Osama Flops in USA

[TrinityJ]

Has anyone else seen Where in The World is Osama Bin Laden? I saw it the other day, and i thought it was a great documentary. I leanred a crap load about the political struggles and culture in the 9 or 10 different countries Spurlock(Supersize Me guy) visited. With the calibre of the film, i am suprised it flopped in the US. Anyone have any idea of why this might ahve happened? I definitely dont expect it to flop in Canada. I jsut dont get it.

[M.Dancer]

Has anyone else seen Where in The World is Osama Bin Laden? I saw it the other day, and i thought it was a great documentary. I leanred a crap load about the political struggles and culture in the 9 or 10 different countries Spurlock(Supersize Me guy) visited. With the calibre of the film, i am suprised it flopped in the US. Anyone have any idea of why this might ahve happened? I definitely dont expect it to flop in Canada. I jsut dont get it.

Maybe because it looks silly?

Might be a good time to short Alliance....

[WIP]

Has anyone else seen Where in The World is Osama Bin Laden? I saw it the other day, and i thought it was a great documentary. I leanred a crap load about the political struggles and culture in the 9 or 10 different countries Spurlock(Supersize Me guy) visited. With the calibre of the film, i am suprised it flopped in the US. Anyone have any idea of why this might ahve happened? I definitely dont expect it to flop in Canada. I jsut dont get it.

So much for Morgan Spurlocks's dream of becoming the next Michael Moore! I haven't seen it, but it bothered me a little that he used dishonest tactics in Supersize Me, to get the dramatic results he wanted; specifically that he consumed over 5000 calories a day and did not exercise or engage in any physical activity. Why didn't he at least drink a diet coke when he was at McDonald's?

Since he's trying to push vegetarianism, it's worth mentioning that consuming 5000 calories from any sources (even plants) is going to make most people fat! It doesn't have to be from McDonald's food to get those results! Since Supersize Me was presented as a scientific experiment, it could be classified as a fraudulent experiment designed from the outset to get the desired results. In that sense, it is similar to the way Michael Moore jerry-rigs his pseudo-documentaries to score political points!

Speaking of pseudo-documentaries, I'm happy to see that the heavy fundamentalist church promotion of Ben Stein's mockumentary on the Intelligent Design movement, is sinking like a stone after opening in over three thousand theatres! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_of...hp?rank_id=1772

[GostHacked]

So much for Morgan Spurlocks's dream of becoming the next Michael Moore! I haven't seen it, but it bothered me a little that he used dishonest tactics in Supersize Me, to get the dramatic results he wanted; specifically that he consumed over 5000 calories a day and did not exercise or engage in any physical activity. Why didn't he at least drink a diet coke when he was at McDonald's?

Yeah a Diet Coke is going to help with that. And I think you are missing the point. He may have been drastic about it, but at least it gets a point across. Not only was he eating alot, and not exercising, his results at the doctor showed more of the danger. Most people will gradually get there over a couple years. He seemed to have proven that eating McDonalds or any fast food place exclusively can and will cause you health problems long term if one does not check it, or exercise.

He's trying to push vegetarianism, it's worth mentioning that consuming 5000 calories from any sources (even plants) is going to make most people fat! It doesn't have to be from McDonald's food to get those results! Since Supersize Me was presented as a scientific experiment, it could be classified as a fraudulent experiment designed from the outset to get the desired results. In that sense, it is similar to the way Michael Moore jerry-rigs his pseudo-documentaries to score political points!

Considering the girth of many of north american citizens, it seems like many of them do not know what exercise is. I guess they do not even know what self restraint is. Lethargic fast food eating whales. Most people do not have the attention span to realize they are on the way to fatdome.

Speaking of pseudo-documentaries, I'm happy to see that the heavy fundamentalist church promotion of Ben Stein's mockumentary on the Intelligent Design movement, is sinking like a stone after opening in over three thousand theatres! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_of...hp?rank_id=1772

I want to see that movie myself. Always up for a good laugh from the creationists. For more of that check out online through youtube a series called 'Why do people laugh at creationists'.

[WIP]

Yeah a Diet Coke is going to help with that. And I think you are missing the point. He may have been drastic about it, but at least it gets a point across. Not only was he eating alot, and not exercising, his results at the doctor showed more of the danger. Most people will gradually get there over a couple years. He seemed to have proven that eating McDonalds or any fast food place exclusively can and will cause you health problems long term if one does not check it, or exercise.

Considering the girth of many of north american citizens, it seems like many of them do not know what exercise is. I guess they do not even know what self restraint is. Lethargic fast food eating whales. Most people do not have the attention span to realize they are on the way to fatdome.

Is there no other way to convince people without using lies and deception? I agree with many of Spurlock's points, (hell, I even agree with some of Michael Moore's ideas), but I can't see alot of value in trying to teach people misinformation.

And we may discover that the obesity epidemic is more complex than fried foods and lack of exercise! Some research indicates that growing stress levels combined with lack of sleep, may be contributing factors to unhealthy weight gain. Someone who has been mislead by Supersize Me, will focus all of their attention on diet and exercise, and miss important new information. http://media.www.trumanindex.com/media/sto...y-1117157.shtml

I want to see that movie myself. Always up for a good laugh from the creationists. For more of that check out online through youtube a series called 'Why do people laugh at creationists'.

From what I hear, the Ben Stein show is just an attack on academia and scientists who work in fields like evolutionary biology in particular. Right now, the hostility towards science that is expressed by religious fundamentalists in the U.S. is approaching the levels in Mulsim countries. The U.S. has the lowest public acceptance of evolutionary theory in the developed world; the U.S. ranks just ahead of Turkey, and would otherwise be in last place! http://digg.com/general_sciences/Public_ac...round_the_world

[genkav]

Is there no other way to convince people without using lies and deception? I agree with many of Spurlock's points, (hell, I even agree with some of Michael Moore's ideas), but I can't see alot of value in trying to teach people misinformation.

And we may discover that the obesity epidemic is more complex than fried foods and lack of exercise! Some research indicates that growing stress levels combined with lack of sleep, may be contributing factors to unhealthy weight gain. Someone who has been mislead by Supersize Me, will focus all of their attention on diet and exercise, and miss important new information. http://media.www.trumanindex.com/media/sto...y-1117157.shtml

From what I hear, the Ben Stein show is just an attack on academia and scientists who work in fields like evolutionary biology in particular. Right now, the hostility towards science that is expressed by religious fundamentalists in the U.S. is approaching the levels in Mulsim countries. The U.S. has the lowest public acceptance of evolutionary theory in the developed world; the U.S. ranks just ahead of Turkey, and would otherwise be in last place! http://digg.com/general_sciences/Public_ac...round_the_world

if they found him, a lot of people wouldn't really have much to do.

[beckij]

Well, I think it's been confirmed how Osama has been spending his time... http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XYBc9OxUtiM

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[sharkman]

From what I hear, the Ben Stein show is just an attack on academia and scientists who work in fields like evolutionary biology in particular. Right now, the hostility towards science that is expressed by religious fundamentalists in the U.S. is approaching the levels in Mulsim countries. The U.S. has the lowest public acceptance of evolutionary theory in the developed world; the U.S. ranks just ahead of Turkey, and would otherwise be in last place! http://digg.com/general_sciences/Public_ac...round_the_world

Come on, you talk about lies and deception and then repeat knee jerk stereotypical responses to religious groups wanting other views to evolution discussed in the classroom. They are a christian nation and you are surprised they have lower acceptance of evolution theory?

[AngusThermopyle]

They are a christian nation and you are surprised they have lower acceptance of evolution theory?

Actually what surprises me is the fact that they are supposed to be a nation with a higher level of education compared to many others, yet the acceptance of evolution is so low. I'm also surprised that so many decry such a well accepted and proven theory, considering that it has been vindicated many times over.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually what surprises me is the fact that they are supposed to be a nation with a higher level of education compared to many others, yet the acceptance of evolution is so low. I'm also surprised that so many decry such a well accepted and proven theory, considering that it has been vindicated many times over.

Yea...go figure...they even reject the idea of a monarchy...well accepted and proven theory!

If a theory is proven, wouldn't it be "fact" ???

[M.Dancer]

If a theory is proven, wouldn't it be "fact" ???

mmmm...evolution is a fact. How things evolve and what the triggers maybe are the subject of theories.

Survival of the fittest is a theory on why things evolve.

[AngusThermopyle]

If a theory is proven, wouldn't it be "fact" ???

Actually when it comes to the scientific method the answer is not always. A theory, when proven remains a theory in that it can encompass several or even many disciplines, therefore it is difficult to call it a fact since that can cover many seperate ideas. Scientist also acknowledge that with the advent of new knowledge accepted beliefs may have to be, and in many cases have been, revised to include the data from this new knowledge. Thus the accepted fact would in fact not be a fact as a matter of fact. Oh my god! I'm starting to sound like Jean Chretien.

Evolution and speciation have now been proven time and time again yet there are those who refuse to accept it. Its sort of like the idiots who claim the only water in the solar system (or even the Universe) exists on Earth. The proof can be staring them in the face yet they will still deny it.

[sharkman]

Fact: It can't be proven that the earth's creatures evolved from single cell organisms to what we have today. It can not be proven that the universe began with a big bang, or the word of God.

When you get this proof of a proof Angus, let us know.

[M.Dancer]

Fact: It can't be proven that the earth's creatures evolved from single cell organisms to what we have today. It can not be proven that the universe began with a big bang, or the word of God.

When you get this proof of a proof Angus, let us know.

We don't need to "prove" that all life evolved fro a single cell.....but it becomes a question of filling on the blanks....if we casn say for certain that invertebrates preceede vertibrates, etc etc etc...it standsto reason that the first life forms were single cells...therefore....

Sometimes logical speculation based on what we know must stand in for what we don't know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually when it comes to the scientific method the answer is not always. A theory, when proven remains a theory in that it can encompass several or even many disciplines, therefore it is difficult to call it a fact since that can cover many seperate ideas. Scientist also acknowledge that with the advent of new knowledge accepted beliefs may have to be, and in many cases have been, revised to include the data from this new knowledge. ...

You mean like when Stephen Hawking was shown to be "theorizing" out of his genius ass? How convenient.....this theory thing appears to be quite flexible, while we demand that the poor Creationists get it perfect from the 'git go.

In mathematics, theorems and supporting proofs hang together much better, and without so much ambiguity.

[sharkman]

We don't need to "prove" that all life evolved fro a single cell.....but it becomes a question of filling on the blanks....if we casn say for certain that invertebrates preceede vertibrates, etc etc etc...it standsto reason that the first life forms were single cells...therefore....

Sometimes logical speculation based on what we know must stand in for what we don't know.

That is the kind of wriggle room in which intelligent design can sneak into!

[AngusThermopyle]

When you get this proof of a proof Angus, let us know.

well...not being Chretien I doubt I will ever get a proof of a proof, oh well.

You mean like when Stephen Hawking was shown to be "theorizing" out of his genius ass? How convenient.....this theory thing appears to be quite flexible, while we demand that the poor Creationists get it perfect from the 'git go.

In mathematics, theorems and supporting proofs hang together much better, and without so much ambiguity.

The scientific method has to be flexible or it simply wouldn't work. As I explained, new data and information can impact upon or even change the accepted norm. Without flexibility scientific research would come to a screaching halt.

Who demands creationist get it right from the get go? That would be foolish to say the least, how on earth do you get a legend right, from the get go?

You are correct, mathematics are less subject to change. However they are still required to a degree and various truisms of mathematical theory have been changed with further knowledge of the field. Obviously this doesn't apply to the basics, one plus one will always equal two (except in Quantum mechanics I believe, not 100% sure on that though). In the realm of higher mathematical function however there is room for variance as more data becomes availlible. This is why mathematicians do generate mathematical theorem as they expect changes to occur with advancements in the field.

Edited May 15, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[GostHacked]

Come on, you talk about lies and deception and then repeat knee jerk stereotypical responses to religious groups wanting other views to evolution discussed in the classroom. They are a christian nation and you are surprised they have lower acceptance of evolution theory?

Creationism is based on a theory and cannot be proven or disproven through scientific analysis. Actually it cannot be proven or disproven through any type of real analysis. Science is. The thing is science is an ever evolving process, the more we know, the better we understand and the more solid the evidence is, the more 'faith' one can place on the scientific method. Science has changed over the years, we can think and theorize about Concept A. Through scienctific methods, we find out that Concept A is flawed and needs to be trashed or remodeled to match the scientific data. Then it becomes Concept A REV 2.0. Our understanding of sience is constantly growing. Our understanding of religion has been static for hundreds if not thousands of years.

In the last 150 years science has brough us, electricity, EMCsquared, nuclear energy, motorized vehicular motion. streamlined manufacturing processes, space exploration/travel. Even this system we use called the Internet, all based on science and fact and proven methods. Almost everything you use today has science involved. Religion has no science involved in it at all. Religion and sience are 100% incompatible.

Interesting thought here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

Recently the Vatican said it is ok to beleive in aliens, for god made them as well. Hopefully those aliens are homo sapiens. For god made them in his image, so they should be exactly like us... correct? So by that, I cannot really buy the line from the article that states, since god made all the creatures on earth he made all the aliens.

From what we know of in the Bible is that God created man in his own image. If god creates other intelligent creatues, were they made in his own image as well? Or are they physically and phisiologically different than humans? If they are not the same, then god did not create them in his own image, and humans are the only ones he did that for. Even an older species of intelligen races that are space faring that could have visited earth, could not have been made in gods own image. But this is pure speculation and has no scientific evidence at all.

So this must be conflicting for many.

I will put my 'faith' in the scientific method. I found out I had no use for religion before the age of 10.

Bush_Cheney

You mean like when Stephen Hawking was shown to be "theorizing" out of his genius ass? How convenient.....this theory thing appears to be quite flexible, while we demand that the poor Creationists get it perfect from the 'git go.

Well the onus is on religion now isn't it? Science has handed over the proof of everything that is has done for us. Religion has brought us several ancient books that have been 'purple-monkey-dishwasher'd' through the ages and do not reflect the origional words of religion. Science cannot back up everything it investigates, because we are still evolving in our understanding of our world and universe around us. Creationists just tells us God did it, and that is that. Whithout any evidence to back it up. I put my faith in tried, tested and true. I do not put any faith in speculation about a subject that can garner no empirical evidence.

There is an interesting bit on youtube to check out, (cannot do it from work here). It shows a metal locked box at the start, asks you to guess what is in the box. Then it goes on about how man discovered that the earth is in fact round, how to triangulate stars and planets to understand the size, mass and make up of the celestial body. After about 10 minutes of this, they go to the box and ask you 'have you found out what is in the box?' Nope. We still do not what is in the box. Untill scientific method is applied to finding out what is in the box, it is pure speculation and a leap of faith. No real proof to back up what is in the box. Sure air is in the box, but what type of air? Do you really know 100% for sure? Are you guessing? Do you think that can stand up to scientific analysis?

Religon is pure guesswork.

Science is guesswork at the start, then refined, and even reDEfined, tweaked untill we can recreate the end result consistantly using science.

2+2=4. Pretty solid evidence there. No speculation involved here right? And no matter how you approach this 2+2 will always =4. Tried, tested, proven and factual truth.

I am not knocking religion, but I am knocking how they are going about claiming Creationism as a science. When in fact it is a philosophy.

[AngusThermopyle]

I agree with 99% of what you say Gosthacked. The only thing I do not agree with is this.

Creationism is based on a theory and cannot be proven or disproven through scientific analysis.

In order to become a theory some form of observable repeatable phenomena must exist. I cant think of any phenomena or shred of evidence to support creationism that meets the above stated requirements. If a creationist were to claim that the sun rises and sets every day and that this is an observable repeatable phenomena caused by god so therefore god exists then that doesn't count. We already know why the sun behaves this way and can show exactly why it does so this can not be used as proof enough to formulate a theory.

Religion is not about learning and knowledge, in fact it is the opposite. Saying god made it actually has the effect of stifling all debate in the quest for knowledge, it is a dead end street.

Other than that you presented an excellent post.

Edited May 15, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[bush_cheney2004]

In the last 150 years science has brough us, electricity, EMCsquared, nuclear energy, motorized vehicular motion. streamlined manufacturing processes, space exploration/travel. Even this system we use called the Internet, all based on science and fact and proven methods. Almost everything you use today has science involved. Religion has no science involved in it at all. Religion and sience are 100% incompatible.

Now that's what I call a religion (belief system)....if you believe that "science" has brought all that then you are no more correct than the creationists.

Well the onus is on religion now isn't it?

No more than the onus is on "science".....and it has been wrong. Faith in science alone does not meet the needs of billions...religion fills the void.

I just want to note that "science" is on the verge of creating life in the lab.

2+2=4. Pretty solid evidence there. No speculation involved here right? And no matter how you approach this 2+2 will always =4. Tried, tested, proven and factual truth.

Because I can demonstrate the proof...yes. And the proof extends and supports the next proof...and so on. Science is less than that...it is fractured...incomplete....and competing for acceptance by "great" minds. Science lags mathematics in this regard.

I am not knocking religion, but I am knocking how they are going about claiming Creationism as a science. When in fact it is a philosophy.

Scientists (old and new) have spread folly as fact. Does that make it a philosophy?

[GostHacked]

Now that's what I call a religion (belief system)....if you believe that "science" has brought all that then you are no more correct than the creationists.

So science does not bring us anything then? Man can think of a way for something to happen, and without science (seeing if it can work or not, what is needed to make it work) it goes nowhere. Science is applied in order for man to create things to make life easier for him. I don't see religion doing that for humanity.

Why does the apple fall straigt down from the tree?

Science says it is due to gravity. We have managed to calculate the speed and acceleration of said apple as it falls, we can determine through science, that the earth's rotation causes a gravitational effect that pulls other object to it's surface.

Religion tells us god did it. Is this the simplest explanation? Yes. Is it the right explanation? No. This science 'religion' has showed me time and time again, that it can reproduce an end result time and time again, using the same methods. You cannot say that about religion.

No more than the onus is on "science".....and it has been wrong. Faith in science alone does not meet the needs of billions...religion fills the void.

Science brought all it's proof to the table. Science brought books, with math, physics, years and years of testing which garners the same results time and time again. Tried, tested and true. Religion has brought us a few books that contain stories about how people should live. Creationists brough their proof to the table as well. Which is just a couple more books about philosophy.

Religion did not bring us the wheel

Religion did not bring us the vehicle

Religion did not bring us the atom bomb.

Religion did not bring us more fuel effeicent cars.

Religion did not bring us vaccines and medicine.

I just want to note that "science" is on the verge of creating life in the lab.

Since this is the case, it now challenges what your idea of what God really is.

Because I can demonstrate the proof...yes. And the proof extends and supports the next proof...and so on. Science is less than that...it is fractured...incomplete....and competing for acceptance by "great" minds. Science lags mathematics in this regard.

Smart people that have a basic understanding, realize that science is an ever growing process. Scientists understand that their theories can and will be challenged. If you try to get anything but 4 when you add two and two together. If your theory of 2+2= anything but 4, you are doing it wrong. Two + two = 4. Always has, always will. Tried, tested, proven to be true. Solid empirical undeniable evidence. It's laid out there in all it's parts for you to understand. Simple is it not?

Scientists (old and new) have spread folly as fact. Does that make it a philosophy?

They do this for their own gain. Period. Like those who put forth the lies about global warming. Like those who tell us that drugs are bad, but put forth pharmecuticles as a substitute. OH science brought us all our modern drugs as well.

If creationism can be applied to scientific analysys, then we can have a shot at determining if creationism is in fact true. If we have no tests to prove this as fact or fiction, then we can assume that there is no pre-factual basis for the mindset one has with religion.

Religion and science as far as I can see it, are totaly incompatible. Which brings me to what Angus had said. Angus, you definately have me at that statement, and I am enlightened with the following.

In order to become a theory some form of observable repeatable phenomena must exist. I cant think of any phenomena or shred of evidence to support creationism that meets the above stated requirements. If a creationist were to claim that the sun rises and sets every day and that this is an observable repeatable phenomena caused by god so therefore god exists then that doesn't count. We already know why the sun behaves this way and can show exactly why it does so this can not be used as proof enough to formulate a theory.

Note on Google.ca .com today. Today is the 60th anniversary of the invention and discovery of the laser beam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

But ignore that, God said ......

Edited May 16, 2008 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

So science does not bring us anything then? Man can think of a way for something to happen, and without science (seeing if it can work or not, what is needed to make it work) it goes nowhere. Science is applied in order for man to create things to make life easier for him. I don't see religion doing that for humanity.

No, this is not always the case. No need to credit science with all that has come before. Many different methods of discovery and application got us to where we are today, including blind luck.

Why does the apple fall straigt down from the tree?

Science says it is due to gravity. We have managed to calculate the speed and acceleration of said apple as it falls, we can determine through science, that the earth's rotation causes a gravitational effect that pulls other object to it's surface.

I think gravity is more related to mass, rotating or not. Science has helped to explain this fundamental force, but not completely.

Religion tells us god did it. Is this the simplest explanation? Yes. Is it the right explanation? No. This science 'religion' has showed me time and time again, that it can reproduce an end result time and time again, using the same methods. You cannot say that about religion.

Except when it can't. We are expected to accept scientific notions of "anti-gravity" with little more evidence than that provided by the God merchants.

Science brought all it's proof to the table. Science brought books, with math, physics, years and years of testing which garners the same results time and time again. Tried, tested and true. Religion has brought us a few books that contain stories about how people should live. Creationists brough their proof to the table as well. Which is just a couple more books about philosophy.

And that's because science is not a very good social system when answers are needed now, not when the scientists get around to figuring it out.

Religion did not bring us the wheel

Religion did not bring us the vehicle

Religion did not bring us the atom bomb.

Religion did not bring us more fuel effeicent cars.

Religion did not bring us vaccines and medicine.

Since this is the case, it now challenges what your idea of what God really is.

Not really...I am a pagan. For all practical purposes, the ancients were right when nominating a large thermonuclear process as their God. We call it the Sun.....so did they. Don't leave home without it.

[GostHacked]

Bush_Cheney

No, this is not always the case. No need to credit science with all that has come before. Many different methods of discovery and application got us to where we are today, including blind luck.

Yes but even blind lucking the end result can be scientific, and yes accidents do happen in science. If one can create the same end result with exactly the blind luck method (following the exact same steps you took to get to the result garnering the same result), then you have science.

Religion seems more of a blind luck, blind faith concept to me. You don't come off as a pagan, that is for sure. But since you claim to be a pagan, Zeitgeist would be the perfect movie for you then. Seriously. Talks about that big fireball in the sky in terms of religion.

I think gravity is more related to mass, rotating or not. Science has helped to explain this fundamental force, but not completely.

Where as religion has helped to explain none of it. So it is very easy for me to put my faith into something that is tried tested and true. As we said, science is ever evolving and growing. Science even has to change because we discover new rules, laws that we could just not understand before. Religion, stagnant, stale with no room for growth has not given us a better understanding of how the universe works. The phrase 'God did it' is all that many need as an explanation.

And that's because science is not a very good social system when answers are needed now, not when the scientists get around to figuring it out.

See that is where you seem to be misguided. Science is not a social system. Religion is a social system.

You would be a fool if you expect to get the right answer the first time. You would also be a fool to take the first answer it gave. You would be a fool not to try the experiment again to see if you got the same results. You would be a fool to take everything at face value and not find out if it really is fact or fiction.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes but even blind lucking the end result can be scientific, and yes accidents do happen in science. If one can create the same end result with exactly the blind luck method (following the exact same steps you took to get to the result garnering the same result), then you have science.

But many times you don't.....it is just blind luck devoid of any "scientific method". We "evolved" that way for a very long time. It works...even when it is called "religion".

Religion seems more of a blind luck, blind faith concept to me. You don't come off as a pagan, that is for sure. But since you claim to be a pagan, Zeitgeist would be the perfect movie for you then. Seriously. Talks about that big fireball in the sky in terms of religion.

Then you admit that the sun worshippers got it right without any steenkin' science....amazing!

Where as religion has helped to explain none of it. So it is very easy for me to put my faith into something that is tried tested and true. As we said, science is ever evolving and growing. Science even has to change because we discover new rules, laws that we could just not understand before. Religion, stagnant, stale with no room for growth has not given us a better understanding of how the universe works. The phrase 'God did it' is all that many need as an explanation.

False...religion can and does change as well. It is not static. It changes to meet peoples needs (as belief systems).

See that is where you seem to be misguided. Science is not a social system. Religion is a social system.

Yes, that is what I said. I am not "misguided".

You would be a fool if you expect to get the right answer the first time. You would also be a fool to take the first answer it gave. You would be a fool not to try the experiment again to see if you got the same results. You would be a fool to take everything at face value and not find out if it really is fact or fiction.

And you would be a fool to always wait for the right answer.

[GostHacked]

BC

Then you admit that the sun worshippers got it right without any steenkin' science....amazing!

Looks like they got it right without religion as well. But you can say they started the science. The speculated about what it is, and then tried to figure it out. Again, religion just says God did it. The pagens and ancient religions most likely had no concept of a religion, or what a god is.

And you would be a fool to always wait for the right answer.

Why would I be a fool to wait for the right answer when only fools rush in? You are a fool if you take the first answer if the answer cannot be duplicated using the same methods. What if the answer changes? Are you to still take the first one now that the answer has changed? Who looks like a fool?

If the first answer has been tested to be true, then you can take the first answer. But in reality you are waiting for the next result to be the same. The 3rd time is the same as well. So by now you have waited for the 3rd answer and by now all 3 give the same result. So you are a fool to take the first right answer.

Imagine if businesses were run like this.

.......

So anyways back on topic. Seems like Spurlock never managed to find Osama while filming.