Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Evolution Censorship

[wuxi]

This is an interesting documentary about how scientists that believe creationism could be possible are marginalized, blacklisted and ultimately silenced.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer)



Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 1 of 10)

[Winston]

That is dumb. They obviously want us to think that we are animals, to keep us in left brain body consciousness, as David Icke says.

Evolution on the macro level has not been proven. No missing link or transitional fossils have been found. And no scientific explanation exists for the sudden onset of human intelligence and the huge sudden loss of muscle mass from primate to human.

Plus there is a ton of DNA and genetic evidence that we did not directly descend from primates.

See Lloyd Pye's presentation on this. It's pretty inescapable.

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8[/youtube]

[globetrotter]

That is dumb. They obviously want us to think that we are animals,

Humans are animals:

Kingdom: animalia
Phylum: chordata
Class: mammalia
Order: primate
Family: homindae
Genus: homo
Species: homo sapiens
Sub-Species:homo sapiens sapiens

The other kingdom choices are Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria, or Mineral.

[Winston]

That is dumb. They obviously want us to think that we are animals,

Humans are animals:

Kingdom: animalia
Phylum: chordata
Class: mammalia
Order: primate
Family: homindae
Genus: homo
Species: homo sapiens
Sub-Species:homo sapiens sapiens

The other kingdom choices are Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria, or Mineral.

Animals do not ask about the meaning of life. They do not reason. They do not suddenly lose all their muscle mass and develop intelligence. They are adapted to nature and the wild. Human bodies are not. Chimps have 48 chromosones. Humans only 46. Geneticists say our genes indicate we are only 200,000 years old, far too recent to be descended from macro evolution.

Even Carl Sagan can't explain that.

Watch the video I posted above.

There is no real consensus. It's a manufactured consensus whereby if you don't agree with the party line, you don't advance and get funding/careers. Works the same in any established institution. You either agree, or don't get in.

[Think Different]

"There is no real consensus. It's a manufactured consensus whereby if you don't agree with the party line, you don't advance and get funding/careers. Works the same in any established institution. You either agree, or don't get in."

Same goes for "global warming", which after being proven wrong, was later termed "climate change", and now most recently "global climate disruption".

Of course, us "simple people" aren't supposed to notice any of these changes in terminology or ask why they're being made. I doubt most scientists buy into a lot of sketchy theories, but if they don't toe the "party line", they get ostracized, shunned, banned, and ridiculed. Personally, I'd not want to be a scientist, because I'd have to live a lie all the time just for some more milk from the government grant teat. If you think about it, the bullying that the scientific community "consensus" imposes on the public and their own members is no less offensive than the bullying that the medieval Catholic church imposed on the likes of Galileo. It's just now, the tables have turned.

[The_Adventurer]

It's like that in the medical world too. 150 years ago there were many schools of medicine and varying kinds of practice. All were alike successful to some degree. A few rich pharmaceutical families, though, decided for everyone that drugs and surgery were the only "accepted" means of healing and all other schools were pressured to join in or go under.

Today we have a resurgence of chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal medicine and other methods, but back then, one group, the one with the money, ruled everything. To this day people still go for destructive chemotherapy and invasive surgeries for cancer when there's plenty of testimony from people healed by less harmful methods. (usually in Europe or Japan not in America)

Most drugs sold in the US would not be allowed on the market in Europe.

[Winston]

Hi all,
I just finished watching "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It was very good and engaging. And it was successful in proving that there IS in fact suppression of freethought and dissent in the scientific community, to the point that if you publish one article about intelligent design (not about God or religion), then your career is over and you are blacklisted from rehire. This goes for scientists, professors and journalists as well.

What was revealing was that in the end (part 10) Richard Dawkins admitted that he and no one else knows how life began and how the first cell become self-replicating. He said that no one, including him, had the answer to that. Ben Stein should have then asked "So if no one knows, why can't God be a possibility?" but he didn't.

However, the film lacked in several areas:

1) It did not present the core arguments of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design so it was not educational in that sense. It mostly presented soundbytes on both sides and focused on the suppression of dissension in the science establishment while interviewing those who lost their careers for writing about intelligent design. It should have presented the key arguments on both sides and weighed them.

2) At one point, the film lumped the Darwinists and the Nazi Eugenicists into the same category, as though one leads to the other. That is a big jump and would offend many Darwinists and Atheists. Most Atheists have decent morals and do not advocate murder, eugenics, ethnic cleansing or mass genocide. That would be the equivalent of lumping all intelligent design believers with Bible thumpers and those who want the government to be based on a theocracy.

3) There was too much propaganda about "freedom is what makes America great" as if no other country has freedom but America. That is a pure myth and religious mantra not supported by any evidence or logical reasons. In most countries (not North Korea or the Middle East) as long as you obey the laws and pay your bills, you can do whatever you want or go anywhere you want, which is the same for America. There is no evidence that the US has less laws and regulations than most countries, but in fact probably has more.

Anyway, you should all see the whole film. It was eye opening and worth watching, yet disturbing at the same time when you realize how truth and open discussion is suppressed in America.

[Winston]

Why Evolution is scientifically impossible.

[BellaRuth]

I have a friend who is studying a PhD in advanced physics at a very good university. He believes in Creationism rather than Evolution and even, last time I talked to him, an 8000 year old Earth (or thereabouts). Most would find that completely stupid, but he is a very intelligent man who knows what he is talking about, far more than most people.

Shows how much scope there is for disagreement still even amongst those who know a lot about science.

Whenever I watch science programmes they round up the most intelligent people they can find to speak on whatever subject it is and they all disagree to the point of having completely opposite views.

As for me I buy into evolution. I almost became a biologist and still love the subject. Evolution makes sense to me and I think it's a beautiful story once you dive into it, especially if you listen to Richard Dawkins talk you through! But of course, we never fully know. It's just another myth of our times that may or may not be true. I can easily poke holes in evolution myself.

The dangerous thing about Creationism is a God has to be involved. In evolution, a god may or may not be, up to you, so it pleases almsot everybody except fundamentalists. If scientists start saying Creationism is real, that's one hell of a can of worms they've opened.

[odbo]

thanks for bringing up this old thread, you reminded me what a f***ing jackass globetrotter is/was

another reason to get out of the anglo world... half-baked intellectuals like him.