ass off.
>
Two things strike me in this story and the replies.
1) apparently it is possible in the land of the free to ban someone from
attending a movie including a banning order for the building without the
intervention of a judge.
2) that was hardly commented on (OK I didn't read all 1000+ replies so I
might have missed it)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 1) apparently it is possible in the land of the free to ban someone from
> attending a movie including a banning order for the building without the
> intervention of a judge.
It was a free, invitation-only preview of the movie. You were invited as
a guest if you signed up for it. They revoked the invitation.
It wasn't like being in line for a regular showing of a movie. It was
like being kicked out of the oscars.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 1) apparently it is possible in the land of the free to ban someone
>> from attending a movie including a banning order for the building
>> without the intervention of a judge.
>
> It was a free, invitation-only preview of the movie. You were invited as
> a guest if you signed up for it. They revoked the invitation.
And the theatre owner can ban anyone they want for any reason they want.
The theatre isn't public; it's private property, and you're there at
the owners' discretion.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> And the theatre owner can ban anyone they want for any reason they want.
Not quite. There *are* a list of reasons why you can't ban someone. You
can't kick someone out for being Catholic or having dark skin. But other
reasons, sure.
Indeed, I bet you could make a case that you were kicked out for being
atheist, and therefore that's religious discrimination.
I saw a report of a community refusing to allow lawyers to buy homes
there because they file too many lawsuits. A lawyer was refused, and he
of course filed a lawsuit. He lost, because "lawyer" isn't a protected
category.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, the point that people that understand the theory of evolution,
instead of getting everything, including the name sometimes, wrong, is
that nothing implies the "need" for a designer at this point. Sure, gaps
exists, but most of them are in the minutiae, or involve stuff that
evolution itself doesn't imply, state or talk about, like abiogenisis.
And, even that just begs the question of, "What kind of designer
couldn't just poof it all into existence, instead of setting up some
basic life form, over which all evidence clearly suggests they would
lose all ability to direct or control within the first hundred
generations?
Such a designer would either have to be limited, non-omniscient, non-
omnipotent, etc., or something like the fragment of god that got hit by
a satalite, in Futurama, and so good at it, that they set up every
single tiny detail, all the while making it **absolutely** impossible to
find any evidence that they where involved. And that just begs the
question, "Why do that, then insist on making the species that resulted
jump through stupid hoops of unfounded blind belief vs. testable
disbelief, to get at whether or not you exist?" Its either a damn bad
way to get followers and keep them, or something sadistic, like poking a
small furry animal in a box with a stick, where all the animal knows is
that something outside the box is stabbing them. Mind you, in this case,
the designer can't even get that right, since the only evidence of
outside interference is the human hubris that because "we" design
things, something else had to design everything else, including the
stuff that all evidence suggests designed "themselves", like rivers,
canyons, mountains, etc. Its a silly argument really. "Gosh! Its true
that the unbelievably complicated thing like the grand canyon kind of
formed on its own, based on physical laws, but the eye.. Now that just
***looks*** complex to me, never mind that, statistically, its fracking
simplistic by comparison to the complex structure of one side canyon in
the grand canyon!" Well, that would be the argument, if they where not
completely blind to the fact that a side canyon "is" more complex than
an eye, and doesn't just look like it too them because they don't
understand it.
So.. Is there or isn't there? Who the heck knows. Do you need one for
any of it to happen? Not as far as anyone can tell so far. Could that
prove different later? Sure, but trying to compare that to ***any*** of
the stupid definitions or descriptions these ID people, or creationists
in general, think did it... is just absurd.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47e47a1d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] san rrcom says...
> Chambers wrote:
> > And the theatre owner can ban anyone they want for any reason they want
.
>
> Not quite. There *are* a list of reasons why you can't ban someone. You
> can't kick someone out for being Catholic or having dark skin. But other
> reasons, sure.
>
> Indeed, I bet you could make a case that you were kicked out for being
> atheist, and therefore that's religious discrimination.
>
> I saw a report of a community refusing to allow lawyers to buy homes
> there because they file too many lawsuits. A lawyer was refused, and he
> of course filed a lawsuit. He lost, because "lawyer" isn't a protected
> category.
>
Yeah. They are busy spinning this, trying to claim that they knew, from
some comment made on the subject previously by PZ, that he would have
been disruptive. The fact that his behavior, unless you read one version
of events from the creationist attending, who has so far posted 2
conflicting claims of PZs behavior, one saying he was disruptive, the
other that, "well, no, actually he wasn't..", showed nothing of the
sort, is a bit odd. The fact that he hasn't shown a public tendency to
be disruptive doesn't lend itself to the claim either. The only apparent
reason why he might have been refused was because Mathis, who produced
this garbage, hates PZs guts for the few times PZ called in one some
radio interview by the fool and made him look like the idiot he was.
Basically, the working theory is that Mathis saw PZ, recognized who he
was, ordered him removed, but in his panic didn't notice who was with
him. A fact pretty much confirmed by the later account of him turning
white as a sheet when he called on Dawkins, then the later spin they
have tried to put on it, claiming that they cowed Dawkins into
submission during the Q&A after. The only thing certain is that their
message is, "Our version of evolution is the right one, we think ID is
better, but don't plan to tell you what the hell that actually is, and
oh, BTW, evolution leads to atheism, which led to Hitler." If there is
one damn thing in those premises that isn't either delusional,
historically wrong, or showing a vast ignorance of everything about the
subjects they are trying to talk about, its probably that the movie is
"their view". The rest... couldn't be more wrong if they tried to claim
that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain The Lord of the Rings
and that Gandalf was really the first Pope and that the Holocaust was
caused by the rediscovery of the One Ring.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My problem with creationists and the ID people is that they should not ditch
science in favor of the Bible as it makes up for stupid arguments. Instead,
they should understand what the Bible says under the light of science. They
should embrace science and with such ammunition try to understand how God did
it, instead of simply saying: "The Lord said so and so it happened". That
leads nowhere, it does not take us closer to an understandment of God's and our
own nature.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Well, for people that shoot themselves in the foot, this one had to an
> RPG. PZ Myers, a fairly well known, but hardly world wide known, name in
> the so called debate between 1 AD theology and 2008 AD science, and who
> was interviewed, (or more like mugged), for the movie Expelled, has been
> expelled from the line for the movie in the Mall of America. He was
> there in the twin cities, with his family, and other atheists, to attend
> a convention *for* atheists. I will leave the punchline of who **did**
> get let in instead for those reading the post (Hint: This person **is**
> known world wide, and they also misused interview material from him in
> it).
For some reason I didn't understand that paragraph at all.
Anyways, this subject is boring. Could we please pass? I don't think
this server needs yet another "let's all bash ID wackos" megathread.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
