Comments on: Duelity - Creationism/evolution 2.0

Duelity - Creationism/evolution 2.0

filmgeek — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:07:10 -0800

Duelity - the beginning in two parts The Vancover Film School does a really cool visual retelling of creation. The 'biblical' version with a science edge. The 'evolution' version with a biblical edge. And you can watch them both at the same time!

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:23:37 -0800

I hate, hate, hate bad pseudo-Elizabethan grammar. Are the videos any better than the intro page? And yes, I do get annoyed at Renaissance Festivals. Why do you ask?

By: not_on_display

not_on_display — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:40:38 -0800

Prithee, sirrah, didst anyone asketh thou? Yes, the videos are much better than the Pseudobethian intro. It's funny seeing each side couched in the others' language.

By: not_on_display

not_on_display — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:44:40 -0800

(And the Vancouver Film School rocks in general.)

By: awesomebrad

awesomebrad — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:45:10 -0800

Ok, that was cool.

By: edd

edd — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:05:05 -0800

What was with the panspermia?

By: DU

DU — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:05:22 -0800

Creationists already couch their supernaturalism in scientific language. And really lame science programs use the fakey-poetic language of the other one (Neil DeGrasse, I'm looking at you). I like the graphics, though.

By: patricio

patricio — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:10:19 -0800

For basic user interface, God installed Zodiac, a celestial-based time management application. Fun stuff, thanks.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:25:49 -0800

These graphics are excellent, very creative, very well done. Didn't care for the style or delivery in the narration, but still, this is good stuff. Thanks for the post.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:26:32 -0800

Actually the pseudoscience jargon is just as annoying. Rib quadrant?

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:26:46 -0800

What was with the panspermia? I was curious about that myself. Alien bacteria, eh, Toronto?

By: MrGuilt

MrGuilt — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:27:56 -0800

Dave Carter had a better take on the evolution.

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:29:40 -0800

Also, what the fuck is up with the Botticelli over in the "Creation" one? Do they realize that's supposed to be another god? The music was kinda nice, though; it sounded like a bit Blue-Man-Group-ish.

By: sineater

sineater — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:36:13 -0800

This isn't clever. It's a ham fisted attempt to claim both are equally worth of our consideration. The comments on the blog page are predictably depressing.

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:43:15 -0800

Toronto, eh, Greg Nog? Wow, I apparently can't keep more than one Canadian city in my head at any given time. I'm'a stop commenting now.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:52:40 -0800

there's more than one canadian city?

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:00:22 -0800

It looked like a Hitchhiker's Guide ripoff, only without the funny.

By: ersatz

ersatz — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:33:24 -0800

OBJECTION!

By: Rubbstone

Rubbstone — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:58:56 -0800

DU, you know its no wonder nobody wants to go into science you guys are boring and not only boring but want to stay boring and are aggressive about it. That said I think this was cool in a film sense. Some of the visual tricks they played were very smart and original. .If its objective was to get you to see some of the similarities. Its kind of a failure. Sineater the two are analogous in the sense of trying to answer the question "Why are we here?". Evolution and the Big bang are not sufficient to determine the final cause(i.e. the cause that set things into motion) of the creation of the universe. They can show you an alternate version of how the universe was expressed. There is no scientific evidence that the thing that kicked off the whole evolution and Big Bang thing wasn't God. There is also no evidence that it was. In fact I'm almost certain that that question is scientifically meaningless . You're operating just as much on assumptions as they are. At least they know it. If you disagree tell me what is the final cause of the Universe? Why is it here?

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:03:23 -0800

Evolution and the Big bang are not sufficient to determine the final cause(i.e. the cause that set things into motion) of the creation of the universe. Neither is religion, but at least science doesn't lie to you about it.

By: Rubbstone

Rubbstone — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:42:22 -0800

Neither is religion, but at least science doesn't lie to you about it. Its kind of hard to lie when you have nothing to say on the topic.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:07:22 -0800

Its kind of hard to lie when you have nothing to say on the topic. The vast multiplicity of religious creation stories indicates that this is not the case.

By: ericbop

ericbop — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:17 -0800

the download links are shut down. I can't find a torrent, and the conversion from youtube is crappy resolution. any ideas where I can download the hi-res version of this?

By: jeffamaphone

jeffamaphone — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:47 -0800

I think this does more harm than good. It is very well done, visually. But it does seem to equate creationism and big-bang/evolution as equally plausible ideas, which is dangerous. I didn't go reading around their other pages... was this their intent?

By: iamck

iamck — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:55:22 -0800

But it does seem to equate creationism and big-bang/evolution as equally plausible ideas, which is dangerous. Depends. Faith in any infinite ideas can happily exist unchallenged in the realm of the unknowable, i.e. what was before the universe. But I wouldn't call this creationism.

By: Hactar

Hactar — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:38:12 -0800

I second the call for a download mirror- I'm teaching a class on creationism and evolution in the spring and would love to use this as a bit of perspective, have the students analyze what the creators were aiming at. Anyone know anywhere to find it?

By: Orange Pamplemousse

Orange Pamplemousse — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:03:13 -0800

I don't remember fire breathing dinosaurs, or trout in the Burgress shale. Still, entertaining.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:04:07 -0800

I don't remember fire breathing dinosaurs, or trout in the Burgress shale. Really? Hell, I remember it like it was yesterday. Dad would bring home a big mess of fire breathing dinosaur meat (the old man was an avid hunter) and we'd all gather round the table to help carve it up. Mom used to complain about the blood: heck, must've been gallons of it! And the trout? Aww, hell, yeah! We caught so much trout outta that Burgress shale, we'd be eatin' nothin' but trout for days. Good times, good times.

By: Orange Pamplemousse

Orange Pamplemousse — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:50:13 -0800

*sigh* Ok then, let me rephrase. I don't remember fire breathing dinosaurs when I learned about dinosaurs in school. And well, I generally walk by a Burgess Shale presentation weekly.

By: Orange Pamplemousse

Orange Pamplemousse — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:51:53 -0800

(The link is meant to inform about what the burgess shale is, not to imply that I live in Field. I do not)

By: black8

black8 — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:23:07 -0800

"If you disagree tell me what is the final cause of the Universe? Why is it here?" Dood. That's easy. It's here 'cause it was POSSIBLE. That's all.

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:53:31 -0800

there's more than one canadian city? Yea, but only one freeway to connect them.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:16:31 -0800

(The link is meant to inform about what the burgess shale is, not to imply that I live in Field. I do not) You can't fool me, Pamplemousse. You live in Field. In fact, you're out standing in your Field.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:44:44 -0800

I think that some of you guys are missing the intention of the videos. I don't think that this was some "teach the controversy" bullshit, or an attempt to say that "both theories are equally plausible." I think that the point was far more provocative than that: creation and evolution are different ways of telling the exact same story, just told from different perpectives. I thought that the ending--with the painting and the operating system--was especially poignant.

By: mdn

mdn — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:15:05 -0800

Funny, I kinda got the opposite from it. It seems to accentuate that it's not the style of telling it but the authority vs chaos of the story itself that is at issue. As I said elsewhere the way they tell it here neither side sounds particularly believable...