The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

A Thank You from TOAF

Posted 28 June 2011 by Guest Contributor

On behalf of the TalkOrigins Foundation, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to our campaign to bid on the motion picture "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Unfortunately, we were unable to bid high enough to purchase the film. The response to this last-minute campaign was overwhelming. I had expected we might raise about $5,000. If we had raised $8,000, I would have been very pleased. Instead, between Thursday (June 23), when we announced the campaign, and yesterday (June 27), we received 394 donations through our Paypal account, totaling $16,152.66. We also received pledges of funds from several individuals, including Professor Richard Dawkins, totaling another $32,200.00. Combined with the funds the Foundation already had on hand, we had just over $50,000 available to bid on the film (and pay the 10% buyer's premium). The winning bid, however, was $201,000. Because all of the bidders were anonymous, we do not know identity of the winning bidder. Although we were unsuccessful in purchasing the film, I do not believe this campaign was a waste of time. If nothing else, it demonstrated the commitment so many of you have to the tenets of scientific inquiry. The Foundation's directors have discussed what to do in the event we were unsuccessful in purchasing the film. We had stated in our fundraising solicitation that we could not guarantee a return of any donations. That said, it has been our intent from the beginning to return all of the donations to this campaign, if that could be done. It appears that Paypal will allow us to refund contributions made by credit card or from a Paypal balance. (I do not know yet about those few eCheck transactions we received, but we will attempt to refund those as well.) It will take some time for the refunding to be completed. We cannot even begin refunding donations until we can transfer funds back from the Foundation's bank account to Paypal, which will take a few days to clear. Rest assured, however, that we will move as quickly as we can to complete the refunds. Many of you have stated that you were happy with the Foundation keeping your donation in the event we were not successful in bidding on "Expelled." Although we greatly appreciate the sentiment, it will be simpler for us to return all donations made since June 23 than to sort out who does and who does not want their donation returned. Our thanks again to all of you who contributed to this campaign. Kenneth Fair
Secretary/Treasurer, TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.

127 Comments

Bobsie · 28 June 2011

Of course, as soon as you get your refund, you could turn around and re-donate it back to TOAF. They are the good guys.

jaranath · 28 June 2011

Now THAT'S class.

I didn't donate much, but I'll re-donate double. TO is worth it.

JimNorth · 28 June 2011

That was fun. When do we get to re-donate?

(btw, the winning bidder 8461 is probably an evilutionist - the thirteenth bid has the number 666 in it.)

Reed A. Cartwright · 28 June 2011

Looks like the winning bidder and the under bidder were both new registrants to the system based on their ID numbers. So I suspect that they registered just to bid on the Expelled properties. This likely means that they were either a creationist outfit trying to secure the rights to Expelled or someone in the media industry that wanted to add Expelled to its film library.

Given the amount of money spent, I suspect that the latter is more likely. Of course if a creationist organization was driving up the price this morning because they didn't want TOAF to get it, I would consider it a job done.

John Pieret · 28 June 2011

Rats. Now I'll have to do the Paypal thing all over again.

Ray Martinez · 28 June 2011

Looks like the wolves at Talk.Origins have been denied access to the hen house : )

Let's hope the winning bidder is a real sheep, and not a wolf in sheeps clothing ("Christian" Evolutionist).

Kenneth Fair · 28 June 2011

Like Reed, given the amount of money spent, I too think this was more likely to be a purchase by a media investor rather than a creationist outfit. But it's hard to say, since we do not know (and may never know) who the winning bidder was.

Frank J · 28 June 2011

Ray, why should it matter to you who the winning bidder is? The book you have been promising us for years is supposed to have the only refutation of "Darwinism" ever needed.

To any reader who is unfamiliar with Ray, he includes Discovery Institute IDers among the "wolves" (“Christian” Evolutionists).

mrg · 28 June 2011

Frank J said: Ray, why should it matter to you who the winning bidder is?
Oh, it's just something to complain about. He's always got to be whingeing about something, after all; it's not like he ever wants to do anyone any good. Do you ever have anything good to say about anyone or anything, Ray? Link?

kohoutek1976 · 28 June 2011

This was fun! And very interesting - another idea for an article. I assume that sooner or later we will find out who or what outfit owns Expelled if it is distributed again.

One thing that can be said, about this auction, the Synthese affair, Granville Sewell's paper, and Richard Sternberg's shenanigans: intelligent design is polarizing, divisive. It disrupts, not contributes to, the acquisition of knowledge via peer review and publication or production. That is ID's legacy no matter what the fate of Expelled.

At any rate, I'll be happy to return my refund! (P.S. This is "Kristine" - I cannot resurrect my old login for some reason.)

harold · 28 June 2011

Ray Martinez -

If only people who are predestined to damnation accept the theory of evolution anyway, why do you waste your time talking about it?

You have dodged this question several times now. I conclude that your stated beliefs do not coincide with your true beliefs.

harold · 28 June 2011

Kenneth Fair -

Please keep my donation. If it happens that you do return it, and I notice that, I will re-donate.

paulroub · 28 June 2011

What if I'd rather you keep my donation? Is there some way I can confirm that to you?

apokryltaros · 28 June 2011

harold said: Ray Martinez - If only people who are predestined to damnation accept the theory of evolution anyway, why do you waste your time talking about it? You have dodged this question several times now. I conclude that your stated beliefs do not coincide with your true beliefs.
Ray Martinez is either a sneering bigot who thinks that he is the only person ever to be allowed into Heaven, or he is a poe too wrapped up in playing the role of a sneering bigot. If he's genuine about his bigotry, why would he bother caring about who gets "Expelled"? After all, he routinely denounces other creationists, especially the ones who made "Expelled" in the first place, as being evolutionist whores for not agreeing with him 1100%

SWT · 28 June 2011

Kenneth Fair said: Like Reed, given the amount of money spent, I too think this was more likely to be a purchase by a media investor rather than a creationist outfit. But it's hard to say, since we do not know (and may never know) who the winning bidder was.
Perhaps the new owner will recognize the there's a market for the documentary "Behind Expelled: The Lost Interviews". I'd probably be willing to shell out a few bucks for a well put together documentary that compared and contrasted what was said, in context, in the "Expelled" interviews vs. what actually made it to the final cut.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 28 June 2011

I never did see much point in trying to acquire it, although I'd be interested in any of the communications involving it, if they came with the movie. In many ways I'd just rather see it die.

It's all well and good that it not totally die, however, simply because the movie is so up-front about ID's pushing of the "God hypothesis." It was absurd of them to show state legislators this movie as they tried to get teach the weaknesses teach ID antievolution lies bills, when the movie itself frankly favors theocracy.

The showings of Expelled to legislators would be prime evidence that teaching antievolution lies really is all about getting God into the classroom, and even into the science lab (what he'd do there is anyone's guess).

Glen Davidson

rich.e.clayton · 28 June 2011

Well, dang. So much for Expelled: Pop-Up Video Edition.

Lucky for us the facts still speak for themselves. (^_^)

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/buckled.jpg

FL · 28 June 2011

I have followed this story with much interest.

I have no idea who won the bidding, but it's good to see who lost.

FL

Steve Matheson · 28 June 2011

FL said: I have followed this story with much interest. I have no idea who won the bidding, but it's good to see who lost.
FL, are you curious about the footage that didn't make the final cut?

ogremk5 · 28 June 2011

Naw, FL isn't curious. Even if he saw the complete interviews, he wouldn't 'see' them.

As far as Ray, when are you going to answer my questions over on FRDB? You said you would answer them in your next post and you haven't post there since?

"If it's the truth, why do you have to lie to defend it?"

calilasseia · 28 June 2011

Ray Martinez said: Looks like the wolves at Talk.Origins have been denied access to the hen house : )
A more apt piece of imagery would be that the pest controllers have been denied access to the termite nest.
Ray Martinez said: Let's hope the winning bidder is a real sheep, and not a wolf in sheeps clothing ("Christian" Evolutionist).
That doesn't leave many options, Ray, given that you've laughably described numerous creationists as "evolutionists" in the past, such as those people over at AiG. By the way Ray, are you still peddling your "immutable species" excrement? Only aquarium fishes the world over are laughing at that. I'll let you work out why.

calilasseia · 28 June 2011

Kenneth Fair said: Like Reed, given the amount of money spent, I too think this was more likely to be a purchase by a media investor rather than a creationist outfit. But it's hard to say, since we do not know (and may never know) who the winning bidder was.
Well it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for one or two creationist outfits to deploy that kind of money. After all, Ken Ham was able to blow $27 million on his concentration camp for the mind in Kentucky. He's also gearing up to spend yet more millions on his theme park rendition of Cap'n Noah's fantasy floating petting zoo. Though given the recent machinations Ken Ham has been engaging in to try and garner tax dollars for this latest exercise in pushing creationist doctrine onto the gullible, perhaps he's a bit strapped for cash lately. Mind you, it's not as if we're lacking in rich televangelists who could find $210,000 out of their loose change for this exercise. People like Benny Hinn, who persuaded the gullible rubes to pony up $36 million for a Gulfstream IV SP business jet, and who as a corollary is probably making mafia godfathers everywhere seethe with envy. Wish I could persuade people to give me money like that. But then I'm not dishonest enough to make unctuous noises about Jeebu$ whilst worshipping the almighty dollar.
SWT said: Perhaps the new owner will recognize the there's a market for the documentary "Behind Expelled: The Lost Interviews". I'd probably be willing to shell out a few bucks for a well put together documentary that compared and contrasted what was said, in context, in the "Expelled" interviews vs. what actually made it to the final cut.
I admire your optimism. Unfortunately, even if the winning bidder is a media outfit, rather than another of the numerous liars for Republican Jesus, given the schlock that's emerged from Hollywood and some of the TV channels of late, the idea that you'll get a quality documentary on the subject is, in my view, up there with the idea that Scarlett Johanssen is going to come knocking on my door in nothing but a baby doll nightdress asking me to father her first child.

