reknowned anti-creationist PZ Myers is denied entrance to see that silly-looking Expelled movie.

(well, I thought it was funny)

who is PZ? is he a raper?

+haha that's great they didn't spot Dawkins, roflmao. Good on them both for going too.

what are your crimes trog? what secrets do you have? why are you afraid of hubbard trog? WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?!?!?!

Death to the infidel creationists!!1!11

I didn't see the funny until I Googled Richard Dawkins. I didn't find it lol-worthy, but I do now see the funny side of it.

heh, silly creationists :p

i hadn't heard about the movie though.. just checked out the utube trailer & alls i can say is this pz myers guy didn't miss much :p it comes across as parody because you now have religiously motivated theorists saying that the 'scientific establishment' (as well as the media, education & well, everyone really) is vilifying them unjustly!!@!! lols go tell it to galileo! at least they aren't publically forced to say that thier work is false, imprisoned & have all your future works banned from publication :p

most massive pot/kettle/black evah :D

dawkins is my hero, whos this guy? well done to him :]

does this PZ chap have a reputation for causing a fuss in public, e.g. at a movie theatre?

if so, I can see why he would be barred, while dawkins, a man who would at least listen politely, would be let in

still, lols

at least they aren't publically forced to say that thier work is false, imprisoned & have all your future works banned from publication

Yeah they are just villified, denied work and have all future works banned from publication. Well at least until they recant thier false and heretic ways anyhow. ;)

Yeah they are just villified, denied work and have all future works banned from publication. Well at least until they recant thier false and heretic ways anyhow. ;)

even if that was true... i'd rather that than imprisonment. :D but it's not true, they aren't vilified, thier works aren't banned from publication. they might get denied work because in the field of science it's a no-brainer when choosing a potential candidate to not pick an applicant that has previously admitted having a non-scientific bias.

Dawkins write-up on the event

PZ - good write up
Dawkins - tl;dr

Wow what crawled up Dawkins bum and died? Man what a fanatic.

Hahaha Dawkins' article was hilarious

Boring and s***ty. Anti-creationists are the new internet fag. Boring and s***ty.

The truth is WONDERFUL a******

Vote 1 Dawkins for new Neo-Darwin office of the inquisitor. :D

Hundreds of years from now when we can manufacture artificial life and manipulate the speed of light, we can have little Dawkin'ites burning scientists at the stake for espousing heratical unsicentific dogma as such must be evil creationists.

Hundreds of years from now when we can manufacture artificial life and manipulate the speed of light, we can have little Dawkin'ites burning scientists at the stake for espousing heratical unsicentific dogma as such must be evil creationists.

nice rant, but what is "artificial life"? either something has life or it doesn't and once given it, how can it be artificial?

Invent artificial life? how bloody unscientific would that be? Such would be life from intellegent design. bah! heracy I say...

Dawkin's would stand by me. :D

'Artificial life' refers to abiogenesis - the creation of life without using previous life. This has happened at least once 'naturally' though.

'Artificial life' refers to abiogenesis

i read that as 'Artificial life' refers to aboriginies

'Artificial life' refers to abiogenesis - the creation of life without using previous life. This has happened at least once 'naturally' though.

By that definition, the ID crowd would have you believe we are already all artificial life?

Also, CaptainCaveman, rant less and form complete sentences more.

last edited by ara at 17:22:45 26/Mar/08

Hundreds of years from now when we can manufacture artificial life and manipulate the speed of light, we can have little Dawkin'ites burning scientists at the stake for espousing heratical unsicentific dogma as such must be evil creationists.

I recognise the words, but that's about it

By that definition, the ID crowd would have you believe we are already all artificial life?

No, because the original formation of life on earth could be a product of circumstances, rather than someone's grand plan.

Organic compounds and proteins would likely have had to be compiled first, and fluked into the right arrangement - probably by the planet cooling, and the weather, and other bulls*** that slowly happened over billions of years. It's a million monkeys working on Shakespeare kind of stuff.

Before Darwinism there was a religion called Deism (which a lot of the founding fathers of America, like Franklin and Washington, believed in). Deism is the idea that although God may have started life, life grows and continues on it's own without the need for any divine intervention for people to have children. Deism pretty much died when Darwin proposed evolution. Darwin does not say how life began - only how life grows and continues, which fits the Deist paradigm perfectly.

Nobody knows how life truly began, I think some scientist has claimed to have achieved abiogenesis but since nobody has made a big deal out of it - I'm guessing he was full of s***. Even if some scientist were to do it - it would only suggest that it could be done, not that it was done that way in the first place. So there's nothing for creationists to be afraid of. Except God, I guess.

last edited by Idol at 19:19:58 26/Mar/08

Also, CaptainCaveman, rant less

Sorry, I was just emulating Dawkins, my hero and inspiration.

Wow, you sound so much like the stereotypical person Dawkins actually writes his books about its almost uncanny

PZ and Dawkins talking about it

Sorry, I was just emulating Dawkins, my hero and inspiration.

sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet to start with, coupled with you not being very good at it, it may be best that you just give up.

you are yet to bring any constructive comments to this thread apart from your rants and snipes at Dawkins.

you are just perpetuating the stereotype of those who blindly attack anything that goes against what they believe in.

HEHEHEHHEHEHEHE, GOD.