Trailer for new Creationist movie, A Matter of Faith

Status
Not open for further replies.
stutte said:
this is the creepiest bowl-cut chin-strap combo on a guy... ever.
vG392EI.png
Click to expand...

This is an affront to God.

An... abomination.
 
Loxley said:
Sigh. If hardcore creationists are going to decry the theory of evolution, at least get your facts straight. It's doesn't theorize that humans evolved from apes, it theorizes that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which we both evolved from.

That misinformation has permiated into the popular culture way too much. Hence, "WHY WE GOT MONKEYS???".
Click to expand...

Worth noting, humans ARE apes.
 
Harry Anderson always had a likeable vibe. Didn't have a lot of option in the 90s but for some reason Night Court got you to stop and watch.

I give them credit for doing this with him as a "popular Biology professor" and didn't go with a cartoonish a-hole atheist like the other movie seems to be.

They probably get to a absurd place soon enough but maybe they do the right thing and leave the science alone but feel free to have your personal religious beliefs.
 
Do creationists make these to reassure themselves that they are right or something?

Meh, anyways. it was a pretty funny trailer. 10/10. Best comedy of the year.
Mario said:
Worth noting, humans ARE apes.
Click to expand...

No. They are in the same grouping of species as apes (don't remember the term for the scientific classification of species), though.
 
Damn, so grim. "If I were you.. I'd get out!" The full title of this movie should be A Matter Of Believing In Things Without Sufficient Evidence
 
LX_Theo said:
Do creationists make these to reassure themselves that they are right or something?

Meh, anyways. it was a pretty funny trailer. 10/10. Best comedy of the year.


No. They are in the same grouping of species as apes (don't remember the term for the scientific classification of species), though.
Click to expand...

Humans and apes are hominoids. humans are hominids. We are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. We aren't apes though, because the word ape is defined as non hominid hominoids, but the term ape is effectively meaningless in the scientific arena.
 
you guys laugh at these movies but these guys are laughing to the bank


my brother's friend decided to make a Christian faith based film and the script was truly melodramatic trash, not even lifetime quality stuff. He knew however there are enough rich and powerful people out there who want this message out there


he got funded $300,000 to make the film, he has NEVER directed a film before or wrote a screenplay that got produced into anything, even a short film
 
Silexx said:
Maybe it's my confirmation bias at play, but are we sure it's a creationist movie? It seems to me like they were setting up the father as the unreasonable character who will need to learn the lesson of accepting others' beliefs.

Oh well, at best, at least they don't seem to be setting up the evolution professor as a walking strawman.
Click to expand...

yeah. obviously the craft here is laughable but i didn't get the impression that it was that creationist. the evolution professor seems folksy and charming and the creationist father relentless, over-bearing and hurtful. it's like the inverse of the usual stuff where they depict academia as rigid, self-righteous smug assholes who won't let them just teach both sides

that said it's probably that way because they are marketing it to creationists and the marketing is predicated on those people knowing they are right in their mind and wanting a film to reinforce that, so they want to create dramatic tension with him backed in a corner so they'll go and see it to find out just how the creationist father delivers his sick burns and smackdowns and wins over the daughter and the teacher to his way of thinking against the odds. like the religious version of ending an action movie trailer with the monster looming over the protagonist .
 
Prologue said:
I remember my biology teacher (not sure if it was hs or college), showing us a video of a particular bacteria and its flagella. Basically it proposed that some things are too complex to evolve form simple organisms and how removal of a piece of it would collapse the entire function. This was a NYC school too. So aren't other viewpoints taught as well and not just evolution?
Click to expand...

That was a hypothesis put forth by Michael Behe (spelling?) called irreducible complexity.This concept has been falsified.
 
happypup said:
thanks for the link I will check it out. As far as the lines being crossed. The common idea that I hear from creationists is that evolution is bigger than what it actually is. they take the more general definition of evolution which is gradual change and then do a series of bait and switches, if you will. So they talk about stellar evolution (the formation of stars and the higher elements), chemical evolution (abiogenesis), and biological Macro-evolution (which they define as one kind of organism becoming a different kind of organism) and micro-evolution (which is biological evolution). They want to discuss all of this as evolution, so no matter what point they don't agree with it is still evolution they don't agree with.

As far as australopithecines, there are plenty of ideas there too. Some think of it as a different kind of organism (an ape kind), others think it is just a deformed human, there really is no consensus, which makes sense because the logical option is that it is a transitional form, which they must deny the existence of. Most creationism holds to the idea that humans were made separately from the rest of the animals (though some forms only ask that a special act be included in the evolutionary process, you know to separate us from the rest).

I think it is so telling that creationism has followed the path of religious doctrines, in that it splits apart, creating multiple types, where the theory of evolution began in multiple forms, across multiple disciplines, and has become more and more unified.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, I see what you mean. That's very interesting, I'm aware of many refutations as I'm still quite exposed to debates with Dawkins and then further non-evolutionary arguments with Lawrence Krauss and other scientists in those fields as well. I'm assuming you watched the recent Nye debate at the creation museum? The claims by Ken Ham really blew my mind and the strength of Nyes arguments in regards to the age of the Earth made me wonder how anyone could remain on the side of creationism, though I guess religious conviction is somewhat stronger than logic.