MichaelJ · 28 June 2011

I don't think it was a creationist outfit because they love any excuse for fund raising and they would have sent out a scare emails on how the atheists want to bury the movie. Also they would be crowing about how they won it.

Also I'll re-donate when I get a refund.

MichaelJ · 28 June 2011

... although it would be funny to see 2 creationist outfits bidding up the property to 200k long after Panda's had given up.

Rolf · 28 June 2011

FL said: I have followed this story with much interest. I have no idea who won the bidding, but it's good to see who lost. FL
That figures; the 'loser' in this case is the outfit that you could rely on to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth out and made made public but you wouldn't want that, would you? But we don't know yet if truth and justice really is the loser, let's pray (you'll join in, won't you?) that expelled will get the exposure it deserves.

Frank J · 28 June 2011

Wow. A YEC (FL) and and OEC (Ray) on the same thread. And neither of them sounding much like Jesus with their gloating.

C'mon guys, how about an old fashioned Gish-Ross debate. Put your "science" where your mouths are.

Ron Okimoto · 28 June 2011

I do not want a refund. Keep my donation and apply it to TOAF.

harold · 28 June 2011

Just thought of something hilarious - I wonder if the buyer might have been Ben Stein himself.

Gary_Hurd · 28 June 2011

Like many people (I think), I made a contingent pledge that I would honor if TOAF had won the bidding.

I had no freaking idea that this would have gone so high. $201K US for a crappy movie!!!??? The "literary" property must have held some real problems for the creationists.

I am sure all will be destroyed by Friday (Thursday is the last day the winner has to claim the prize).

mrg · 28 June 2011

Gary_Hurd said: I had no freaking idea that this would have gone so high. $201K US for a crappy movie!!!???
Which poses the interesting question of just how much money there is in constructing cheesy crank documentaries. Alex Jones of "prisonplanet.net" cooks up nutcase Illuminati-conspiracy DVDs on a regular basis ... suddenly I get the creepy feeling he's getting rich off of them.

Ray Martinez · 28 June 2011

Frank J said: Ray, why should it matter to you who the winning bidder is? The book you have been promising us for years is supposed to have the only refutation of "Darwinism" ever needed. To any reader who is unfamiliar with Ray, he includes Discovery Institute IDers among the "wolves" (“Christian” Evolutionists).
If a Darwinist wins then the documentary falls into the hands of the enemy, why else would Talk.Origins want it? And my book is still in progress, coming along just fine.

Ray Martinez · 28 June 2011

[For people who do not know: Cali is a Moderator/Administrator over at RichardDawkins.net; he/she also defends evolutionary theory around the Internet on different sites]
calilasseia said:
Ray Martinez said: Let's hope the winning bidder is a real sheep, and not a wolf in sheeps clothing ("Christian" Evolutionist).
That doesn't leave many options, Ray, given that you've laughably described numerous creationists as "evolutionists" in the past, such as those people over at AiG. By the way Ray, are you still peddling your "immutable species" excrement? Only aquarium fishes the world over are laughing at that. I'll let you work out why.
The Fundies over at AiG accept species mutability (microevolution), limited macroevolution/natural selection. Yes, they are in YOUR bed, Cali. You've been able to convince the dumbest people in Western society, nice accomplishment. And I have a standing challenge over at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups): Supply evidence of a Darwinian modification, in species, accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process, and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trash can. Please, no attempts here, as I am censored routinely. RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist-anti-selectionist)

circleh · 28 June 2011

Ray Martinez said: If a Darwinist wins then the documentary falls into the hands of the enemy, why else would Talk.Origins want it? And my book is still in progress, coming along just fine.
FL said: I have followed this story with much interest. I have no idea who won the bidding, but it's good to see who lost. FL
I couldn't care less who gets that movie, as long as nearly everyone knows how utterly worthless it is. Every cent spent on making that movie or buying it just now was wasted, IMO.

circleh · 28 June 2011

Ray Martinez said: [For people who do not know: Cali is a Moderator/Administrator over at RichardDawkins.net; he/she also defends evolutionary theory around the Internet on different sites] The Fundies over at AiG accept species mutability (microevolution), limited macroevolution/natural selection. Yes, they are in YOUR bed, Cali. You've been able to convince the dumbest people in Western society, nice accomplishment. And I have a standing challenge over at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups): Supply evidence of a Darwinian modification, in species, accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process, and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trash can. Please, no attempts here, as I am censored routinely. RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist-anti-selectionist)
Microevolution is a fact. Your inablility to deal with reality is not anyone's fault but your own. Attacking Answers In Genesis for admitting to the obvious (while denying the slightly not-so-obvious), is as useful as a ton of cow manure in a public swimming pool. I know you are lying outright about being willing to toss your Bible, so your challenge is pointless. There are a lot of reasons to toss the Bible that have nothing to do with evolution.

mrg · 28 June 2011

Ray Martinez said: Please, no attempts here, as I am censored routinely.
Oh Ray, what of it? You can't get by without having something to whine about, it's all we can ever expect from you. You never have anything good to say about anybody or anything, do you? Link? I wish you a long and healthy life, Ray. Because I know you'll be just as sour and miserable for all the rest of it as you are now -- and you deserve the maximum sentence.

phantomreader42 · 28 June 2011

Frank J said: Wow. A YEC (FL) and and OEC (Ray) on the same thread. And neither of them sounding much like Jesus with their gloating. C'mon guys, how about an old fashioned Gish-Ross debate. Put your "science" where your mouths are.
They're too cowardly. They both know they're full of shit, and addressing the differences in the ways they're full of shit will only make that fact more obvious.

mrg · 28 June 2011

phantomreader42 said: They're too cowardly.
Geez, what do they have to debate? YEC or OEC, it would be just squabbling over the paint job. It's all about hating evolution, and since there's nothing to any form of creationism but variations on POOF! -- well, if they couldn't hate evolution, it wouldn't leave them with much to discuss.

raven · 28 June 2011

When you refund my donation, I'm just going to send it back and this time you will have to keep it.

raven · 28 June 2011

I'm not too surprised TOAF was outbid. It was always going to be an uphill struggle.

The churches are flush with money.

I calculate that the creationists spend $50 million per year. All of it is on anti-science propaganda, more or less none on "creation research". How hard is it to wave your hands and say goddidit anyway?

The US churches themselves take in ca. $90 billion per year. That is a huge amount. I don't even want to think about what they spend it on, a lot is for their endless hate campaigns.

fnxtr · 28 June 2011

harold said: Just thought of something hilarious - I wonder if the buyer might have been Ben Stein himself.
Maybe it was Travolta or Cruise or some similar nutjob.

mrg · 28 June 2011

fnxtr said: Maybe it was Travolta or Cruise or some similar nutjob.
No, they're from a different mad parallel dimension than creationists.

circleh · 28 June 2011

raven said: The churches are flush with money. The US churches themselves take in ca. $90 billion per year. That is a huge amount. I don't even want to think about what they spend it on, a lot is for their endless hate campaigns.
Would that include Unitarian Universalist churches? They seem to be the very opposite of hatemongers. I would suggest that people take their refunds from the TalkOrigins Foundation and send them to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee: http://www.uusc.org/ http://www.uusc.org/about_UUSC

The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) is a nonsectarian organization that advances human rights and social justice in the United States and around the world. We envision a world free from oppression and injustice, where all can realize their full human rights. Through a combination of advocacy, education, and partnerships with grassroots organizations, UUSC promotes economic rights, advances environmental justice, defends civil liberties, and preserves the rights of people in times of humanitarian crisis. We also engage local communities through two experiential-learning programs, JustWorks and JustJourneys, which introduce participants to the work of our domestic and overseas partners — who are often on the front lines of addressing social-justice issues. Our work is built on the conviction that all people are entitled to basic human rights, which transcend divisions of class, race, nationality, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and gender. We rely on our members and supporters — people just like you — to fund our programs. Anyone wishing to support human rights and social justice is welcome to join us. UUSC is an associate member of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), but receives no general financial support from the UUA. Neither do we receive funding from federal or state governments or institutions, ensuring our independent voice. Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, UUSC is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

You don't have to be a Unitarian Universalist to contribute to it, and the causes it favors have universal appeal.

Dave Luckett · 28 June 2011

Dale, the causes it favors may or may not have universal appeal. For me, for instance, it would very much depend on exactly what the UU's think are "universal human rights". But that to one side. It's generally not thought polite here for people like FL or Biggy to tout their church, and even they haven't gone so far as to solicit donations to them, whatever they are. What makes you think you should?

SWT · 28 June 2011

circleh said: I would suggest that people take their refunds from the TalkOrigins Foundation and send them to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee:
I'd suggest that people take their refunds and either re-donate them to TOAF or support NCSE -- both organizations are well aligned with the original reason the donations were made to TOAF, fighting anti-science.

circleh · 28 June 2011

Dave Luckett said: It's generally not thought polite here for people like FL or Biggy to tout their church, and even they haven't gone so far as to solicit donations to them, whatever they are. What makes you think you should?
It was precisely because of them and others like them that I seek to counterbalance their destructive influences in the world. If my efforts violate some rule of PT I am not aware of, the moderators are welcome to point that out. Granted, donating to the NCSE or even back to TOAF would accomplish the same purpose, but I was thinking in terms of doing some actual humanitarian work too. The more I read about the conditions of people around the world, the more I see the incredible needs they still have.

John · 28 June 2011

SWT said:
circleh said: I would suggest that people take their refunds from the TalkOrigins Foundation and send them to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee:
I'd suggest that people take their refunds and either re-donate them to TOAF or support NCSE -- both organizations are well aligned with the original reason the donations were made to TOAF, fighting anti-science.
I strongly second your recommendation SWT (And circleh, for anyone who is interested in humanitarian concerns, I think yours is a most laudable suggestion too.).

Chris Lawson · 29 June 2011

Ray Martinez said: And I have a standing challenge over at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups): Supply evidence of a Darwinian modification, in species, accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process, and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trash can.
Ray, the scientific literature contains uncountable examples of evolutionary modification as a natural process. A quick search of the literature turned up Luria and Delbruck's papers on bacterial evolution back in 1943. I'm sure a more dedicated person than myself could find even earlier examples. Your challenge was met more than 60 years before you formulated it.

Frank J · 29 June 2011

mrg said:
phantomreader42 said: They're too cowardly.
Geez, what do they have to debate? YEC or OEC, it would be just squabbling over the paint job. It's all about hating evolution, and since there's nothing to any form of creationism but variations on POOF! -- well, if they couldn't hate evolution, it wouldn't leave them with much to discuss.
Their respective strategies may be all about hating evolution, but what you call the "paint job" is ironically the only potentially scientific thing they - or their "don't ask, don't tell" ID counterparts - have to offer. And they all keep retreating from it, while evolution (mainstream science) keeps converging on more useful answers. Either life is 3.5 - 4 BY old, with most of its existence as small soft-bodied aquatic organisms, as mainstream science and many self-described creationists and "design proponents" admit, or it's not. If they have a prayer at an alternate "theory" they need to either try to find where the data converges, and publicly challenge each other if necessary, or just give up and admit that those who do the actual work are right on those issues. As you know, the game all pseudoscience plays, whether or not they have a religious/political agenda like anti-evolution activists, is to "poke holes" in mainstream science instead of developing their own. Ironically that's easy to do to a science-illiterate audience because every new piece of data can be spun as another "weakness" or "gap." When scientists have a healthy disagreement on some issue, it's spun as a "weakness" of the theory; when scientists agree, it's spun as a conspiracy to hide "weaknesses." A perfect description of their antics I heard recently was "head-I-win-tails-you-lose." Another comment above reminded me of how Ray is the typical anti-evolution activist's worst enemy. Ray opposes not only "macroevolution" but "microevolution" too. There too is an opportunity for some real scientific debate among evolution-deniers that will never happen. Despite an occasional pot-shot to other evolution-deniers - which is rarely if ever answered - Ray spend most of his time hiding in the same big tent that he pretends to despise.

Frank J · 29 June 2011

Actually I do recall one "answer" to a Ray challenge to other "kinds" of evolution denier. It came from ID's "UnCommon Descent" blog, and the "answer" was to ban him.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 June 2011

According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie.

If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.

calilasseia · 29 June 2011

Ray Martinez said: If a Darwinist
Oh look, it's this piece of discoursive malfeasance again. Despite the fact that I have schooled Ray on numerous occasions, why the "Darwinist" trope is a manifest piece of dishonesty, namely that it is used by creationist fantasists to misrepresent evolutionary biology as a "doctrine", and those who accept the evidence for its postulates as "followers" or "disciples" (projection, much?), he continues to trot out this specious nonsense. But I've ceased expecting honesty from creationists long ago.
Ray Martinez said: wins then the documentary falls into the hands of the enemy
And here we see the aetiology of doctrine centred world views in action. Namely, anything that doesn't conform to doctrine is regarded as an "enemy". I've written at length on this subject elsewhere, and those who are familiar with my work elsewhere will be aware of the relevant analysis. The imposition of a dichotomy upon the world on the basis of doctrinal assertions, and the treatment of those outside the doctrinal pale as "enemies", if it were not so perniciously dangerous, as the evidence from history teaches us, would be laughable, because adherents of doctrines such as Ray routinely demonstrate that their position consists of "when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right", and are therefore, upon account of adopting this position, enemies of truth and reality.
Ray Martinez said: why else would Talk.Origins want it?
To expose the lies and duplicity of the makers of Expelled in a rigorous manner? It's not as if we lack evidence that the makers of this propaganda screed routinely lied through their teeth in order to secure interview material, for example, or that they indulged in various acts of skulduggery such as using copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holders. Which might be a contributory factor in the financial demise of the producers. Perhaps they should have taken a leaf out of Max Bialystock's book.
Ray Martinez said: And my book is still in progress, coming along just fine.
How many years have we been waiting for this turgid little screed of yours now? Only if you genuinely had any evidence that would overturn evolutionary theory, the scientific journals of the entire planet would be queueing up to publish your work. That they are not tells me, and everyone else who paid attention in science classes, that your screed is worth even less to them than Grimm's Fairy Tales, which at least had the benefit of being marketed honestly as fiction. Moving on ...
Ray Martinez said: [For people who do not know: Cali is a Moderator/Administrator over at RichardDawkins.net; he/she also defends evolutionary theory around the Internet on different sites]
You're out of date Ray. The Richard Dawkins Forums no longer function as such. However, I still maintain a moderator status elsewhere.
Ray Martinez said:
calilasseia said:
Ray Martinez said: Let's hope the winning bidder is a real sheep, and not a wolf in sheeps clothing ("Christian" Evolutionist).
That doesn't leave many options, Ray, given that you've laughably described numerous creationists as "evolutionists" in the past, such as those people over at AiG. By the way Ray, are you still peddling your "immutable species" excrement? Only aquarium fishes the world over are laughing at that. I'll let you work out why.
The Fundies over at AiG accept species mutability (microevolution), limited macroevolution/natural selection. Yes, they are in YOUR bed, Cali.
Oh, still peddling this excrement are you Ray, despite the fact that I demonstrated to you over at TalkRational that it was excrement? Actually, what the people at AiG "accept" is a strawman caricature of actual evolution. They peddle the "kinds" nonsense, without ever bothering to define what this term means. But then we know why they do this, Ray, it's solely in order to prop up their mythology-based fantasy that human beings were poofed into existence via a cheap conjuring trick involving some dirt, and were thus somehow "separate" from the rest of the biosphere, despite the vast amounts of real world evidence flushing this fantasy down the toilet. As a consequence, they don't give a shit about being consonant with reality, because like all creationists, their position consists of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right".
Ray Martinez said: You've been able to convince the dumbest people in Western society, nice accomplishment.
Several Nobel Laureates being amongst these allegedly "dumbest" people that accept the validity of evolution, not least because they performed the relevant research establishing its validity. Oh, by the way, have you read any of those scientific papers I dropped in your lap over at TR, or the former Richard Dawkins Forums? Oh, that's right, when I dropped a paper on evolutionary algorithms in your lap over at RDF, your response was the typical creationist response of playing duplicitous apologetics with the science, despite my having told you repeatedly that science isn't a branch of apologetics. I had a lot of fun rubbing your nose in that, Ray, and anyone here who wants to enjoy the same hilarity can easily find the relevant links.
Ray Martinez said: And I have a standing challenge over at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups): Supply evidence of a Darwinian modification, in species, accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process, and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trash can.
Oh, so you haven't seen any aquarium fishes lately then Ray? Look up the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens. It results in the fishes inheriting the mutation possessing two caudal fins instead of one, with two complete caudal plates. Furthermore, the mutation has been known since the 1970s, has been demonstrated to be the product of a single gene exhibiting classic Mendelian single-factor recessive inheritance, and, because it makes the males more attractive to the females, is sexually selectable. This mutation arose spontaneously in a population of aquarium fishes in the 1970s, and aquarists have been breeding these fishes ever since. Let's take a look at some images shall we? First, the wild type fish: Wild type Betta splendens Now, here's the long finned single tail fish that is popular in the aquarium today: Long finned single tail Betta splendens Now here's the double tail version: Double tail Betta splendens Shall I provide a bin for your book of myths, or do you have one of your own?
Ray Martinez said: Please, no attempts here, as I am censored routinely.
Funny how your banning instances all occurred on creationist websites. I wonder why that is? Oh, that's right, rationalist websites are confident enough about the real world facts supporting evolutionary postulates, not to need to resort to duplicitous tactics when faced by ideological stormtroopers for doctrine.

Frank J · 29 June 2011

Your challenge was met more than 60 years before you formulated it.

— Chris Lawson
Ray has already admitted that what goes on in real time in a cell is not what he would consider "unguided/unintelligent natural process." So apparently nothing can meet the "challenge" as he defines it. Of course his admission (FL made a similar one a few years ago) undermines ID's effort to restrict the "interventions" to events "long ago" that are (1) virtually impossible to test to the satisfaction of a committed pseudoskeptic and (2) directed to a target audience that is unlikely to question where and when those events occurred, let alone why they supposedly stopped. To bring it a bit more on-topic I wonder if any of those outtakes include interviews of people like Ray who could not answer questions without spilling the beans of the ID scam's true intentions.

Andrea Bottaro · 29 June 2011

So - the reserve price, which I imagine would not have been set too far below the lowest end of the expected value range of the auctioned item, was somewhere around $30K. Mr. Ruloff, having already financed the operation and seen it go bankrupt once, jumps in and spends another $210K on it, after TOAF announced they would try to buy the thing and put everything in the public domain.

Does anyone doubt that there was something in the auctioned material that the people associated with the movie really really did not want to become public?

rich.e.clayton · 29 June 2011

calilasseia said:
Ray Martinez said: And I have a standing challenge over at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups): Supply evidence of a Darwinian modification, in species, accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process, and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trash can.
Oh, so you haven't seen any aquarium fishes lately then Ray? Look up the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens. It results in the fishes inheriting the mutation possessing two caudal fins instead of one, with two complete caudal plates. Furthermore, the mutation has been known since the 1970s, has been demonstrated to be the product of a single gene exhibiting classic Mendelian single-factor recessive inheritance, and, because it makes the males more attractive to the females, is sexually selectable. This mutation arose spontaneously in a population of aquarium fishes in the 1970s, and aquarists have been breeding these fishes ever since. Let's take a look at some images shall we? First, the wild type fish: Wild type Betta splendens Now, here's the long finned single tail fish that is popular in the aquarium today: Long finned single tail Betta splendens Now here's the double tail version: Double tail Betta splendens Shall I provide a bin for your book of myths, or do you have one of your own?
Nice try, but like Kent Hovind's old "$250,000 evolution challenge," Ray's challenge relies on fundamentally dishonest word games. He's not really asking for evidence of evolution; that has been provided for him dozens of times. What he really demands is proof God doesn't exist: As far as Ray's concerned, it's not evolution unless you can PROVE no supernatural entity is secretly pulling the strings from behind the scenes. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cea21ddf1f637653 http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5175f615854e0277 Addressing the challenge is therefore an exercise in futility; I could just as easily issue a similar challenge arguing against the existence of electricity, on the grounds that you can't PROVE Thor isn't secretly pushing all those electrons through the wires. If that weren't enough, Ray also has a habit of vague weaseling on the definition of "evolution." Here's just one example: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4b0b6c1b8687a052 On the other hand, you probably shouldn't hold any of this against him. Poor Ray is mad as a hatter, and probably can't be held responsible for his actions in any meaningful way. I just hope he never does any serious harm to himself or others; some of his frothing ragesplosions on t.o have made me wonder. Nota bene: Some Mysterious Post Deleter has long shown a tendency to de-archive Ray's most embarrassing posts from Google. I wonder if these three will now draw the MPD's ire?

Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 June 2011

"DejaNews" grokked Usenet. Google bought DejaNews and immediately gutted their system. I used to use DejaNews as my Usenet post archive; once Google had it, the search was no longer either complete or reliable.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 June 2011

The reserve price was somewhere in an ambiguous zone between $25K and $30K. I think that whoever took the bid past $25K had a "maxbid" over $30K, so it seems likely to me that the reserve was $30K and the system skipped the incremental bidding in between.

phantomreader42 · 29 June 2011

Frank J said:

Your challenge was met more than 60 years before you formulated it.

— Chris Lawson
Ray has already admitted that what goes on in real time in a cell is not what he would consider "unguided/unintelligent natural process." So apparently nothing can meet the "challenge" as he defines it. Of course his admission (FL made a similar one a few years ago) undermines ID's effort to restrict the "interventions" to events "long ago" that are (1) virtually impossible to test to the satisfaction of a committed pseudoskeptic and (2) directed to a target audience that is unlikely to question where and when those events occurred, let alone why they supposedly stopped. To bring it a bit more on-topic I wonder if any of those outtakes include interviews of people like Ray who could not answer questions without spilling the beans of the ID scam's true intentions.
So, Ray denies the possibility of ANYTHING happening without the direct and deliberate intervention of god? Ray's actually advocating INTELLIGENT FALLING!

phantomreader42 · 29 June 2011

raven said: I'm not too surprised TOAF was outbid. It was always going to be an uphill struggle. The churches are flush with money. I calculate that the creationists spend $50 million per year. All of it is on anti-science propaganda, more or less none on "creation research". How hard is it to wave your hands and say goddidit anyway? The US churches themselves take in ca. $90 billion per year. That is a huge amount. I don't even want to think about what they spend it on, a lot is for their endless hate campaigns.
Have these asshats published their own version of the bible without all those verses about helping the poor and the sick? Or are they just so hopelessly brainwashed that they are literally incapable of seeing those verses in print?

ogremk5 · 29 June 2011

Ray,

I remember my challenge to you that you failed to accept. I just wanted you to answer a question. The question was, would you accept evidence that the real version of microevolution occurred not your strawman version?

You failed to answer that simple question. On FRDB, I showed you that A) your statements about what microevolution is are the same as what scientists say that it is and B) a perfect example of micro-evolution in action. Your immutability of species is falsified.

Then you ran away and haven't posted there sense.

I already expect that you will make 2-3 more posts here, while ignoring myself and cali. In approximately 3 months, you will return to FRDB and attempt the same thing you abandoned 3-4 months ago. When that doesn't work you will return here for 5-6 post and runs and continue the cycle that you have been doing for years.

It is a real shame that you won't actually talk about the science, or even have the common courtesy to not modify the definitions of well understood words to suit your biased agenda.

I'll repeat my new favorite quote; "If it's the truth, why do you have to lie to defend it?" I'll add to that, if it's the truth, why do you run away from criticism (in the literary sense, not the common usage) of your ideas?

ogremk5 · 29 June 2011

Oops, that should be
On FRDB, I showed you that A) your statements about what microevolution is are NOT the same as what scientists say that it is

harold · 29 June 2011

Ray Martinez -

If only people who are predestined to damnation accept the theory of evolution anyway, why do you waste your time talking about it?

mrg · 29 June 2011

Frank J said: As you know, the game all pseudoscience plays, whether or not they have a religious/political agenda like anti-evolution activists, is to "poke holes" in mainstream science instead of developing their own.
I think we're on the same page here. Yeah, there's an enormous range of differences among concepts offered by the different flavors of creationism, but it's just variations in the big colorful badly-drawn cartoon backdrop to what they're actually doing on a tactical level: sniping at evo science (and science in general) 24:7:365. Two dogs barking at you won't spend much time barking at each other instead no matter how cranky they are. Though you do get dogs, and cranks, that bark all the time at everything and everybody on general principle.

harold · 29 June 2011

Of course, I only ask Ray Martinez that out of amusement.

My goal is to help work against the following things -

1) Unconstitutional endorsement of sectarian dogma as "science" or "officially required" in any way in taxpayer funded public schools.

2) Deletion or distortion of important parts of the science curriculum, in taxpayer funded public schools, for implied religious reasons.

3) I also oppose bad decisions about teaching science even when there is no violation of constitutional rights; however, when the two occur together it is doubly bad.

4) I also oppose the use of science denial or distortion, rather than contemporary scientific consensus, as a guide to any type of public policy.

Although Ray Martinez is a "creationist" broadly defined, his particular views are isolated and bizarre, and he is not well accepted by those who can be said to form, despite their "detail differences", the organized political anti-science movement (that is, ID/creationist organizations such as AIG and the DI, religious right political action groups such as Focus on the Family etc, politically active creationist universities, creationist public school boards, "think tanks" that engage in one form or another of science denial, and political candidates/politicians who are influenced by these entities).

Although religious, Ray Martinez is essentially a "lone crackpot" who antagonizes all sides.

mrg · 29 June 2011

harold said: Although religious, Ray Martinez is essentially a "lone crackpot" who antagonizes all sides.
Heh! I keep asking him for a link to show he's ever had anything good to say about anything or anyone. So far the ball's gone through the strike zone and he won't take a swing. "Getting close to home, huh, Ray?"

eric · 29 June 2011

Thank you, TOAF, for bidding!

It is a shame that (or if) Ruloff won it. This has dashed my hope for a "MST3K - A very special Expelled reunion."

mrg · 29 June 2011

Interesting ... what would be the legal aspects of pulling an MST3K on it anyway? If you got rights to run the movie without alteration, I'm not sure that embedding it in external commentary causes any problems.

Frank J · 29 June 2011

@mrg:

I mentioned on another board recently that, if all evolution-deniers had a relatively consistent "story" (be it old-earth-young-life, geocentric YEC, etc,) I would have lost interest in the "debate" years ago. On second thought I should qualify that with a "most likely." My greatest passion in this "debate" has nothing to do with the religion angle, but rather with the depressing fact that ~70% of the public, including many who accept evolution, thinks that it's fair to teach anti-evolution propaganda in public school science class. Heck, I often admit that I was once among that ~70%.

When people actually take the time and interest to see the lengths to which anti-evolution activists go to misrepresent science, that ~70% shrinks to the ~25% (which I estimate from several sources including one by Eugenie Scott) that will not admit evolution under any circumstances. I could live with the ~25%, but not the ~70%. But I have to wonder, if there were a consistent story that anti-evolution activists (and their trained parrots) freely discussed at least partly in lieu of recycling long-refuted "weaknesses" of evolution (& censoring the refutation) if that ~70% would be much lower. If it were close to the ~25% - itself not far from the 22% that answered "yes" to a poll that had strong wording (ulilke the fuzzy Gallup question) about a young Earth - I would consider the bulk of our job done.

But I could be wrong. People tend to be both "new agey" and consider themselves "skeptics" (though you and I would call them "pseudoskeptics"). So even if all the evolution-deniers sounded like Ken Ham, it's possible there could still be ~50% that say "I don't agree with YEC, but I hear that evolution has 'holes' too, so it's only fair to teach both."

