Netflix Documentary (s)

I am an avid Netflix Documentary watcher, and I saw one lastnight called Religulious by Bill Maher. I know religion is a touchy subject, but hoyl smokes, does this ever bring some light to a very taboo topic. I recommend watching it.

Has anyone seen any other good ones? Street Thief is another really good one!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

gst Said:

fishmahn Said:

Johnr-You've beat that horse before,...repeatedly.  Once again,....I was referring to those that wrap themselves in the crucifix and flag and but behave more like followers of Ayn Rand then Jesus Christ.  Those that politically behave with " free wheeling, deregulated, minimal taxes for the wealthy, plutocrat boosting capitlaism as the ideal earthly scheme for His human creation."  and attempt to qualify themselves as Christians.   NOt much of that philosophy in the
bible,...quite the contrary.

Fish, one thing that is certain, the reverand Wright will not "wrap himself in the flag" !

At least not an American flag, however I am sure fish wouldnt either. for sure not hold his heart while the pledge is being spoken 

Neat

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GST-You're a funny guy. *lol*  I realize that  it's a comspiracy that 98%+ of the world's scientists believe in somethig, it's the same as someone that says their something but they really are not even close to what they profess. We do have a reference as well called the Bible.

 
As to what I stated earlier you must have seen this sometime recently
"Science is not a Liberal conspiracy!"

Guywhofishes-If you can't connect the dots I guess that's your problem.  Pretty straight forward and basic logic.  Not all is lost however, you have a redeeming quality,...you seem to like to fish.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fish, what percentage of the worlds people beleive in a higher power?

fishmahn Said:
GST-You're a funny guy. *lol*  I realize that  it's a comspiracy that 98%+ of the world's scientists believe in somethig, it's the same as someone that says their something but they really are not even close to what they profess.
 

I thought the whole arguement in this thread was simply because someone "beleives" in something does not make it true and factual. Yet here you are claiming because scientists "beleive" in  global warming it is true. 
 

crfisherman's picture
crfisherman
Offline
Joined: 3/31/03

just for more fun...

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

see the full article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n2/fossils

 

 Live like you'll die tomorrow,
Die knowing you'll live forever.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GST-there is a distinct difference between a simple belief and scientific facts.  Science measures and weighs things in many cases so we can quantitate and reach a decision.  A belief  is a bit more abstract,..but I'm sure you must know that.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

cr fisherman-Just noticed you've mentioned the cossack skull.  I think who ever got involved with this is omitting a few things.  It's true the skull was odd shaped and did exhibit some traits that people have tried to link to Java man however in looking at the skull it's too uniformly flattened.  The practice of  manual head deformation was prevalent among different tribes several thousand years ago and this is probably simply that due to  simple binding or strapping to a fixed object, Ie board type material to get the desired effect.  I think attempting to link this to Java man is really reaching.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fish, when it comes to global warming, you "choose" to bleive what science you wish to.

Even though there exists significant science that contradicts it. So why is one sceince right and one wrong in YOUR eyes?

Because you choose to "beleive" the claims of one scientist and dismiss the calims of another.

You CHOOSE to determine for yourself based on YOUR standards what you beleive.

And yet you condemn those in religion for doing the same.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

GST-no point in discussing this with you as you seem to be forgetting it's not just some abstract thought that I feel strongly about . Do you think it's plausible  that this is  a conspiracy that someone,  somehow got control of 98+ % of the world's scientists and somehow got them all on board??   I've got to get the number of that guy if you know him..  Once again "science is not a liberal conspiracy".  And btw this has nothing to do with preaching one thing and actually behaving  in a  totally different manner.  Good day!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Even though there exists significant science that contradicts it. So why is one sceince right and one wrong in YOUR eyes?

gst that is why at the beginning of this thread I mentioned I spent 36 years as a scientist.  Not to puff up my chest, but to try gain some credibility with those on here with a scientific mind.  I guess however if you don't think like them you don't have credibility.

As an example when I started my career in 1971 they were still debating global warming vs global cooling.  As late as (not sure) four or five years ago 3600 scientists met in New York for a global cooling symposium.  Then we found that two of the worlds top global warming scientists were fudging their data.  Their emails were hacked and exposed to the world. 

I would guess it was about the late 1970's that the liberals found that  they could use global warming as a club.  In liberal administrations the mention of global warming in a study proposal nearly guaranteed funding.  It's a shame, but politics has contaminated science, and left us with a credibility problem.

It pains me to say these things, but my theory is credibility comes with truth.  I hope we have not damaged ourselves to much.  I do notice that those who oppose science still use it to support their theories.  That's a little hypocritical too.  The only way to correct this is keep your hands off science. 

Oh, on the other side of the coin I often see conservatives make fun of science and come up with something that sounds crazy to discredit science.  A good example would be the guy on here that beefs about me developing a salamander trap.  A few years ago they were finding three legged frogs and such in Minnesota.  When they were discovered in North Dakota people wanted to blame farm chemicals right away.  Salamanders stratify in the water column and a plain jane minnow trap would not work.  It was either spend tens of thousands collecting samples for the National Health lab or develop a trap so expensive manual labor was not needed.  Collected samples got farmers off the hook and it was found to be a virus.  So what looks pretty to some was very beneficial to our farm community and the information gained was beneficial to those in wildlife.  It took me a whole day to come up with a design, but you decide if it was a waste or not.   Always an armchair biologist out there.

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Hmmm I have seen mud-puppies caught in an over grown minnow trap, wouldn't sallies be about the same?

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

buckmaster81 Said:

Hmmm I have seen mud-puppies caught in an over grown minnow trap, wouldn't sallies be about the same?

I don't know about mud-puppie behavior.  What many people call mud-puppies around here are immature stages of salamanders, and that is actually what I was trapping.  Adults can move from pond to pond, but I needed chemical information from immatures that could not have come from another pond. 

I'm still not sure why salamanders stratify in the water column.   One night they are on the bottom and another night they suspend at three feet.  I'm not sure if it is in response to oxygen, light, or food items that are responding to light or oxygen.  With a minnow trap you can collect on a pond with few salamanders and get a good catch if you hit it right while at the same time have a trap in a pond with a heavy population and get nothing because they were suspended a foot above your trap all night.  What would look like an environmental cause could simply be a trapping technique.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

crfisherman Said:

just for more fun...

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

see the full article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n2/fossils

 

How convenient, a website to go to, to help find a defense arguement against science, every time someone else questions your faith.

This website is as crooked and backwards as the scammers who developed and operate it.

Capt Ahab's picture
Capt Ahab
Offline
Joined: 6/14/11

I still put more stock into professor Giraffenstein's opinions. http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

multi-species-angler Said:

crfisherman Said:

just for more fun...

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

see the full article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n2/fossils

 

How convenient, a website to go to, to help find a defense arguement against science, every time someone else questions your faith.

This website is as crooked and backwards as the scammers who developed and operate it.

I have a bad feeling that whenever a lesbian looks at me they think “That’s why I’m not a heterosexual”. -George Costanza

I was in the pool! I was in the pool! You don’t understand! There was shrinkage!   -George Costanza

You know if you take everything I’ve ever done in my entire life and condense it down into one day, it looks decent. -George Costanza

Don’t insult me, my friend. Remember who you’re talking to. No one’s a bigger idiot than me. -George Costanza

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
I still put more stock into professor Giraffenstein's opinions. http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

thats awesome...gotta pound it into their heads early before they start thinking for themselves.

anyone who cut & pastes "facts" from anything off of Ken Ham's website might as well excuse themselves from any kind of intelligent debate or argument of this kind.  you instantly lose all credibility and integrity when you associate youself as a fan of his.

