• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

PZ Myers Gets Expelled....Again

rebecca

Banned
R
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
6,818
I was on a press teleconference with Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled today, in which the lines of all the media people were muted and we could only ask questions via email. PZ Myers managed to overhear the access code to get speaking privileges and burst in, demanding the crew stop telling lies and start answering questions. Hee-larious! You can read PZ's account here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php

What amuses me the most is that I happened to be taping the entire thing. You can hear the clip where PZ breaks in over on Skepchick: http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=1190

Sometimes I just love that man.
 
The one positive of stupid people is that they go out of their way to advertise the fact, over and over, often in a rather aggressive manner. Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled are no exception. Thanks for the links!
 
No problem, guys! I just updated that post with an additional clip, and might add more later. As of this moment though I'm having trouble seeing my monitor clearly and think I'm in need of bedtime.

Oh but Robin, I agree, I've been laughing about that video for the past hour!
 
Check out Christopher Hitchens in that video: an "I [Heart] [booze]" headband, and is that a blunt in his mouth?

That guy could rival MC Hawking
 
Last edited:
That made me feel warm and fuzzy.

Sure, we're all dead when they gain power, but it is funny as hell today.
 
rebecca needs a splashy graphic and swoosh sound before the announcer says "a skepchick exclusive!". Great post.

Funny how one of the guys says "that's too bad [that Myers hung up the phone], I would have like to have gone over the points one by one" after Myers is told to do the "honorable" thing and hang up.

Where was that guy when Myers was on the line?

and that YT clip is hilarious. Also fun reading the comments about people arguing about whether it's pro-creationist or pro-science.
 
A comment at PZ's blog:

Sign that it was made by the creationists/Expelled crew:

Lyrics.
Looks like it cost money to make.

Sign that it was not by the Expelled crew:

Whoever made the video knows what Richard Dawkins looks like.

That made me laugh. Of course, I think the lyrics are pretty damn impressive once you understand them... clearly a smart person. Richard is confused about whose side they are on:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2409,n,n

I've never met a bright creationist, so I say "ours"--
 
articulett said:
A comment at PZ's blog:

Sign that it was made by the creationists/Expelled crew:

Lyrics.
Looks like it cost money to make.

Sign that it was not by the Expelled crew:

Whoever made the video knows what Richard Dawkins looks like.

That made me laugh. Of course, I think the lyrics are pretty damn impressive once you understand them... clearly a smart person. Richard is confused about whose side they are on:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2409,n,n

I've never met a bright creationist, so I say "ours"--
Click to expand...

Someone over there posted the lyrics, and passages like this

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.
Click to expand...

do not sound very pro creationism to me.
 
I'm looking forward to the next opportunity when I can use the line, "We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid."
 
The condescension in that conference call is truly disgusting. I think myers stated a good argument, but wasn't given enough time to present counter examples to support his argument (examples of systematic murder prior to evolution) but then he really shouldn't need to give examples as they're so painfully obvious.

One thing I noticed that may not be obvious to persons who've never been involved in creationism, one individual can be heard saying 'aw I wanted to hear his argument'. Now I may be being too generous, but in my humble opinion, this guy was pretending to be condescending because he was afraid of the disapproval of his peers. I think he legitimately wanted to hear Mr. Myers viewpoint, but he chose his wording and did not stand up to the moderator for fear of disapproval. His ignorance is the price he's paying now, and his cause suffers further embarrassment that he could have prevented had he stood his ground. I think a good lesson in standing up for what you believe is right, can be found here.



/ I also think this verse is appropriate:

Proverbs 9:7-9 NASB
"He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser, Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning."

eta: don't assume this only applies to the conference call, it also bears relevance to the video to the video as amusing as it was.
 
Last edited:
Whack01 said:
The condescension in that conference call is truly disgusting. I think myers stated a good argument, but wasn't given enough time to present counter examples to support his argument (examples of systematic murder prior to evolution) but then he really shouldn't need to give examples as they're so painfully obvious.

One thing I noticed that may not be obvious to persons who've never been involved in creationism, one individual can be heard saying 'aw I wanted to hear his argument'. Now I may be being too generous, but in my humble opinion, this guy was pretending to be condescending because he was afraid of the disapproval of his peers. I think he legitimately wanted to hear Mr. Myers viewpoint, but he chose his wording and did not stand up to the moderator for fear of disapproval. His ignorance is the price he's paying now, and his cause suffers further embarrassment that he could have prevented had he stood his ground. I think a good lesson in standing up for what you believe is right, can be found here.



/ I also think this verse is appropriate:

Proverbs 9:7-9 NASB
"He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser, Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning."

eta: don't assume this only applies to the conference call, it also bears relevance to the video to the video as amusing as it was.
Click to expand...

I've said it before indirectly, but we need more guys like you on this forum. Thanks for your reasonable approach to an argument. Your avatar name does not do you justice.
 
Olowkow said:
I've said it before indirectly, but we need more guys like you on this forum. Thanks for your reasonable approach to an argument. Your avatar name does not do you justice.
Click to expand...

lol thanks. I've used this name since about '94ish when I was getting kicked off AOL for calling people bad names.

Don't let me fool you with reasonableness though, I have my own share of 'woo'. I'm just not arguing it here because I've been so out of it for the last few years that I'm aware that I am currently intellectually unready to even present my woo let alone argue it coherently.


My woo has to do with the alteration of the refraction/diffraction of light in post flood genesis & how this affects the internal consistency of a creationist viewpoint. People simply read about the genesis flood and the rainbow and think 'ooo pretty colors', but don't take the passage seriously enough to consider the implications of light having ever not refracted as it currently does.

There are pros and cons for creationists in considering the refraction of light. However, the difficulty is that one still needs to have faith that altering the refraction/diffraction of light while preserving the rest of the natural order is actually possible. For example while altering the refraction of light could alleviate disproofs based upon the age of the earth via radioactive dating, it causes greater problems by implying important fundamentals which affect everything from radioactivity to DNA protein folding were once different. However, this alteration in refraction does take place after a cataclysm though doesn't it? so something could have happened :D

/note: the genesis rainbow can be read as altering refraction, and revelations *may* require an alteration in diffraction, as the earth is illuminated from a point source, though I'm much less confident about the biblical necessity of this.

eta: 'light having ever not refracted as it currently does' is not intended to say light didn't refract, only that the angles were different.
eeta: I'm not going to argue this here, as I said I'm intellectually unready to even present it properly, I'm just giving this as an example.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom