Tuesday, April 15, 2008

ROFL!!

Okay, Angry ERV doesnt stay angry for long if you know the trick-- If you make me laugh, I cant be angry anymore.

Darwin Central made me laugh.

The Official EXPELLED Paternity Test.

H/T to midwifetoad at AtBC!

27 comments:

j said...

That's awesome! I would have put a frame from Ron Vale's animation, myself - but oh wait, there's only one way to illustrate kinesin walking, my bad!

In other news, just when you thought all the irony meters were broken...

...Premise Media sued XVIVO.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2008cv00639/case_id-175993/

marc buhler said...

Don't worry - these sort of mood swings obviously serve some evolutionary purpose.. there *are* good medications available (gin or rum for starters...), but no doubt the IDiots will hit you below the belt again soon and bring it all back to square one.

Tyler DiPietro said...

About the only immediately noticeable difference between the two is the color gradient of the overall scene. The Expelled knock-off has a slightly shifted viewing angle and a depth of field effect in the background, but that's about it in terms of stylistic differences. Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt...

ccfoo said...

Out of 452 articles you have used the term "tard" 296 times. I know you are smart, but you really come off as immature when you label everything something-tard.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"Out of 452 articles you have used the term "tard" 296 times."

Holy crap, you actually went to trouble of getting a figure?

Charles said...

And of course, ccfoo, you feel the need to point this out in one of the posts that doesn't use the word 'tard'?

Anonymous said...

As a newbie here I also have to wonder why this site dedicates so much verbiage to denigrating a movie which, as of this moment, has yet to be released. What's the point?

People will go and see it, or buy it on DVD, or not. I am of the position that the public at large is intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

Tyler DiPietro said...

I love concern trolls.

Nullifidian said...

As a newbie here I also have to wonder why this site dedicates so much verbiage to denigrating a movie which, as of this moment, has yet to be released. What's the point?

People will go and see it, or buy it on DVD, or not. I am of the position that the public at large is intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.


This is getting a wide release in a country whee George W. Bush was elected...twice. I think that says all that needs to be said about the public at large.

pcarini said...

I love the fact that they had to make the vesicle-thingy perfectly spherical in theirs. It's almost as though they can't stand the thought of even the tiniest bits of the body being imperfect.

It also reminds me that people had issues when it was discovered that the planets' orbits aren't perfectly round, and that the sun could have spots.

Martin said...

I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, I've decided I'm so over this movie.

Anonymous said...

'concern trolls?'

Thanks. I have just learned everything I will ever need to know about posting a question here.

By the way, that same 'public' elected Bill Clinton twice, and may be about to elect his wife. So, I guess you are correct.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"Thanks. I have just learned everything I will ever need to know about posting a question here."

Yes, posting leading questions with flawed premises will tend to provoke that kind of reaction.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, posting leading questions with flawed premises will tend to provoke that kind of reaction."

Canned answer number six. I'm impressed.

It just seems reasonable that those who are opposed to the message this movie delivers would be more effective illustrating that opposition after the general public has had a chance to see it, and not before. Otherwise you come across as obstructionist, or arrogant elitist labeling the 'un-enlightened' as so many sheep.

Which books would you have us burn?

Tyler DiPietro said...

"Which books would you have us burn?"

Are you arguing against the idea that you're a concern troll? In that case it may be more effective not to argue my side for me.

Martin said...

Which books would you have us burn?

See, there you go, anon, dutifully spouting the "science is oppressive towards other ideas" meme that Expelled is selling.

In point of fact, those of us in the pro-science camp have been addressing the specific claims the movie makes, point by point. The Expelled Exposed website offers a detailed critique, as does Dawkins' own review. This isn't about trying to shut down the thing before people have had a chance to see it. It's just making sure that the facts are out there to counter the propangandist lies. On principle, none of us has an objection to someone making an ID movie. What we object to is an exercise in rank cinematic slander, which whines about scientific "thought police" while at the same time never once seeing fit to present a scientific argument in favor of ID. And the whole link between science and Hitler is simply too morally offensive for words.