If that's the case, I can't imagine what might be in the outtakes thats any more damning to the movement that what we have already. Not the least of which is lying about the title and purpose of the film to the interviewees.

mrg · 29 June 2011

Frank J said: Heck, I often admit that I was once among that ~70%.
I don't recall that I ever was myself. Before I got into evo science in 2006 I didn't pay much attention to the subject, and I casually assumed creationists were cranks. When I did get into it, one of the big reasons was to see if the critics actually did have legitimate arguments. The fact that I did have a question on that score indicates I was cutting them considerable slack; I found out somewhat to my shock that: "Creation science is not an 'alternate legitimate point of view' in any way, it's 100% 'willful misrepresentation of the facts.'" That's not quite a euphemism for "deliberate lie". Deliberate lying suggests thinking things out, as opposed to beady-eyed delusion.

TomS · 29 June 2011

Someone who claims authority has an obligation to study the subject. If they don't it may not count as "deliberate lying", but it is surely irresponsible.

mrg · 29 June 2011

TomS said: Someone who claims authority has an obligation to study the subject. If they don't it may not count as "deliberate lying", but it is surely irresponsible.
Deluded people, as a rule, tend to be irresponsible. You do not want to get into the back seat when they're behind the wheel. And you don't want to be on the street when they're driving down it. In either case, it's not good for your health.

Mike Elzinga · 29 June 2011

mrg said: The fact that I did have a question on that score indicates I was cutting them considerable slack; I found out somewhat to my shock that: "Creation science is not an 'alternate legitimate point of view' in any way, it's 100% 'willful misrepresentation of the facts.'" That's not quite a euphemism for "deliberate lie". Deliberate lying suggests thinking things out, as opposed to beady-eyed delusion.
I think most of us have been there. I, like many others, back in the 1970s thought the arguments by the “scientific” creationists were simply naive errors that could be corrected with a little gentle nudging. Man, were we naive.

mrg · 29 June 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Man, were we naive.
Actually, I didn't give it much mind up to 2006, when Ann Coulter published a book slamming evo science (with help from Dembski I recall). I was annoyed enough to ask: "Do these people really have a case to make?" But it was a shock to find out just how delusional and dishonest they really were. It was beyond my ability to imagine beforehand. I should comment that I was not annoyed with Coulter for sniping at evo science as such. I was annoyed because she was straying into science geek airspace without any qualifications on the basis of effort. "I've paid my science geek dues, I've put up with the snubs and sneers from day one, and Ann Coulter, you haven't paid your dues. Get out of the pool."

circleh · 29 June 2011

Wesley R. Elsberry said: According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie. If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.
More proof, if we ever needed any, of how stupid Creationists tend to be.

Ray Martinez · 29 June 2011

rich.e.clayton said:
calilasseia said:
Ray Martinez said: And I have a standing challenge over at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups): Supply evidence of a Darwinian modification, in species, accomplished by an unguided/unintelligent natural process, and I will promptly toss my Bible in the trash can.
Oh, so you haven't seen any aquarium fishes lately then Ray? Look up the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens. It results in the fishes inheriting the mutation possessing two caudal fins instead of one, with two complete caudal plates. Furthermore, the mutation has been known since the 1970s, has been demonstrated to be the product of a single gene exhibiting classic Mendelian single-factor recessive inheritance, and, because it makes the males more attractive to the females, is sexually selectable. This mutation arose spontaneously in a population of aquarium fishes in the 1970s, and aquarists have been breeding these fishes ever since. Let's take a look at some images shall we? First, the wild type fish: Wild type Betta splendens Now, here's the long finned single tail fish that is popular in the aquarium today: Long finned single tail Betta splendens Now here's the double tail version: Double tail Betta splendens Shall I provide a bin for your book of myths, or do you have one of your own?
Nice try, but like Kent Hovind's old "$250,000 evolution challenge," Ray's challenge relies on fundamentally dishonest word games. He's not really asking for evidence of evolution; that has been provided for him dozens of times. What he really demands is proof God doesn't exist: As far as Ray's concerned, it's not evolution unless you can PROVE no supernatural entity is secretly pulling the strings from behind the scenes. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cea21ddf1f637653 http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5175f615854e0277 Addressing the challenge is therefore an exercise in futility; I could just as easily issue a similar challenge arguing against the existence of electricity, on the grounds that you can't PROVE Thor isn't secretly pushing all those electrons through the wires. If that weren't enough, Ray also has a habit of vague weaseling on the definition of "evolution." Here's just one example: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4b0b6c1b8687a052 On the other hand, you probably shouldn't hold any of this against him. Poor Ray is mad as a hatter, and probably can't be held responsible for his actions in any meaningful way. I just hope he never does any serious harm to himself or others; some of his frothing ragesplosions on t.o have made me wonder. Nota bene: Some Mysterious Post Deleter has long shown a tendency to de-archive Ray's most embarrassing posts from Google. I wonder if these three will now draw the MPD's ire?
Not at all. I am very happy with the links that you chose. Probably for the first time you did NOT misrepresent me. All of this is off-topic, so let's stop.

Ray Martinez · 29 June 2011

Wesley R. Elsberry said: According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie. If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.
Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect. The fact that you guys made such a big deal about Expelled back when it was released and now during the auction, is what makes the production worth 200 grand. Nothing can erase the fact that Expelled causes uproar among Darwinists. This uproar, seen aright, makes the winning bid a steal in the long run. Your belief in the existence of a consolation prize, like your belief in the existence of evolution, is fantasy.

Flint · 29 June 2011

Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect.

This would be true if the bids were published before the final selection. But my understanding was that none of the bidders had ANY IDEA what any of the other bidders were bidding. They only know that there WERE other bidders. So Elsberry might well be correct - Ruloff had no clue how much TO might collect, and probably felt it necessary to bid comfortably above his most-likely estimates.

Flint · 29 June 2011

And I might add that Ruloff would most definitely not want the movie's editing process, and the material which WAS edited, to become public knowledge. So he was motivated to make absolutely sure his bid won.

ogremk5 · 29 June 2011

Ray Martinez said:
Wesley R. Elsberry said: According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie. If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.
Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect. The fact that you guys made such a big deal about Expelled back when it was released and now during the auction, is what makes the production worth 200 grand. Nothing can erase the fact that Expelled causes uproar among Darwinists. This uproar, seen aright, makes the winning bid a steal in the long run. Your belief in the existence of a consolation prize, like your belief in the existence of evolution, is fantasy.
it caused an uproar because, as a rule, scientists (and supposedly people who claim to be Christians) don't like lies. Yes, I said it. There are LIES in Expelled. For example, are you aware that Sternberg continued to work at the Smithsonian, even after the movie that claimed he was fired from there. Personally, I find it difficult to be fired from a place that one doesn't actually work. But I digress. I'll ask you, "if it's the truth, why do you have to lie to defend it?"

phantomreader42 · 29 June 2011

Ray Martinez said:
Wesley R. Elsberry said: According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie. If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.
Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect. The fact that you guys made such a big deal about Expelled back when it was released and now during the auction, is what makes the production worth 200 grand. Nothing can erase the fact that Expelled causes uproar among Darwinists. This uproar, seen aright, makes the winning bid a steal in the long run. Your belief in the existence of a consolation prize, like your belief in the existence of evolution, is fantasy.
So, Ray, you don't care about science, you don't care about jesus, you don't care about the truth. The only thing you care about is being an asshole. It doesn't matter in the least if the bullshit your cult spews is true or false, you're just a troll. Go back under your bridge, Liar For Jeebus.

mrg · 29 June 2011

phantomreader42 said: The only thing you care about is being an asshole.
A crude way of putting it, but alas sadly accurate. However, I must add slightly in Ray's defense that he is, to a considerable degree, impartial in this regard -- nasty to all with little discrimination. Do you ever have anything good to say about anybody or anything, Ray? Link?

rich.e.clayton · 29 June 2011

mrg said: Do you ever have anything good to say about anybody or anything, Ray? Link?
To be fair, Ray has said quite a number of good things about Gene Scott.

mrg · 29 June 2011

rich.e.clayton said: To be fair, Ray has said quite a number of good things about Gene Scott.
"Genie Scott?" On inspection, no ... Well OK, Ray -- you got anything good to say about anyone alive?

Frank J · 29 June 2011

I should comment that I was not annoyed with Coulter for sniping at evo science as such. I was annoyed because she was straying into science geek airspace without any qualifications on the basis of effort.

— mrg
Not only that, but having the mind-blowing chtzpah to admit on talk radio that she was a science "idiot." And to my knowledge she never denied that those chapters were practically written for her by DI activists. Since this thread is about "Expelled" it's worth noting that Coulter's most outrageous accusation (if she didn't do the Hitler thing too) is the one that no anti-evolution activist leaves home without. That is the implication that 99+% of scientists in relevant fields are either lying or don't understand their subject as well as the self-described idiots. That too would not bother me nearly as much if more than a few % of the people knew that the situation is the exact opposite, i.e. that scientists, including those who would otherwise succumb to temptation to lie, have a great incentive to falsify evolution, and would do it in a heartbeat if the evidence let them.

raven · 29 June 2011

Kevin Miller the disreputable screenwriter of Expelled has another movie he is trying to get made. No kidding, it features Kent Hovind as the hero. Crosspost from Pharyngula.
Originally Posted by Press release Creation, Resurrection Pictures’ first original film project— a humorous and tearful story of a high school biology teacher’s struggle to expose the lie of evolution, based on the life of creation evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind and written by Kevin Miller the writer of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is scheduled for production in 2010.
As Kristine pointed out, Kevin Miller's next film is about Kent Hovind, owner of a diploma mill Fake Ph.D., convicted felon, prisoner, unsuccessful tax evader who at one point tried to renounce his US citizenship, and all around moron. I guess it doesn't take much to be a hero to the fundies. It also doesn't look like he has been able to get much funding. This has to be a test of how stupid and low the fundies can get. They rarely fail those tests.

