• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

UnrepentantSinner said:
Thanks for transcribing what you did grayman.

I'd like to say I was shocked that Rush didn't object to Ben's claim that "if you mention God you're outta here" by asking why Francis Collins, Bob Bakker, Kenneth Miller, etc. still have their jobs, but given how shoddy the rest of the interview was, I wasn't.
Click to expand...


That's because to bring up such an obvious point would mean that Rush is actually willing to express critical thought. As it is, he and Stein are simply parrotting the old "evolution = atheism" canard - they imply that anyone who accepts evolutionary science must, by definition, be an atheist and therefore evil to the core.

Of course, they're going to have a hard time explaining headlines like this where the United Methodist Church at their General Convention has stated that there is no conflict between their religion and evolutionary science. The General Convention also adopted two other resolutions that are very supportive of evolution. The first explicitly adds the acceptance of evolution to the Methodist's Book of Discipline. In part, the resolution states that "We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." You can read the full resolution here

And on the point about Stein "defending the Jews" against evil, Hitler-esque science, it should be noted that the Anti-Defamation League came out with a press release slamming "Expelled" - so much for that bit of b.s. :rolleyes:

Rush Limbaugh and Ben Stein are both scumbags pushing an anti-science agenda for their own purposes. I have no use for either of them except as rhetorical punching bags.
 
DOC said:
They must have worked it out because the film made it to the theatres and it has done reasonably well. And where does it say Harvard in the letter.
Click to expand...




Ooooh my! Thanks! I needed a good laugh.

You should really try to research things a bit better before you make such silly claims. The makers of this anti-scientific pseudo-documentary predicted that it would be a "success" if it made about $12 million during its first weekend. To date, the movie has grossed a total of only $7.2 million after four weeks!

For more information, you can see the free-fall that was Expelled's theatrical release at Box Office Mojo...

In addition, it should be noted that the latest estimates are that only about 1 million people saw the movie, which is horrible (I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and not counting repeaters). That's because of the 300 million in the United States, roughly 70% are Christian - which comes out to 210 million potential viewers. That means that a pathetic 1/210 Christians saw this movie!

To put it in perspective for you, there are roughly 30 million non-theists in the United States.

And before you start crowing about how the DVD market will soon be exploding with copies of Expelled, you should read about this federal injunction against the makers of the movie for possible copyright infringement.

And if that weren't enough, here's a good estimate of how much money this flop of a film will lose in the end (not counting the cost of lawsuits and any potential damages).

Hmmm... seems like you have a very interesting definition of "success" there, DOC :rolleyes:
 
MattusMaximus said:
That's because to bring up such an obvious point would mean that Rush is actually willing to express critical thought. As it is, he and Stein are simply parrotting the old "evolution = atheism" canard
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with them about that. Accepting evolution pulls the rug out from under the whole "purpose" leg of western religions (it is compatible with deism, but so what). I don't see (and neither does Richard Dawkins) how a person who accepts the way evolution has worked, can fit that concept and the religion concepts in his brain at the same time.
 
JoeEllison said:
Why do you support and encourage liars?
Click to expand...

If they were liars, why put in a part of a animation film that was supposedly made for Harvard about the tremendous complexities of the workings of the cell.

Stein went all the way to Paris to interview one scientist who taught at many US universities, named Berlinsky. He was asked if the knowledge Darwin had (of a cell) was a Buick. What could we could we compare the knowledge modern science has about a cell. He said its the difference between a Buick and a galaxy.

One of the scientists said molecular biology is in trouble. Another said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that when some of the scientists he knows have several beers, they start talking differently about where science is at.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/774747dc5f01571c1.gif[/qimg]

Ooooh my! Thanks! I needed a good laugh.

You should really try to research things a bit better before you make such silly claims. The makers of this anti-scientific pseudo-documentary predicted that it would be a "success" if it made about $12 million during its first weekend. To date, the movie has grossed a total of only $7.2 million after four weeks!

For more information, you can see the free-fall that was Expelled's theatrical release at Box Office Mojo...

In addition, it should be noted that the latest estimates are that only about 1 million people saw the movie, which is horrible (I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and not counting repeaters). That's because of the 300 million in the United States, roughly 70% are Christian - which comes out to 210 million potential viewers. That means that a pathetic 1/210 Christians saw this movie!

To put it in perspective for you, there are roughly 30 million non-theists in the United States.

And before you start crowing about how the DVD market will soon be exploding with copies of Expelled, you should read about this federal injunction against the makers of the movie for possible copyright infringement.

And if that weren't enough, here's a good estimate of how much money this flop of a film will lose in the end (not counting the cost of lawsuits and any potential damages).

Hmmm... seems like you have a very interesting definition of "success" there, DOC :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't want people to see the movie.
 
DOC said:
If they were liars, why put in a part of a animation film that was supposedly made for Harvard about the tremendous complexities of the workings of the cell.

Stein went all the way to Paris to interview one scientist who taught at many US universities, named Berlinsky. He was asked if the knowledge Darwin had (of a cell) was a Buick. What could we could we compare the knowledge modern science has about a cell. He said its the difference between a Buick and a galaxy.

One of the scientists said molecular biology is in trouble. Another said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that when some of the scientists he knows have several beers, they start talking differently about where science is at.
Click to expand...

That's about the most ridiculous posting you've made to date that I remember. Congratulations!

What kind of logic is that, "they can't be liars because they put in (stole) an animation that was made by Harvard"?

Oh wow, they went all the way to Paris! If this is not a strong argument, I don't know. :rolleyes:

And yes, of course, when them pesky scientist get drunk, they all turn to Gawd, they repent and all agree with the fundamentalist's indoctrination crap. :rolleyes:

You must be really desperate in your efforts to proselytize, DOC, to post such an embarrassing "message".
 
Last edited:
wahrheit said:
That's about the most ridiculous posting you've made to date that I remember. Congratulations!

What kind of logic is that, "they can't be liars because they put in (stole) an animation that was made by Harvard"?
Click to expand...

Well I had to think of something they might have been lying about. The original poster said they were liars, but didn't mention any lies. If they're trying to be deceitful why put in scientific material (about the cell) from Harvard. Why not just make up lies about what happens in the cell.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If they were liars, why put in a part of a animation film that was supposedly made for Harvard about the tremendous complexities of the workings of the cell.

Stein went all the way to Paris to interview one scientist who taught at many US universities, named Berlinsky. He was asked if the knowledge Darwin had (of a cell) was a Buick. What could we could we compare the knowledge modern science has about a cell. He said its the difference between a Buick and a galaxy.

One of the scientists said molecular biology is in trouble. Another said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that when some of the scientists he knows have several beers, they start talking differently about where science is at.
Click to expand...

So, you accept their lies and stupidity left and right, while rejecting the reality people present to you. Pretty sad on your part.

For instance, are you as stupid as Ben Stein assumes you are, to believe that biologists accept Darwin's theories without modification in 2008? Are you really that stupid? Because, clearly, Stein thinks you are.

And, since the producers of this movie ARE liars, they had no compunction about stealing from John Lennon or the makers of the Harvard animation. Why don't YOU object to their lies and theft?
 
wahrheit said:
And yes, of course, when them pesky scientist get drunk, they all turn to Gawd, they repent and all agree with the fundamentalist's indoctrination crap. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Right... because people behave like they live in a Chick tract. More likely, the guy making that claim is a stupid Liar for Jesus.

Odd how worthless lying pieces of Christian garbage feel like they are superior to honest atheists, since they are lying through their teeth for Jesus.
 
DOC said:
Well I had to think of something they might have been lying about.
Click to expand...
you were given examples of the lies.(e.g., the people weren't fired) You ignored that post because it disagreed with your prejudice.
DOC said:
The original poster said they were liars, but didn't mention any lies.
Click to expand...
The examples were given in subsequent posts. You didn't see that because those posts contradicted your prejudices.

DOC said:
If they're trying to be deceitful why put in scientific material (about the cell) from Harvard. Why not just make up lies about what happens in the cell.
Click to expand...
It's a common tactic to use elements of truth in propoganda. It used as a means of attempting to legitimize the lies they present.
 
joobz said:
you were given examples of the lies.(e.g., the people weren't fired) You ignored that post because it disagreed with your prejudice.
The examples were given in subsequent posts. You didn't see that because those posts contradicted your prejudices.

It's a common tactic to use elements of truth in propoganda. It used as a means of attempting to legitimize the lies they present.
Click to expand...

Serious question: do you think DOC is actually incapable of seeing facts that contradict his prejudice?
 
JoeEllison said:
Serious question: do you think DOC is actually incapable of seeing facts that contradict his prejudice?
Click to expand...
No. I think he sees them, but dismisses them as being unimportant. He'll come up with some reason not to trust it and therefore not ever give it a second thought.

The most amusing example of this is his recent contradictions regarding the bible and whether it is or isn't an amendable document.
 
joobz said:
No. I think he sees them, but dismisses them as being unimportant. He'll come up with some reason not to trust it and therefore not ever give it a second thought.

The most amusing example of this is his recent contradictions regarding the bible and whether it is or isn't an amendable document.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean, I've noticed that DOC comes down on the side of "stupid" on pretty much every single issue he could possibly come across. In the case of "Expelled", even many major Christian groups have recognized the gross dishonesty and misrepresentations of the movie... but not DOC.
 
CurtC said:
Actually, I agree with them about that. Accepting evolution pulls the rug out from under the whole "purpose" leg of western religions (it is compatible with deism, but so what). I don't see (and neither does Richard Dawkins) how a person who accepts the way evolution has worked, can fit that concept and the religion concepts in his brain at the same time.
Click to expand...


I agree with you in that I too cannot understand how religious folk can reconcile the two, yet I know many people (including my wife) who are both religious and accept all aspects of evolutionary science. They clearly find a way to reconcile the two.

It confuses me, but there it is. The fact that there are many religious people who accept evolution is a fact that cannot be denied.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Sounds like you don't want people to see the movie.
Click to expand...


You've got to be kidding, right? The movie has been out for four weeks - people decided on their own not to see the damn thing.

"Expelled" is a box-office turd slowly circling its way towards the sewer of movie oblivion. Accept it and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom