The cast.
How so? Was Isaiah, Samuel, or Moses in the cast?
“The fine folks who threatened the life of the judge” (part of the documentary’s cast of characters) were referenced in Post 21. Tuckerfan and True Blue Jack have been speculating about their motives, given how tantalizingly little the Documentary offered of their backstories.
No, I’m pretty sure they’ve retired. I realize that the thread has grown a little bit involved, so you may have been confused about which “they” True Blue Jack meant. I hope this explanation helps clear it up for you.
That brings up an error in clarity in my post.
Morgan uses a somewhat confusing set of book abbreviations in his Bible citations. You can see what they are in his key from his homepage. He uses all capitals, BTW.
I changed most of the books from his style to a more traditional one. But I goofed with the First Samuel books. I changed 3 out of 4 from 1SA to 1sa, completely missing that there was a leading one, not a leading capital I. Then I put a period after each of these 3 out of 4. That made them look like abbreviations for Isaiah. The final first Samuel citation no doubt looked like Isaiah, as well, but I didn’t make the same mistake with the one 2nd Samuel selection. I suppose that’s because no latter prophet looks like ZSA would be short for his name. 
None of the selections that I made from his extensive lists were from Isaiah. My bad. I should have caught the disparity between the apparent Latter Prophets book and the actual (much earlier) historical material.
Thank you for your post on the relevance, Barrett Bonden.
It’s certainly true that the discussion has become rather involved.
There was an unstated connection between the examples I cited and the OP/Nova program. I didn’t state it, but it’s surely verrryy interrrresting that some people see all sorts of flaws in biological evolution, most not even worthy of serious discussion, but “swallow the camel” when it come to their much glossed-over little Good Book. BTW, between the human error of falling back on old terminology and the flaw in revising a document (see my post) I may as well say now, that the Almighty sure works in mysterious ways. 
I intend to continue the discussion of what’s egregiously WRONG with The Good Book in the BBQ Pit. Not to flame anyone, at least not in a “first strike” way. Just to be able to flame back, mostly at the Bible (which some fundamentalists treat like a person), if anyone falls back on personal attacks when their “defense” :rolleyes: of the Bible inevitably crumbles.
Redundant signature here! 
I’m about 3/4 the way through Amish Grace, an excellent account of the forgiveness shown by the Amish last year when those five school children were killed at school. In one of the interviews an Amish man, a preacher, says “Don’t put a question mark where god put a period.” Wow! I’ve heard this before, maybe paraphrased, and it’s always amazed me that people could actually think that way.
Blind faith. 
I watched the show, and it was, indeed, excellent. And revealing. The “lake of fire” threat can be quite convincing, I suspect.
Peace,
mangeorge
Finally watched it tonight, and when the preacher kept talking about us being made in God’s image I couldn’t help but think, “Does God have a nutsack? If so, what happens if you kick Him in the family jewels? (IMHO, I think probably the strongest argument against ID is the fact that males come equiped with an “off button” as it were. Nobody who’s taken a shot to the nards thinks it’s a good idea to have them dangling outside the body.) How about boogers? Does God have those? Does He pick them? What’s He do with them afterwards? Wipe them on the far side of the Moon?”
Comets?
Reminds me of an old Joan Osborne tune.
Get your cdesign proponentist T-shirts here! (I wish I’d thought of that.)
Early in the show when the describe the legal hurdles and how it was the plaintiff’s job to prove the motivations of others (and the difficulty) I was worried about the outcome.
But a part of me was seriously thinking, “Are you kidding me?” I mean seriously…does this remotely fool anyone? Over and over again I found myself amazed at the effort to “prove” all of this. Intelligent Design invokes and Intelligent Designer. What else could that possibly be but God? Unless they want to suggest it is aliens. What possible motivation then for the people pushing this clearly creationist concept other than to promote creationism (aka religion)?
I’m glad it all turned out as it did it felt like they had to spend months and millions of dollars arguing that water was wet.
I haven’t been able to figure out just how that phrase happened. Obviously it an attempt at global replacement, but maybe it didn’t work right for more than one reason? If the original was “creationist”, then replacing “creation” with “design proponent” would result in “design proponentist” without the “c” prefix. (Which still would have been a smoking gun.)
Besides, why would you replace “creation” with “design proponent”? Wouldn’t you want to replace “creationist”?
Perhaps the original was misspelled as “ccreationist”? Or “ccreationistist”?
The original word was “creationists.” The botched replacement rendered the word “cdesign proponentsists.” in other words, the word “proponents” was intact with its plural and then had another tailing plural ending right after it. The ‘S’ after “proponent” is pretty much the smoking gun that it was intended as a redaction for a different word ending in “-ists.” The leading ‘C’ leaves no real doubt as to what that word originally was, especially in light of other evidence showing stuff like the exact same definition originally being given to “Creationism,” that was ultimately given for ID.
I can’t read the writing on the shirt . “Enlarge” doesn’t work. Must be a fundamentalist conspiracy.
Awesome. I didn’t believe I was watching something so well done.
Having a conservative, church-going, Bush-appointed judge really made them bring their A game.
In case of the remotest possibility of seriousness about your inquiry and innocent ignorance about the scripture, being made in God’s image means being a free moral agent and begin essentially spirit — like God.
Why this thread has remained in Cafe Society is a mystery. Very little of it has been about the cinematic or aesthetic aspects of the documentary. In fact, it isn’t even Great Debates or IMHO quality. It’s a Pit thread.
Hardly, Liberal. The only even slightly angry post is this one. IMHO might be a possibility, though.
The conservatives tried to slip one by us, but failed, imo. But I’m not mad at them.
Watched it last night. It was very good, even if the re-enactments were a little hokey. Why is the acting in these types of things always so amateurish? The part about finding the “transitional form” or “missing link” in the “creationist” -> “design agent” had me in stitches. I was pretty familiar with the case since we discussed it at length in GD, but it was nice to see all the details laid out. It was astonishing, though, how much nastiness there was on the creationist side of things. Good thing none of the threats were carried out…
Liberal, defender of the Café. Do you and Carol Stream* compare notes?
We’ve gone through this before. If you really think it is in the wrong forum report it. If it still hasn’t move, just let it drop, it isn’t that important in the end.
It was a TV show, it is in the Café. Most of the sports threads really don’t belong here in the Café either, but that is where they live now. I think by your standards, we would not have any news or documentary shows discussed in the Café.
Jim
- She is busy trying to kick things out of the Pit on a regular basis.
In order to get “cdesign proponentsists”, the original would have to have been “creationists” and “design proponents” replaced “reation”, not “creationists”. Is that the botched operation you are referring to?
If the original was “creationists” and “creationist” was replaced with “design proponents”, then the result would be “design proponentss”. Can you give an example of a logical something (before, replacement, after) which would result in a leading “c”?
That’s pretty much it, yeah. I don’t know who or why they botched it so badly but somehow they just did an incomplete job of deleting the original word.