Was "The Inner Life of a Cell" Plagiarized by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

Title says it all. When I first saw Expelled, I noticed this animation in the movie and it looked so familiar. Then I remembered that I had seen it about 2 years earlier. This video makes the comparison between the two animations.

Info about "The Inner Life of a Cell" can be found here:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html

Music: DJ Mangoo, Eurodancer Remix

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• plagiarism
• inner
• life
• of
• cell
• expelled
• no
• intelligence
• allowed
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• ben
• stein

[blaisingm]

@IDtaksovr Where did you go? This was disappointing! Ask an intelligent design proponent questions and they disappear.  The results are always the same.

[Nullifidian]

@IDtaksovr Since it has become painfully obvious that you cannot substantiate ID by way of *any* sort of substantive evidence, I won't keep on insisting on it from you. I'll just note that yet again, you've shown yourself to be a religious ideologue (or is it IDologue?) who is attempting to denigrate a substantial and successful area of science in order to push his god concept, hence your nonsense about "naturalism" which would be out of place in a scientific discussion. You won't be the last.

[Nullifidian]

...consistent with them as it would be with gods *must* be naturalistic too. Otherwise the space aliens are ruled out. You're a tedious religious fanatic who wants ID to substantiate his creationist beliefs, but wants to also keep up the polite fiction that ID is something other than creationism. You can't.

Lastly, I laughed aloud at the assertion that evidence will decide the issue of ID. So let's decide it on the evidence: ID loses. You have presented no evidence, so you forfeit to evolution.

[Nullifidian]

...philosophical incompetence. The only way that ID can be a notion that stands in distinction to naturalism is if it has a supernatural mechanism at the heart of it. Which it does: a creator god, because it's nothing more than a latter-day version of creationism. You try to deny this, attempting to stay "on message" with the claim that it's perfectly consistent with space aliens, but your repeated references to "naturalism" undo you. Space aliens would be a natural cause, so any model that's...

[Nullifidian]

@IDtaksovr More of your typical dishonesty. You have to cut the sentence in half in order to attempt to turn it into an "argument to authority", which it never was. Lying to me about what I have said, as I have told you before, makes you look greasy, desperate, and stupid for even trying it. It is also a very bad tu quoque and red herring, attempting to distract from your own egregious arguments to authority that I outlined previously (among others).

You're also demonstrating your typical...

[IDtaksovr]

@Nullifidi

At the end of the day, Nulifidian, the EVIDENCE will decide between ID and dogmatic naturalism. Never mind, provided a hard core of dogmatic naturalists can look at animations like the one above, and reassure themselves that they do not in fact show evidence of actual design, your religion will not die out entirely. Nevertheless, most people who value evidence, plausibility and common sense, will refuse to pay for this luxury. The majority will follow the evidence - wherever it leads.

[IDtaksovr]

@Nullifidian

"evolution's status does not rest on the attainments of any one person...."

Correct, because the term "evolution" is infinitely flexible, and is in reality an unfalsifiable metaphisical research programme resting on the faith based assumption of naturalism. "evolution" so loosly defined, and backed up with all the religious zeal of materialistic philosophy can accomodate negative evidence till the cows come home, and still appear respectable, provided ID is ruled out a priori.

[IDtaksovr]

@Nullifidian

"As to your guff about geocentrism, you completely missed the point"

The point was clear, despite youir crude attempt to move the goalposts. "Geocentrism" was the CONSENSUS for 1500 years, and it was FALSE. So your flagrant appeal to authority i.e. "Evolution was the consensus theory before I was born", is shown up for the simple fallacy that it is.

[Nullifidian]

...ability to even understand what the evidence is and how to evaluate it, and you have utterly failed to substantiate your claims that evolution is a degenerating research program or show that you've got something better to offer.

As to your guff about geocentrism, you completely missed the point there, which was that evolution's status does not rest on the attainments of any one person who subscribes to it. Plus I've always accepted that evolution MIGHT be wrong, but you have to show that.

[Nullifidian]

@IDtaksovr I have made no appeals to authority. Now you, on the other hand, have made nothing but appeals to authority: Hawking said, "Wake up to 21C biology", "You will NEVER hear proponents of the serious sciences" (that was the funniest one--ever heard of string theory?), and so on.

Mind you, you have not demonstrated yourself to be acquainted with even 20th C biology, much less the 21st C version, you do not show that the "darwinists" are making claims based on "flimsy evidence", nor any...