Marion Delgado · 29 June 2011

We should make it a project to figure out who bought it :)

xubist · 29 June 2011

mrg said:
rich.e.clayton said: To be fair, Ray has said quite a number of good things about Gene Scott.
"Genie Scott?" On inspection, no ...
Beggin' yer pardon, but clayton said Gene Scott, not Genie Scott.

mrg · 29 June 2011

xubist said: Beggin' yer pardon, but clayton said Gene Scott, not Genie Scott.
Begging your pardon, but what part of "no" didn't you understand?

Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 June 2011

Flint said:

Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect.

This would be true if the bids were published before the final selection. But my understanding was that none of the bidders had ANY IDEA what any of the other bidders were bidding. They only know that there WERE other bidders. So Elsberry might well be correct - Ruloff had no clue how much TO might collect, and probably felt it necessary to bid comfortably above his most-likely estimates.
The information provided during bidding included a bidder number and the bid amount. But unless the other high bidder had provided their identity to Ruloff offline, there would be no way for Ruloff to know definitively that the TOAF was not his competitor there at the end.

harold · 29 June 2011

Another 200 grand down the stink hole for Ruloff. Lucky thing he's got government health insurance.
Yes, I said it. There are LIES in Expelled
It's not as if this is controversial. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&authuser=0&cp=20&gs_id=95&xhr=t&q=ben+stein+expelled+lies&qe=YmVuIHN0ZWluIGV4cGVsbGVkIGw&qesig=GeB5vz-7N9TDvmdEdH7LcA&pkc=AFgZ2tkHx_vlhERc7NSCF6Fp52ob_3ig9kcnY2dVJ7sNCsLFR-x6-0wCjAlKSMEwM6wgsrLKwTs4wdb5ASWWgfH8oiDoYVRTiw&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=ben+stein+expelled+l&aq=0v&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=25981b5bce883ee5&biw=1034&bih=629

harold · 29 June 2011

Stupid screwy link. It was just to a Google search for "Ben Stein Expelled Lies"

circleh · 29 June 2011

What the hell just happened to this website??? The formatting of the comments
sections is messed up!

circleh · 29 June 2011

harold said: Stupid screwy link. It was just to a Google search for "Ben Stein Expelled Lies"
Next time, just tell people to Google the phrase! Now I need to ask the moderators to clean up your mess.

SWT · 30 June 2011

harold said: Stupid screwy link. It was just to a Google search for "Ben Stein Expelled Lies"
For long links like that, I like to use the HTML "a" tags.

harold · 30 June 2011

circleh -

Thank you for your noble sacrifice.

harold · 30 June 2011

SWT -

I did try using "a" formatting, but it didn't want to take that link. I assumed it was just a length issue or something. In retrospect I should not have posted it. I've posted and seen links to Google searches dozens of times on dozens of venues, either embedded or just naked links. I have no idea why this happened this time.

calilasseia · 30 June 2011

Of course, the only reason that, as Ray asserts, there is a furore over Expelled amongst people who prefer reality to mythological fantasies, is because the makers of that propaganda screed lied through their teeth about valid science, and lied through their teeth about the real reasons why their fantasies aren't a part of the school curriculum. But since Ray manifestly adopts the same position as these manifest liars for doctrine, namely "when reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right", it's hardly surprising that he pulls the tiresomely familiar statements out of his rectal passage that he does.

The only difference between Ray and other creationists, is that whilst other creationists follow some form of 'orthodoxy', as peddled by arch-charlatans and pathological liars such as Ken Ham and Henry Morris (the latter being the individual who made the "reality and doctrine differ" aspect of creationism explicit in his own screeds), Ray has invented some diseased fabrication of his own imagining, and erects fatuous, farcical and at times wholly mendacious assertions, in order to try and make his ideological slurry pile stand up like a 100-storey skyscraper.

Meanwhile, reality laughs at his attempts, and keeps providing scientists with yet more evidence that evolutionary postulates are valid, whilst his sad little fantasy is about as much use as a fishnet condom. His entire "species are immutable" excrement is so divorced from reality, as anyone who has spent time keeping fancy goldfish recognises in an instant, that the only response left, in the face of his continued robotic parroting of this deranged mantra, is to point and laugh as Ray continues to make a public spectacle of himself, his own eructations doing more to destroy any shreds of credibility and integrity he may once have had, than any amount of rebuttals from people who bothered to pay attention in science classes.

ogremk5 · 30 June 2011

I missed your work cali. Where are you hanging out these days?

mrg · 30 June 2011

calilasseia said: ... as Ray continues to make a public spectacle of himself ...
Well ... that's his objective. Since he can't get applause, he settles for jeers. As long as he gets attention.
... his own eructations doing more to destroy any shreds of credibility ... he may once have had ...
But he never has had any credibility, so no problem to him. "If you have no credibility, you have no crediblity to lose."

Kenneth Fair · 30 June 2011

An update on where things stand:

I have initiated the transfer of funds from the Foundation's bank account back into the Paypal account. That will take a few days to clear. Given the upcoming Fourth of July holiday in the U.S., I do not expect for the funds transfer to be completed until some time next week. At that point, I can begin making refunds.

I greatly appreciate those of you who have said that the Foundation can keep your donations. The problem is, it will be far simpler for me to just refund all of them than to try to figure out whose to keep and whose to refund. I am therefore planning to refund all donations made between June 23 and June 28.

I have asked Reed Cartwright to disable the Foundation's donation button in the interim, so that it's clear to me which donations should be refunded. Once that is complete, I will ask him to reactivate the donation button. Anyone who wishes to donate to the Foundation at that point is welcome to do so.

Thanks again to all of you who have shown such support to the Foundation, both for this effort and over the years.

Kenneth Fair
Secretary/Treasurer, TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.

mrg · 30 June 2011

@KF: Keep us posted. After I get my money back I'll donate part of it back again for all your trouble.

phantomreader42 · 30 June 2011

calilasseia said: Of course, the only reason that, as Ray asserts, there is a furore over Expelled amongst people who prefer reality to mythological fantasies, is because the makers of that propaganda screed lied through their teeth about valid science, and lied through their teeth about the real reasons why their fantasies aren't a part of the school curriculum.
Hey, the fact that the makers of Expelled lied isn't the ONLY thing that pisses people off. They also stole! :P

John · 30 June 2011

Ray Martinez the delusional, quite psychotic, mendacious creobot drooled:
Wesley R. Elsberry said: According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie. If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.
Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect. The fact that you guys made such a big deal about Expelled back when it was released and now during the auction, is what makes the production worth 200 grand. Nothing can erase the fact that Expelled causes uproar among Darwinists. This uproar, seen aright, makes the winning bid a steal in the long run. Your belief in the existence of a consolation prize, like your belief in the existence of evolution, is fantasy.
No, moron. The "uproar" is due to the ample chicanery and theft associated with this project, starting on Day One, when the Premise Media producers opted not to tell the likes of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and others that their "science" documentary film was going to be an attack on them, not a credible documentary of the kind we expect from the likes of the BBC's scientific films unit or from PBS NOVA.

Ray Martinez · 30 June 2011

John said:
Ray Martinez the delusional, quite psychotic, mendacious creobot drooled:
Wesley R. Elsberry said: According to a post on "Uncommon Descent", Walt Ruloff was the winner of the auction. Ruloff was one of the original producers of the "Expelled" movie. If we forced him to bid more than he originally planned to keep the outtakes and other materials secret, I think that's a reasonable consolation prize.
Since the Talk.Origin (TO) bid was no where near the winning bid, the TO bid had no effect. The fact that you guys made such a big deal about Expelled back when it was released and now during the auction, is what makes the production worth 200 grand. Nothing can erase the fact that Expelled causes uproar among Darwinists. This uproar, seen aright, makes the winning bid a steal in the long run. Your belief in the existence of a consolation prize, like your belief in the existence of evolution, is fantasy.
No, moron. The "uproar" is due to the ample chicanery and theft associated with this project, starting on Day One, when the Premise Media producers opted not to tell the likes of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and others that their "science" documentary film was going to be an attack on them, not a credible documentary of the kind we expect from the likes of the BBC's scientific films unit or from PBS NOVA.
Since all investigative media behaves the same way, you are actually venting righteous anger at their methods. And since most units are populated with persons who are pro-evolution, it appears that you do not like a taste of your own medicine. I am not saying it is right or moral; I am merely adding the proper contex. In essence, all of them lie and sneak around to get their material.

Ray Martinez · 30 June 2011

ogremk5 said: [content erased---R.M]
Ogremky: I have ignored your posts because they are off-topic. If you or Cali want a piece of me then show your face at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups) where I post regularly. There are no moderators to save or censor anyone. The Group is currently down, though. Don't know when it will be back up. This happens periodically.

dornier.pfeil · 30 June 2011

Anyone who cared enough to donate in the first place probably cares enough to let TOAF keep the money. There is no better place for it to be and be spent wisely.

Frank J · 30 June 2011

Ray Martinez said:
ogremk5 said: [content erased---R.M]
Ogremky: I have ignored your posts because they are off-topic. If you or Cali want a piece of me then show your face at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups) where I post regularly. There are no moderators to save or censor anyone. The Group is currently down, though. Don't know when it will be back up. This happens periodically.
Instead of wasting your time here and there, why not finish your book (which began life as a mere paper) and then turn it into a documentary. Since "Expelled" flopped, people are not interested in hearing people whine about being "expelled," how "Darwinism" is "weak" or leads to Nazism, you can take a radically different approach - support your own old-Earth-young-biosphere-no-macroevolution-OR-microevolution "theory" on its owm merits. I smell an Oscar!

Henry J · 30 June 2011

I smell an Oscar!

In contrast to what, a Felix?

Shebardigan · 30 June 2011

Henry J said:

I smell an Oscar!

In contrast to what, a Felix?
Well, the immediate contrast that comes to mind, anent "Felix", is the cat box in the other room.

circleh · 1 July 2011

Ray Martinez said: Since all investigative media behaves the same way, you are actually venting righteous anger at their methods. And since most units are populated with persons who are pro-evolution, it appears that you do not like a taste of your own medicine. I am not saying it is right or moral; I am merely adding the proper contex. In essence, all of them lie and sneak around to get their material.
Including YOU? Because we all know what a patholigical liar you are! I guess that's the reason you assume the same about all others, to protect your ego. Grow up!

Chris Lawson · 1 July 2011

Ray Martinez said: Since all investigative media behaves the same way, you are actually venting righteous anger at their methods. And since most units are populated with persons who are pro-evolution, it appears that you do not like a taste of your own medicine.
Uh, no, Ray, not all investigative media behaves this way. And I don't like it when I see it regardless of the side the journalist is taking. This is why, for instance, I cannot stand Michael Moore's documentaries. As for "a taste of our own medicine", I'd be interested to know of any examples of an investigative journalist misrepresenting a creationist to make them seem worse in the public eye. I'm guessing there aren't many such examples, but if you can provide me one I'll happily condemn the journalist's misrepresentations.

Rolf · 1 July 2011

Ray Martinez said:
ogremk5 said: [content erased---R.M]
Ogremky: I have ignored your posts because they are off-topic. If you or Cali want a piece of me then show your face at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups) where I post regularly. There are no moderators to save or censor anyone. The Group is currently down, though. Don't know when it will be back up. This happens periodically.
Hi Ray, I don't know what your problem with t.o may be but it has been up and running at least since June 18th. I greeted the news with "send in the clowns", and I welcome you back where you belong. I have wanted to raise some stumbling blocks for you but with your well developed tactics of always talking about something else I know it as always would be wasted on you. When did you ever address a real scientific issue? All you do is searching old and ancient literature for arguments you think trumps current, 21st century status of evolutionary research. How can you think that writing a book with that as your research portfolio can overthrow 150 years of sound science? Do you really think that the quality of scientific research being applied to evolution is inferior, down to the level of idiocy, compared with all the other sciences, most of which even evolutionary research depend on for it's breathtaking, impressive results? While creationists like you are static like cast in stone; science even during the twelve years since I fist met you at t.o. have made tremendous advances and the ToE, contrary to creationists claims, stands even stronger that ever before. BTW, Ray, you may keep your Bible! There's gold in them pages, but without a proper detector you only find fools gold. I'll repost this at t.o., It doesn't really belong her at PT. Yours truly, Rolf

ogremk5 · 1 July 2011

Ray Martinez said:
ogremk5 said: [content erased---R.M]
Ogremky: I have ignored your posts because they are off-topic. If you or Cali want a piece of me then show your face at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via Google Groups) where I post regularly. There are no moderators to save or censor anyone. The Group is currently down, though. Don't know when it will be back up. This happens periodically.
FRDB is un-moderated at least as far as polite discourse is concerned. You were there, but haven't appeared back after multiple requests from me to do what you said you would. AtBC is as un-moderated as it's possible to get, with the sole exception of making new threads. You ran from that as well. I find it interesting that your probable complaint about AtBC is rudeness, yet the denzions there get along perfectly well with each other, even the Christians. Ray, you also visited my personal blog, which you still have unmoderated commenting privileges at. I only moderate posters who are unapologetic jerks with excessive use of foul language. Currently there is only one person at my blog that is moderated and no one is banned. YOU, Ray, have visited all of these places before and cannot stay to have a civil scientific discussion. You run. I am still at all of those places and PT, though I don't visit the BW that often. So, you have plenty of chances to defend your statements and do the things you claimed to. In each case though, YOU run away. Isn't that interesting? I honestly don't 'want a piece of you'. What I want is you to man up and deliver on things you say you will. I don't have a lot of hope. Finally, in an attempt to keep this on topic (hah!), I notice, Ray, that you have not even attempted to deny that Expelled contains lies. This is an interesting catch-22 for you and your fellows. If Expelled contains no lies, but you aren't willing to defend it, why? If Expelled does contain lies, then you accept those lies in pursuit of your agenda (which obviously does not involve the truth). That's not a very Christian (or any religion for that matter) attitude. If Expelled does contain lies and you don't accept them, then shouldn't you be vigorously condemning the makers of Expelled as well? Even if I am talking with a fellow scientist, if they lie, I call them on it. So, why aren't you calling the makers about their lies, Ray? Or is this that 'Big Tent' we keep hearing about? So what's it to be Ray? Defend or denial? I predict running away, but we shall see.

Mike Elzinga · 1 July 2011

Shebardigan said:
Henry J said:

I smell an Oscar!

In contrast to what, a Felix?
Well, the immediate contrast that comes to mind, anent "Felix", is the cat box in the other room.
If this one brings back memories, you are old. Question: What do you get if you let Felix the Cat drive a Hansom cab through Central Park? Answer: Clawed reins.

mrg · 1 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Clawed reins.
Yes, but it will be invisible. "Arrest the usual suspects."

calilasseia · 1 July 2011

phantomreader42 said:
calilasseia said: Of course, the only reason that, as Ray asserts, there is a furore over Expelled amongst people who prefer reality to mythological fantasies, is because the makers of that propaganda screed lied through their teeth about valid science, and lied through their teeth about the real reasons why their fantasies aren't a part of the school curriculum.
Hey, the fact that the makers of Expelled lied isn't the ONLY thing that pisses people off. They also stole! :P
Oh indeed, they did that as well. But then didn't Dembski also steal something that wasn't his? A certain video clip from XVIVO that was commissioned by Harvard University? In fact, I'm wondering why it is that these blatant instances of theft have not been punished in the courts. Along with the instances of perjury by the IDists at the Dover Trial, despite the fact that in his summing up, Judge Jones clearly and explicity accused the IDists of lying on oath, which constitutes the criminal offence of perjury, and for which you and I would be facing some fairly hefty jail time. I don't recall the US Constitiution containing any clauses to the effect "if you make lots of noises about Jesus, you can get away with breaking the law". Or did the Republicans slip one in by the back door during Bush jr's tenure?
Ray Martinez said:
John said: No, moron. The "uproar" is due to the ample chicanery and theft associated with this project, starting on Day One, when the Premise Media producers opted not to tell the likes of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and others that their "science" documentary film was going to be an attack on them, not a credible documentary of the kind we expect from the likes of the BBC's scientific films unit or from PBS NOVA.
Since all investigative media behaves the same way
Another blind assertion you've just pulled out of your arse, Ray. One that once again is wholly unsupported by the evidence, like your assertions about biology.
Ray Martinez said: you are actually venting righteous anger at their methods.
Correction, you are pulling assertions out of your arse again. I don't recall the BBC here in the UK being censured recently for duplicitous practices in its news department. This might be de rigeur in the world of Fox News, but fortunately, not every media outlet is owned by arch-crook Rupert Murdoch, despite his avaricious attempts to control the world's media. Plus, he's learned that with respect to some of the British media outlets he owns, such as The Times, he can't turn it into an upper-class version of the Daily Star minus the tits. The readership thereof includes some people he doesn't want to rub up the wrong way, because they're fellow power brokers on the money markets, some of whom he might want to tap for a business loan someday.
Ray Martinez said: And since most units are populated with persons who are pro-evolution, it appears that you do not like a taste of your own medicine.
Oh please, spare us the entirely synthetic posturing, Ray, it merely makes you look even more of a slimy little douchebag than previously. If you think Fox News is "pro-evolution", you might want to ask why it hands out air time regularly to liars for Jesus. Another of those pieces of real world evidence that people like you routinely ignore when said evidence conflicts with your ideological wet dreams.
Ray Martinez said: I am not saying it is right or moral; I am merely adding the proper contex.
Bollocks. You're simply pulling assertions out of an orifice more usually associated with a more solid form of waste matter. But then this describes your assorted eructations in various public arenas to a tee.
Ray Martinez said: In essence, all of them lie and sneak around to get their material.
I'm sure the BBC would love you to make this assertion in public over here. They'd enjoy slapping you with a libel suit immensely. Meanwhile, the question I would like to see answered, is why Ruloff, if it was him, was so desperate to pony up $210K of his own money to get his work back, and if it wasn't his money he spent, who handed him the loot? Only I suspect that if we ever do get our hands on the material, we'll find that the instances of malfeasance on the part of the creationists multiply still further. Indeed, this is one question I've never seen a creationist even attempt to answer - why do creationists have to lie in order to propagandise for their doctrine? Of course, that question will be regarded as merely rhetorical by those here who paid attention in science classes, but every time I hit a creationist with this, the response has been to lie low and hide, in the hope that the awkward question goes away. Robert Byers has been doing this ever since I started hitting him with it, to the point of jumping ship from forum to forum in the hope of finding somewhere safe, where he can post his illiterate gibberish free from critical scrutiny, though in his case, his utterances are so deranged that other Christians keep telling him to shut up. I gather that even the Calvinists over at CARM did this.

