No. I was never bothered by you not replying to me. I'm bothered by you and so many others here doing things like lumping all creationists into one group, insulting our intelligence, mocking us, calling our ideas 'nonsense' to quote another user, and just being derogatory and condesceding in general. It's the tone with which you type that shows you think you are intellectually superior to the 'dumb creationists' just by the merit of how you view the facts. I will in no way call darwinists stupid, lump them into a group, call their ideas nonsense, etc. It's just not the way to debate. That's what bothers me.

I used to be a creationist. O boy, I am embarassed at how I used to defend it. Especially after finishing Biology 11.

But that's what the thread was and is about. That's all that the evolutionary theory applies to. It's a common misconception among the religious that science claims that God had nothing to do with the origin of life or with the creation of the universe, but science currently says nothing about either thing. If the movie's point is that scientists cling to evolution even when it doesn't explain the origins of life, then the movie is pointless and silly. Scientists also cling to the Pythagorean Theorem, and it also doesn't explain the origins of life.

If your point is that scientists should acknowledge the possibility that life originated in a supernatural act of creation, then I agree with you. But most scientists would also agree with you. The problem, as I said earlier, is that such a theory cannot be tested. Surely you don't think that we should just throw up our hands and stop all research into the origins of life, satisfied that we have the best theory. Our alternative is to continue designating creation as a mere possibility while attempting to find naturalistic methods (test tube life).

Also, inductively, we can see from history that our failure to do something artificially in no way implies theistic creation. At many points in history, the religious have maintained that a phenomenon which the science of the time could not explain was undoubtedly due to supernatural intervention. However, more plausible naturalistic explanations have almost always been found.

Personally I dont get ID people. I think the idea of evolution is plausible and most people in science will tell you that. It is just plausible, not a fact. Evolution has backup(not total proof) through painstaking years of testing. Most scientists will tell you that evolution is not perfect and most accept that it will change in their lifetimes.

IDers feel that ID is the truth, and a fact. You cant prove or disprove ID. ID is mostly based on old doctrine ironically written by man(though some com from divine men(prophets) or from "the creator" himself), with no evidence to back the doctrine up.

I just dont get it. I think its okay to say evolution is not the way things happened. At least evolution tries to give backup to why things are the way they are.

If I were to attempt to disprove things that happened in the bible and I misquoted entire sections and passages and it became apparent to you that I hadn't even made a good faith attempt to read it with an open mind and that I clearly didn't understand it. Well then, what would you think of my attempts to disprove it?

I read you. And I wonder what you do about those millions of scientific proofs about

- the age of our planet and the formation processus (a slow one) that are observe across univers.

- the dinosaurs bones spread all across the planet. Are they all fake ?

- the human bones that spead over a 2,4 millions years era, showing various shapes and form of our body across time. Are they all fake ?

- The physical changes of humanity during a period as small as 1 century.

If being a creationist is about ignoring all these FACTS to choose some obscur theories made by a religion that is barely 2k years old, then don't expect me to call it "sane" or "intelligent". 

 It's not.

The problems i have with Intellegent design is Irreducable and speccified Completixty.

Irreducable complexity doesn't make sense, lets take a house as an example.

Lets say I build a house with wood support beams. I later add stone support beams. Now I have less room, and the stone support beams are doing the job on their own, so i get rid of the wood suport beams. There is more room it is better so this design "survives".

According to someone who believes in irreducable complexity my house must have always been as it was since it could not survive without the stone beams.

While the specified complexity argument is just mathematically wrong.

Well if you believe that god living someone had to create him/her/it. 

Last Thursdayism. Look it up.

If there is an omnipotent being there is no reason he can't create a universe that appears to be much older than it is.

This is precisely why there is no end to this sort of debate.

edit: The last thursdayism can get a bit weird you might notice...some folks debate whether Adam & Even had belly buttons and such... 

I agree with you @Legend.
there was a time when evolution was shunned and ridiculed just because it was anti-creation.
now it's the opposite. people just conclude that creation theory is junk and ridicule anyone who tries to defend it.
Stein is smart and I want to see how he put this documentary together.

I like the ending of the trailer - just like in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.