If you want to start the cut & paste website game, I can find 100 times more negative links on this quack, and the only positive info on this guy is on his own websites, and of course the fan mail he gets from the Phelps family.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Answers in genesis....LOL!

this is one of thousands of similar articles from around the globe on this tool.  the article is not as interesting as the hundreds of comments from random people below...good stuff, hilarious.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/ken-ham-banned-from-conve_n_840084.html

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Geez crfisherman, you gotta find better sources for your information.  I hope you just stumbled across this guy's website truthingenesis in a desperate attempt at finding a defense argument, please tell me you're not a follower?  even devout christians call this guy a nut.  you're not gonna quote some fun facts from the westboro babtist church's website next are you?...it's ok, we know, god hates fags.

www.barefootandprogressive.com/2011/03/ken-ham-says-that-japan-tsunami-proves-flintstone-truth.html

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/ken_ham_snubbed_again.php

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

voices.yahoo.com/the-creation-museum-petersburg-kentucky-creationist-374292.html
again, the comments by average americans at the ends of these articles are priceless.

www.skepticblog.org/2012/03/07/a-visit-to-the-creation-museum/

all day long.......next.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

What it so hard for some to understand that in religion just as in science there aer those that will use it for self serving purposes?

It is human nature.

If you  are to base all your judgement of religion on the examples of this type of religion, should we then base all our judgement of science on some of the admitted frauds that have been a part of science over the yearsand still are?

I really don;t care if one chooses to beleive in religion, a higher power or faith itself. I am simply curious why it is so important to some to force their science based beleifs on others?

Multi, I don;t think you have ever answered that question.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
It is human nature.

gst, this isn't anything to add to the debate, only for your personal information.  Your right about human nature and to take that a step further look up "bondage of the will", specifically Martin Luthers definition.

Also, this is not to knock multispecies or relate it to him.  This is just an observation over many years, but keep in mind it is not true for everyone.  However, a vast number of people reject religion because most religions have a moral code, and they don't want anything that restricts their way of life. 

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

    Multi likes to do that, He still hasnt answer the question why there was human footprints found on top of dino prints on a dry creekbed in Texas.
Thats what I love about being a Christian, I dont have to prove anything, it is all around us. But these darwin radicals get their curlies in a bind when they find a T-bone in the ground, and this proves the missing link between steak and cow.
    If they want to believe in flyingmonkeyman, hey have at it, but quit teaching this in schools(H.S. on down) and quit mocking my God, because then we will have to meet by the bike racks after school and settle this the old german way.

Capt Ahab's picture
Capt Ahab
Offline
Joined: 6/14/11

I think that statement is full of BS. Sure, some leave religion because they don't live a moral lifestyle, but many others do it for a variety of other reasons. It is definitely wrong to assume that people who are not religious do not have a moral lifestyle. Humans in general have a very good idea of whether or not  their actions are moral.

I have said this before, but I will say it again. I choose to not be religious because religion seems very "human" to me. Since religions are supposedly passed down straight from god or his son, the human fingerprint on it should be rather small. I was raised catholic so I will use that as an example. Recently, the catholic church switched up a bunch of responses so they better reflected the actual Latin translations. This was supposedly passed down from the pope who is infallible meaning that this was basically a request straight from god himself. I could write numerous examples like this, but how does this not raise a red flag for most of the parishioners? Do you honestly think that god has nothing better to worry about than the responses people mumble in church?

Another thing that should raise a red flag is the collection and donations solicited by the church. I understand that most of the money goes towards "helping" people, but the actual architecture of most churches seems way too elaborate. Would god really want the money that was donated to his church to go towards an elaborate structure rather than feeding the poor and homeless? If god sees over everything, he should be striking down his own churches because of the mismanaged money. So much good could be done if so much money wasn't wasted on having a fancy church. However, a church is a business like everything else and a fancy church brings in wealthy parishioners and results in more donations.