Frank J · 2 July 2011

Henry J said:

I smell an Oscar!

In contrast to what, a Felix?
If Ray's co-star is Ben Stein, they'll be quite the odd couple.

Ray Martinez · 2 July 2011

calilasseia said:
phantomreader42 said:
calilasseia said: Of course, the only reason that, as Ray asserts, there is a furore over Expelled amongst people who prefer reality to mythological fantasies, is because the makers of that propaganda screed lied through their teeth about valid science, and lied through their teeth about the real reasons why their fantasies aren't a part of the school curriculum.
Hey, the fact that the makers of Expelled lied isn't the ONLY thing that pisses people off. They also stole! :P
Oh indeed, they did that as well. But then didn't Dembski also steal something that wasn't his? A certain video clip from XVIVO that was commissioned by Harvard University? In fact, I'm wondering why it is that these blatant instances of theft have not been punished in the courts. Along with the instances of perjury by the IDists at the Dover Trial, despite the fact that in his summing up, Judge Jones clearly and explicity accused the IDists of lying on oath, which constitutes the criminal offence of perjury, and for which you and I would be facing some fairly hefty jail time. I don't recall the US Constitiution containing any clauses to the effect "if you make lots of noises about Jesus, you can get away with breaking the law". Or did the Republicans slip one in by the back door during Bush jr's tenure?
Ray Martinez said:
John said: No, moron. The "uproar" is due to the ample chicanery and theft associated with this project, starting on Day One, when the Premise Media producers opted not to tell the likes of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and others that their "science" documentary film was going to be an attack on them, not a credible documentary of the kind we expect from the likes of the BBC's scientific films unit or from PBS NOVA.
Since all investigative media behaves the same way
Another blind assertion you've just pulled out of your arse, Ray. One that once again is wholly unsupported by the evidence, like your assertions about biology.
Ray Martinez said: you are actually venting righteous anger at their methods.
Correction, you are pulling assertions out of your arse again. I don't recall the BBC here in the UK being censured recently for duplicitous practices in its news department. This might be de rigeur in the world of Fox News, but fortunately, not every media outlet is owned by arch-crook Rupert Murdoch, despite his avaricious attempts to control the world's media. Plus, he's learned that with respect to some of the British media outlets he owns, such as The Times, he can't turn it into an upper-class version of the Daily Star minus the tits. The readership thereof includes some people he doesn't want to rub up the wrong way, because they're fellow power brokers on the money markets, some of whom he might want to tap for a business loan someday.
Ray Martinez said: And since most units are populated with persons who are pro-evolution, it appears that you do not like a taste of your own medicine.
Oh please, spare us the entirely synthetic posturing, Ray, it merely makes you look even more of a slimy little douchebag than previously. If you think Fox News is "pro-evolution", you might want to ask why it hands out air time regularly to liars for Jesus. Another of those pieces of real world evidence that people like you routinely ignore when said evidence conflicts with your ideological wet dreams.
Ray Martinez said: I am not saying it is right or moral; I am merely adding the proper contex.
Bollocks. You're simply pulling assertions out of an orifice more usually associated with a more solid form of waste matter. But then this describes your assorted eructations in various public arenas to a tee.
Ray Martinez said: In essence, all of them lie and sneak around to get their material.
I'm sure the BBC would love you to make this assertion in public over here. They'd enjoy slapping you with a libel suit immensely. Meanwhile, the question I would like to see answered, is why Ruloff, if it was him, was so desperate to pony up $210K of his own money to get his work back, and if it wasn't his money he spent, who handed him the loot? Only I suspect that if we ever do get our hands on the material, we'll find that the instances of malfeasance on the part of the creationists multiply still further. Indeed, this is one question I've never seen a creationist even attempt to answer - why do creationists have to lie in order to propagandise for their doctrine? Of course, that question will be regarded as merely rhetorical by those here who paid attention in science classes, but every time I hit a creationist with this, the response has been to lie low and hide, in the hope that the awkward question goes away. Robert Byers has been doing this ever since I started hitting him with it, to the point of jumping ship from forum to forum in the hope of finding somewhere safe, where he can post his illiterate gibberish free from critical scrutiny, though in his case, his utterances are so deranged that other Christians keep telling him to shut up. I gather that even the Calvinists over at CARM did this.
My response for Cali (and Ogremky) is here: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/713f1eeb3ba39a32

John · 3 July 2011

Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic creobot whined: My response for Cali (and Ogremky) is here: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/713f1eeb3ba39a32
What response, you G*DD***ED mendicant? You haven't addressed what David Bolinsky was forced to write in response to Dembski's brazen attempt at larceny: "To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you “found somewhere”, with Harvard’s and XVIVO’s credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to ‘swat the gnat’ with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!" " It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/lega[…]mment-229619), in what is legally, malignant infringement, since you no had doubt discussed with EXPELLED’s producers, Harvard’s previous legal infringement action against you, the Discovery Institute, where you are a fellow and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you teach. Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too." David Bolinsky's response was posted at the Richard Dawkins Foundation website and several others, but I refer you to the annotated version posted here at Panda's Thumb: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/david-bolinsky.html

ogremk5 · 5 July 2011

Ray appears to have pulled a brave Sir Robin at the place he suggested we visit.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that he hasn't commented yet.

Ray Martinez · 5 July 2011

John said:
Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic creobot whined: My response for Cali (and Ogremky) is here: [irrelavant link erased--RM]
What response, you G*DD***ED mendicant? You haven't addressed what David Bolinsky was forced to write in response to Dembski's brazen attempt at larceny....
William Dembski a thief? Since he accepts species mutability/microevolution, macroevolution and common descent, like any Evolutionist, I am not the least bit surprised. His reputation as an "IDist, " that is, an opponent of evolution, is completely false. If anyone doubts what I say about Dembski, then see for yourself, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_qCUA2kslk RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

circleh · 5 July 2011

Ray Martinez said: William Dembski a thief? Since he accepts species mutability/microevolution, macroevolution and common descent, like any Evolutionist, I am not the least bit surprised. His reputation as an "IDist, " that is, an opponent of evolution, is completely false. If anyone doubts what I say about Dembski, then see for yourself, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_qCUA2kslk RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
Gee, why should anyone take you seriously when you deny reality in a way that Dembski does not? Maybe you are jealous that he is more popular than you are?

ogremk5 · 6 July 2011

I thought you weren't commenting here Ray because
Both Matt Young and Reed Cartwright erase my messages on a routine basis (contrary to their own Rules). I have been censored by Darwinists on the Internet for years at the drop of a hat. I don't trust any Darwinist, including you.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0342810429cddba1 It's a good thing that I'm not a Darwinist (whatever that is). Ray, seriously, you have enough trouble with the definitions of known words (like immutable and evolution). Who knows what you mean when you use made up words. Anyway, it's good to see that you're posting here. Now how about answering the question (which you STILL haven't done)?

Reed A. Cartwright · 6 July 2011

Ray who?

mrg · 6 July 2011

The name "Ray" seems to ring a bell, but I suspect reality has been altered to extinguish all traces of the existence of "Ray". Or maybe "Ray" was a myth all along, who knows?

Kenneth Fair · 6 July 2011

Another update: The funds transfer that I had initiated from the bank account for the TalkOrigins Foundation to our Paypal account is complete. I have begun the process of issuing refunds, beginning with the earliest donations on June 23. I will continue that process over the next couple of days. Please be patient while I process the refunds. As soon as that process is complete, I will update everyone again.

Kenneth Fair, Secretary/Treasurer, TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.

John · 7 July 2011

Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic creobot barfed:
John said:
Ray Martinez the delusional psychotic creobot whined: My response for Cali (and Ogremky) is here: [irrelavant link erased--RM]
What response, you G*DD***ED mendicant? You haven't addressed what David Bolinsky was forced to write in response to Dembski's brazen attempt at larceny....
William Dembski a thief? Since he accepts species mutability/microevolution, macroevolution and common descent, like any Evolutionist, I am not the least bit surprised. His reputation as an "IDist, " that is, an opponent of evolution, is completely false. If anyone doubts what I say about Dembski, then see for yourself, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_qCUA2kslk RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
Dembski openly sneered and bragged back in the Fall of 2007 that he "borrowed" that Harvard University cell animation video produced for Harvard by XVIVO. You obiviously didn't pay attention to Bolinsky's commentary, moron!

Kenneth Fair · 14 July 2011

A final update:

Unless I am mistaken, the TalkOrigins Foundation has now processed refunds for everyone who contributed to the Foundation during our campaign to buy "Expelled"; that is, everyone who contributed between June 23 and June 28. If you donated with a credit card, it may take a couple of days for the refund to show up on your statement, so please be patient.

If for some reason your donation does not show up as having been returned in a couple of days from now, please let me know by emailing me here. It would help me greatly if you could include your Paypal Transaction ID with your email, so that I can more easily determine which transaction was yours.

Once again, thank you to everyone who contributed to this campaign.

Kenneth Fair, Secretary/Treasurer, TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.