Originally posted by KellyJayVery poetic, but I still don't get your point.
We have a small window to look at things, that window is right now!
We can see several things and make judgments about the past and
the future, we can try to predict the way things are going to play out
in the here and now, or suggest how we think they did play out in the
past. Right now you see life as is, you project into the past and the
future what ...[text shortened]... undertaking. I think you are avoiding the comparisons for
whatever reasons you may have.
Kelly
As machines cannot evolve and organisms can and do, any analogy discussing evolution (which is the major point that distinguishes one from the other) is invalid.
Originally posted by RetrovirusIf you are saying machines cannot change, you are wrong, you can
Very poetic, but I still don't get your point.
As machines cannot evolve and organisms can and do, any analogy discussing evolution (which is the major point that distinguishes one from the other) is invalid.
alter a machine, upgrade it. You can alter software, change out various
parts of hardware, it takes effort, but that again is the subject isn't it
the effort into making change. I can by design cause software to
change given conditions, by either time or conditions, the machine
itself could by design add its own hardware or software to itself, by
design! I fail to see what you are still complaining about, at worst for
your side you have given me other reasons to see how they are the
same not different.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAh - the machine can be changed through design, but the organism can change through evolution.
If you are saying machines cannot change, you are wrong, you can
alter a machine, upgrade it. You can alter software, change out various
parts of hardware, it takes effort, but that again is the subject isn't it
the effort into making change. I can by design cause software to
change given conditions, by either time or conditions, the machine
itself cou ...[text shortened]...
your side you have given me other reasons to see how they are the
same not different.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut this is exactly why moore is a dumbass too. The point of a documentary is to document, i.e. present the information. The movie is pure propaganda, it manipulates situations and facts to present the "thruth" as he wants you to view it. Not as it is. He presents the facts in such a way as to create a situation that actually doesn't exist. There is NO elite, pro eugenics, nazi scientific community, which is what he implies over and over and over. What actually exists is a community who's sole purpose is to make sure what is presented as scientifically valid is actually scientifically valid and not politically driven.
"Any evolutionist being interview has their character assaulted by clips and such micheal moore style. "
I saw that too. I'm not sure you can do a documentary and depending
on what side of the fence it is pushing that some one will not feel that
way.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIts a documentary it's not fictional. It misrepresents the truth to push an agenda and manipulate people, this is propaganda, which certainly in my book is not a good thing.
A film with a point of view typically will always be like that, you thought
it was going to be something else?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut a documentary can present the information and make its points, it shouldn't manipulate the information to create a point, that otherwise wouldn't exist.
While your point about Moore is valid, a documentary can never merely present information. The medium is the message.
Originally posted by MexicoThrough selection and, necessarily, exclusion, a documentary cannot do otherwise than make a point that would otherwise not exist.
But a documentary can present the information and make its points, it shouldn't manipulate the information to create a point, that otherwise wouldn't exist.
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes but this isn't making a point through accurate information, it manipulates the information to create a point. As in a lot of the stories told aren't actually what happened. An some outright lying, such as the all scientists encouraging mass murder. direct quote
Through selection and, necessarily, exclusion, a documentary cannot do otherwise than make a point that would otherwise not exist.
When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed
Here he uses his background (judaisim) to manipulate the fact that hitler based his eugenics programs on pseudo scientific interpretation of Darwin's original theories, which is patently untrue anyway. He continually and intentionally, mis quotes, mis represents and outright lies about the subject matter. The approach is to suppress peoples rational thought and force an emotional response. I wouldn't mind if he simply presented the cases that help his point, expressed his opinions, and even left out the information that doesn't suit him. he doesn't, he emotionally manipulates his audience by presenting half truths about evolutionary theory and playing footage of Nazi germany over them, I dare say most of them lack any understanding of the subject matter and have already made up their minds anyway but still this is dangerous emotional manipulation of people, to the point where he's almost encouraging people to protest in the streets against science in general.
Hey KJ read this article and see how many of you ID arguments still hold any water will you?
Seriously anything this doesn't cover I'll gladly discuss.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620
Here's one part about your misunderstanding of the word Theory.
Evolution is just a theory
Yes it is, like Einstein's theory of special relativity. By theory, scientists mean an explanation backed by evidence. What creationists mean is that evolution is just a hypothesis, unsupported by evidence - which it is not. Evolution is a fact as well a theory.
The clash between general relativity and quantum theory means there are serious problems with our theory of gravity, does that mean things don't fall down? It makes no more sense to question the reality of evolution because scientists are still debating about some of its finer aspects than it does to question the existence of gravity for the same reason. There are still plenty of details to fill in but, as surely as dropped objects fall, life has and continues to evolve.
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. The "mistakes" were systemic to the movie, not random. They were in there by design, not chance, even from what I saw in the trailer. This is deliberate deception.
I am not ignoring your points, if what the movie said was not true,
it was either a lie or mistake. Just as if the web sites highlighting the
how bad the movie is, if they are making false statements that are
either lies or mistakes they too are flawed. I have said this a couple of
times now.
Kelly
Jesus would be soooooo proud.