Religion serves its purpose for some, but to say that most people who are not religious live immoral lives is just an incorrect statement. The reason that most people with a scientific way of thinking choose to not be religious is because they question things more frequently than a religious mind set. The more you think about how religions are operated, the more difficult it is to believe that this is what god really wants you to do with your life.

Plainsman Said:
However, a vast number of people reject religion because most religions have a moral code, and they don't want anything that restricts their way of life. 

I have a bad feeling that whenever a lesbian looks at me they think “That’s why I’m not a heterosexual”. -George Costanza

I was in the pool! I was in the pool! You don’t understand! There was shrinkage!   -George Costanza

You know if you take everything I’ve ever done in my entire life and condense it down into one day, it looks decent. -George Costanza

Don’t insult me, my friend. Remember who you’re talking to. No one’s a bigger idiot than me. -George Costanza

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meatball Said:
    Multi likes to do that, He still hasnt answer the question why there was human footprints found on top of dino prints on a dry creekbed in Texas.
Thats what I love about being a Christian, I dont have to prove anything, it is all around us. But these darwin radicals get their curlies in a bind when they find a T-bone in the ground, and this proves the missing link between steak and cow.
    If they want to believe in flyingmonkeyman, hey have at it, but quit teaching this in schools(H.S. on down) and quit mocking my God, because then we will have to meet by the bike racks after school and settle this the old german way.


One piece of religious propaganda at a time meatball....how you coming with the grand canyon? lets understand that first and then we'll move on to your dinosaur tracks.  Now go back and watch the video I posted.

And yes, this is usually what happens when religious folks start losing the debate....you don't have a pilots liscense do you?

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

fishmahn Said:
GST-there is a distinct difference between a simple belief and scientific facts.  Science measures and weighs things in many cases so we can quantitate and reach a decision.  A belief  is a bit more abstract,..but I'm sure you must know that.

So believing in global warming is in fact abstract?

Neat

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

I believe that gravity will not be kind to this woman in old age
Is that a scientific fact? maybe. Or is it just highly likely?

Neat

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

speaking of netflix documentaries, how about the netflix selection of stand up comedy.  they have over a dozen george carlin stand ups alone.

and one of my personal favorites thats even appropriate for the whole family is John Pinette's "I'm Starvin"  If you can watch this from begining to end without laughing your not human.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

meatball-A christian that takes a strict literal interpretation and does think beyond this , and can somehow believe man and dino's roamed the earth at the same time will get only one type of attention and it's not good.
You can begin by looking at www.paleo/pauluxy.htm

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

I LOVE George Carlin!!!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

fishmahn Said:
meatball-A christian that takes a strict literal interpretation and does think beyond this , and can somehow believe man and dino's roamed the earth at the same time will get only one type of attention and it's not good.
You can begin by looking at www.paleo/pauluxy.htm

I was hoping he'd get the grand canyon figured out before I broke the news to him about his dinosaur/man tracks and santa claus.

Mainstream bible thumpers and creationists don't even acknowledge those dino man tracks.  your link didn't work so I'll try to repost
paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

Multi, I almost wet myself laughing at that second video.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meelosh Said:
Multi, I almost wet myself laughing at that second video.

The whole show is as good if not better, it's an hour & a half of pure hysteria.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

multi-species-angler Said:

Meelosh Said:
Multi, I almost wet myself laughing at that second video.

The whole show is as good if not better, it's an hour & a half of pure hysteria.

Can you post a link to the whole show? I'll have to watch it at home.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

It's on netflix, but if you don't have netflix you can watch it one segment at a time on youtube.  heres the first part and when thats over just click part 2, part 3, part 4 and so on...

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

multi-species-angler Said:
It's on netflix, but if you don't have netflix you can watch it one segment at a time on youtube.  heres the first part and when thats over just click part 2, part 3, part 4 and so on...

Haha

Neat

Pages