Okay, so some claim that animals evolved and whilst there were previous animals in the homo genus that were similar to humans, they most definitely aren't the same as us as we were created by God in his image? So, is the line drawn as Homo Sapiens? Or Is it literally Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

I once saw a creationist trying to argue on Fox News that 'Evolutionists' believed we evolved from Homo Neanderthalensis (or not, if you consider them a subspecies of Homo Sapiens) and when Dawkins (I think it was Dawkins) laughed at this and then said it was ridiculous the creationist would not back down and postulated that Dawkins merely didn't understand the subject. I'm sure anyone who has taken a secondary school biology class would know the initial statement to be inaccurate so it seems odd that, assuming creationists have some level of body or community, they don't put more academic representatives out there.

Tugatrix said:
I'm loving the show, oh man the geologist kill them with the bucket of water
Click to expand...
Yeah it's funny as Hell, especially seeing the expressions of the scientists.
 
Borgnine said:
I watched one of these things cause Borgnine was in it. It was the same basic thing, there was this Christian girl that was being persecuted in school because she didn't believe in evolution. They actually disproved evolution though by postulating that God created the universe at the speed of light over 7 days, but from our perspective it took 14 billion years.
Click to expand...
Wow, so you really are a huge Borgnine fan, ha. Marty is my favorite.
 
NathanCX said:
Ah, okay, I see what you mean. That's very interesting, I'm aware of many refutations as I'm still quite exposed to debates with Dawkins and then further non-evolutionary arguments with Lawrence Krauss and other scientists in those fields as well. I'm assuming you watched the recent Nye debate at the creation museum? The claims by Ken Ham really blew my mind and the strength of Nyes arguments in regards to the age of the Earth made me wonder how anyone could remain on the side of creationism, though I guess religious conviction is somewhat stronger than logic.

Okay, so some claim that animals evolved and whilst there were previous animals in the homo genus that were similar to humans, they most definitely aren't the same as us as we were created by God in his image? So, is the line drawn as Homo Sapiens? Or Is it literally Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

I once saw a creationist trying to argue on Fox News that 'Evolutionists' believed we evolved from Homo Neanderthalensis (or not, if you consider them a subspecies of Homo Sapiens) and when Dawkins (I think it was Dawkins) laughed at this and then said it was ridiculous the creationist would not back down and postulated that Dawkins merely didn't understand the subject. I'm sure anyone who has taken a secondary school biology class would know the initial statement to be inaccurate so it seems odd that, assuming creationists have some level of body or community, they don't put more academic representatives out there.


Yeah it's funny as Hell, especially seeing the expressions of the scientists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't understand it much either, but the big thing to realize, is that, for the most part they don't actually look at the evidence, they don't see the fossil progression of hominoid skulls as a progression towards humanity, they either see a sharp line somewhere, and everything before that is not human, and everything after is human, but where that line varies from person to person, with most of them willfully unaware of the dozens, even hundreds of different organisms that show a relatively smooth progression of humanness over time, the gap where there line fits seems pretty large.
 
LX_Theo said:
No. They are in the same grouping of species as apes (don't remember the term for the scientific classification of species), though.
Click to expand...

In biology, humans are in the taxonomic family of primates Hominidae, otherwise known as "great apes".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apes or in video form towards the end of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU


From a language perspective, there has been a traditional usage of the word "ape" which did NOT include humans but that is not correct with respect to how classifications are currently being referenced by many. Understandable there is both confused and confusing usage all over the place.

Wikipedia said:
In recent years biologists have generally preferred to use only monophyletic groups in classifications;[13] that is, only groups which include all the descendants of a common ancestor.[14] The superfamily Hominoidea is one such group (or "clade"). Some then use the term "ape" to mean all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea. For example, in a 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans".[6] The group traditionally called "apes" by biologists is then called the "non-human apes".
Click to expand...
 
Looks like a low budget shitty copy of a proper Hollywood movie with no-name director and cast lol.

It even has a creationist copy of Bish lol.
 
Is this the final part of the "god and ice cream trilogy"? I hope they release this here. The US can't keep all these new comedies for themselves.
 
I wonder how the audience that will inevitably watch this movie feels about helicopter parents because the father in this has got that thing fucking nailed down.

I mean firreal dude is upset over what his daughter is learning in college
 
Ferrio said:
We have a word for that.
Click to expand...

Thatsthejoke.jpg

Seriously tho, they use the word "faith" like it's something positive, a virtue. If you were to suggest to the filmmakers that they do one of those black screen/white text dictionary definitions that some films open with, and do it for the word faith, they would probably strongly object. "That's not wait we mean by faith!" They would then give you their personal, dodgy definition that would be anything but "believing what we want for whatever reasons we want."
 
I actually saw Time Changer on TV.

It includes an incredible scene in which the 19th century man is horrified by movies and attempts to look up his own future on a computer at the library.
 
I love how sexist the content of the movie appears to be based on that trailer.. "we must protect my DAUGHTER from having a quality education!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Spermageddon Movie Trailer
1
829
Andyliini replied
The Phoenician Scheme: Movie Trailer
11
504
DKehoe replied
Microsoft unveils quantum computing chip, invented a completely new state of matter (!!!)
Science 
45
2K
Insane Metal replied
Gachiakuta Trailer (New Studio Bones Anime) | Official Trailer
3
411
Werewolf Jones replied
Counterstrike (New Netflix Movie)
8
1K
mitch1971 replied
Top Bottom