Article Ratings & Comments
(1-10 of 10 posts) | Reply
on Dec 31 2008 10:51 AM What an ignorant laughable critique. To show you hot utterly stupid this neo-fascist windbag is read the opening spoof. He fantasizes about Ben Stein playing on a game show where the answer to the million dollar question is one between evolution or God. This idiot apparently doesn't realize that game show questions must be objective, lmao. Yet he backs up his subjective answer by saying that 99% of scientists believe it is evolution. I guess Stein could have easily responded well 99% of humans actually believe it's God, lol. As if the majority of one group's opinion equates to truth... Wow! Can't you just see this douche bag four hundred years ago saying "Now Galileo, the majority of the scientific community says Jupiter revolves around the earth not the sun. But but but I don't care what you see in that telescope thing, these good scientists ALL say you are wrong!" So Ebert argues that Stein's movie is the worst of the year because Stein had the audacity to defy truth by consensus. Ebert would look good in brown. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 01 2009 05:29 AM In reply to this comment (#2218106) Right on Roger! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 03 2009 06:23 PM Roger, Did you watch the entire movie or just the trailer? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 04 2009 04:53 PM Hey Ebert, I thought you were supposed to remove your biased liberal glasses before putting pen to paper. But, As per the norm in liberal dominated critic circles, your religion is you. You couldn't carry Ben Stein's jock strap in a head-to-head intellectual contest. Have a nice afterlife, pal. :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 14 2009 11:02 AM In reply to this comment (#2229126) Have a nice afterlife, pal. :) Heh. I love how so many religous folk take so much pleasure from imagining the damnation of others in an afterlife. Could it be that the whole idea just exists to make sadistic people like Ben here feel self-righteously superior? (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 24 2009 06:02 PM In reply to this comment (#2218106) 99.98% of all scientists do support evolution you tool. Galileo lived 200 years before the age of Modern science, which is why his ideas got so much ridicule at the time. This is an excellent review by Ebert from an incrediblely slanted, poorly editting, disingenuis piece of ****. Saw IV got better reviews than this movie. Hell CATWOMAN got better reviews than this movie. I'm guessing all you wah wahs were just heart-broken to hear what a load of **** this movie was and that there isn't actually a giant conspiracy to keep out Intelligent Design out of science, and that evolution is widely accepted in the scientific community and around the world (even the last three Popes admitted it was true). There is a mountain of evidence for it. God has no place in science because god is by definition the supernatural, and science is by definition the understanding of the NATURAL world. It's not a conspiracy, Mr. Stein (70% of biologists believe in a god). Ben Stein is a hack. Thank you for exposing him Roger Ebert (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 26 2009 10:13 PM I find it so unbelievably frustrating to see what science has become. The fact is, is that both sides are backwards and in themselves, wrong. To believe that god and only god created everything is itself a possibility, but to denounce that claiming that it is a fact that such a belief is incorrect would be just as ignorant as the typical liberal claims a christian or jew is to supposedly be. I think that the best way to define this movie, is to say that simply neither can be proven, and neither may be right, BUT however, no one has ANY right whatsoever to persecute another human being for believing what they believe. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 02 2009 12:21 PM In reply to this comment (#2441457) What has science "become"? Science is science, and will always remain science. There is nothing artificial it. To say that neither can be proven is absurd. One is a fact, with a theory trying to explain why/how this fact occurs. The other is not science, and does not belong in a science classroom. There is no argument that evolution occurs because it is OBSERVED. This is not about how life began, stop confusing the two. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 03 2009 08:01 PM In reply to this comment (#2393991) Although this point comes many a moon after the films DVD release, and thus its relevancy, I just want to point out in regards to your post that the movie does not try to discredit evolution per se, but rather strives to explain what Darwinism does not. Which is to say how Darwin's theory of Natural Selection came to be. We know it exists (and you don't have to be a scientist to see this fact spelled out for you) but simply the film raises the question that in order for such an intelligent process to take place it would need some sort of catalyst, preternatural or coming from Terra Firma genuinely, but Darwin's observations do include this explanation. Evolution exists. Bottom line. Natural-selection perpetuates this. That's a given. But the question still remains as to how exactly natural selection came into play. I'm not religious, and I'm incredibly liberal, and science is my friend. But there have been things science can not explain. God isn't necessarily the answer, nor is any supernatural faith-based being, but I think it is safe to say that Natural Selection only makes up one part of what we see on earth today. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 06 2009 10:38 PM Amen to that Ebert. (Reply to this) |
IGN RSS Feeds