As for waiting until after the movie is out, rather than before, to counter its falsehoods, consider this: If you knew there was someone out there getting ready to spread a lie around that you were, say, a mass murderer or child molester, wouldn't you want to counter that sort of thing before it ended up spread all over the world, or only after?

Anonymous said...

I do not see this as a valid comparison, as legally, there would be little or nothing I could do to this person until after the lie was told.

I also said nothing about science being oppressive.

As for the movie, you and others commenting (I followed Martin's link) have the advantage of having seen the movie where I and most others have not. What you are asking me to do, as much as any movie critic posting a negative review, is accept your word that the film sucks and I should therefore refuse to go see it. You may disagree, and that is fine, but this does reek of an agenda.

I am not ignorant when it comes to evolutionary science. Therefore, I will make you a proposal. I will see the film, compare notes, and then happily return here and let you know if you are correct.

Won't bother me a bit if you are, I would simply rather find out on my own.

Martin said...

I do not see this as a valid comparison, as legally, there would be little or nothing I could do to this person until after the lie was told.

I was making a general statement for illustrative purposes, regarding principles.

I also said nothing about science being oppressive.

Maybe not, but the movie is certainly pounding that theme with a sledgehammer.

As for the movie, you and others commenting (I followed Martin's link) have the advantage of having seen the movie where I and most others have not. What you are asking me to do, as much as any movie critic posting a negative review, is accept your word that the film sucks and I should therefore refuse to go see it. You may disagree, and that is fine, but this does reek of an agenda.

You misunderstand. No one is telling you to refuse to see the film. Those of us who object to the movie only want you to be forearmed with the knowledge, if you do choose to see it, that it is full of falsehoods. In any movie review, you will get critics who think the movie sucks and those who like it, and it's up to you to make your decision to go or not go based on whose reviews you think are persuasive, or none of them at all. In this case, we have a movie that purports to be a documentary, but which makes false claims and has a history of dishonesty on the part of its producers. We just think you should know that.

(For the record, I have not seen the film, only the 5 minute online clip. I am basing my views on what I saw on that clip, as well as reviews I've read by sources I trust as to the credibility of its overall content. No one is saying you should trust those sources too, only that you know there are criticisms out there concerning the film's veracity.)

I am not ignorant when it comes to evolutionary science. Therefore, I will make you a proposal. I will see the film, compare notes, and then happily return here and let you know if you are correct.

Won't bother me a bit if you are, I would simply rather find out on my own.


That's a swell idea. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Damn that's good. Really points out exactly how slimy the Premise Media / Stein folks are.

Richard said...

I notice WW seems to have given up on insisting "It's NOT a copy!" and now simply insists "XVIVO probably doesn't have IP rights!"

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

I notice WW seems to have given up on insisting "It's NOT a copy!" and now simply insists "XVIVO probably doesn't have IP rights!"

Par for the course. Get shown to be dishonest fools here.... shift the argument to here. Rinse repeat.

It's the modus operandi for folks like WW.

ccfoo said...

Holy crap, you actually went to trouble of getting a figure?

Google "tard site:endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com". It isn't that hard...yeah, I guess I should have waited for the next post to point it out.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said...

I always assumed it was a pet name because creationists like DaveScot resembles a tardigrade:

- survives extremes of temperature, pressure, dryness and radiation to use the same erroneous arguments all over again.

- seems closely related to various worms.

- moults frequently ("davescot", "DaveScot", ...).

Hmm. Maybe there is a simpler explanation though...

Rrr said...

While I can't vouch for the statement's veracity, ISTR reading somewhere that TARD could stand for The Argument Regarding Design. But it might have been off some bathroom wall or other. Perhaps the vowel is distorted. YMMV. For external use only. Please read instructions carefully.

Anonymous said...

http://media.pfaw.org/Right/images/stein-expelled.jpg
http://www.gcal.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/morrison/images/pimpf.jpg
Ben Stein's pimpf'n fine!

monado said...

To go with the paternity test, I have the molecule models.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"It isn't that hard...yeah, I guess I should have waited for the next post to point it out."

Well, I mean, you actually give enough of a shit to go through that?

Sounds kinda tardish to me.