Raf

omg The name of the movie has been mentioned twice.

A black screen is incorrect, as noted. MUSIC IS CORRECT AND A MAJOR HINT. Four years later, one of the directors went on to direc A MUSICAL WHOSE LEAD FEMALE CHARACTER IS NAMED MARIA. Tha movie, correctly identified, is The Sound of Music. The clue is pointless if it is not a major neon sign hint. So what do we have: A movie whose opening minutes are nothing but a screen with a pattern, changing colors, with MUSIC in the background. Directed by a man who four years later DIRECTED A MUSICAL WHOSE LEAD FEMALE CHARACTER IS NAMED MARIA, which is The Sound of Music. (So what, unless... OH!!!!) And it features white actors 0laying characters who are non.... OH!!!! And the answer has already been given, once by Raf, which means... OH!!!! Duh!!!!!

Well, second time. I knew.

OMFG, will someone post the answer for a third time, realizing for the first time that it's the answer?

You guys are messing with me, right. I already gave you the answer! And I'm not the only one.

No. The facepalm when you figure it out is going to be epic. You already know the answer.

the screen is several colors -- one at a time -- for the first few minutes. It would be correct to call it the opening, but not the opening sequence. Because a sequence implies events. Nothing happens. There is a pattern on the screen during the opening, but you really cannot tell what it is until the title appears. Oddly enough, the pattern, once you realize what it is, has nothing to do with the title. By the way, I would give away the answer, but at this point that would be redundant.

Damn but he's so close. Never said the screen was black. And you misidentified the four-years-later musical. The musical from four years later was NOT West Side Story.

Is that your observation of the New York splinter? Because I see them opening their minds to people who left TWI before, people who left after, and people who have never been associated with New Knoxville. Conceivable we're both right in part, but I won't pretend to know what the totality of the circumstances would show.

When we left in 1989, the majority of NYers had a simple position: Changing the presidency of TWI would no longer be considered a solution because anyone who replaced LCM from within at that point would have been someone who bent the knee -- someone who chose LCM over JC. It's an interesting take that allowed us to exclude from serious consideration anyone who did not leave at the same time we did (Dubofsky, Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser and others all left too soon. Everyone else, too late. My observation is that this temporary isolationism softened as the years passed. But at the time, it was an interesting dynamic

A one-dimensional approach (yours) to a multidimensional problem (actual errors in Genesis) does not get to be called complex by virtue of your declaration. There is nothing "three dimensional" about your approach, nor is there anything "two-dimensional" about the issues being raised here. One needs to look beyond the surface to recognize the inherent flaws in the absurd story told by Genesis. To pretend that your view is the one with depth is an insult to thinking people. Bolshevik: Sarah would have been in her 60s or 70s at the time of the incidents described. We haven't gotten there yet. But we will, assuming Conductor ThreadDerail doesn't insist on baffline us with more of his bulls hit as we progress down the tracks.

Gone With the Wind had one director. This movie had two.

one of my hints, by the way, is a great big neon sign giveaway hiding in plain sight.

Winner of 11 oscars. A great movie. But it is not this one.

To date, 3 movies have won more than 10 Oscars. 4 movies have won 9. This is the only movie to win exactly 10. Make up was used to get some of the actors to match the complexion of the ethnicity they were playing. And make up was used to get one actress to match the altered complexion of her co-stars, even though she actually WAS the ethnicity they were playing.

Incorrect. Think of a genre known for long openings where nothing happens ... NOT EVEN SCENERY. To be clear: No scenery, no dialogue, no credits... NO Characters Introduced. NOTHING!!! (Wait, one thing: The one thing missing from this list, which, once figured out, qualifies as a hint). Four years after he made this movie, one of the directors made another movie... a musical in which the lead female character was named Maria.

If you are suggesting the possibility that Adam and Eve actually existed in history because of quantum physics, I can't even finish that sentence. Come on. Quantum physics does not challenge what we know about history. That's not how it works. I suspect there was an element of comedy in your post, but considering the stupidity that some folks are actually trying to sell, it's hard to let a comment like that go.

TV broadcasts of this movie usually skip the first few minutes, which, to be honest, is no loss. The first few minutes feature no scenery, no dialogue, no credits... the movie's title doesn't even show up until several minutes in. That is where broadcasts typically start. The movie won for Best Direction at the Oscars. Two men shared the award. One never directed a movie before or since.

you can try to turn your ignorant position to make it look like my character flaw all you want. The truth is you're upset because I'm not falling for your tactic of derailing the conversation with flawed arguments that hinge on equivocation, historical ignorance and outright stupidity. Your position is an insult to the intelligence of our readers. Just because YOU think they're stupid enough to fall for the bullcrap you're peddling doesn't mean they are. That doesn't make me smug, and it only makes me smarter than you if you actually believe the stupidity you're peddling.

Patton

To be clear: It is not arrogant to say Adam and Eve never existed. That is in keeping with mountains of scholarship, including religious scholarship, including the bulk of those cited in Mark S's article. Even in that article (which is FAR from unbiased), those who say Adam and Eve actually existed in history concede that you have to ignore a lot of what the Bible says to reach that conclusion. "They existed until you can prove they didn't" is actually the position of arrogance. When you make an affirmative assertion, it is your burden to prove that assertion. No one is obliged to disprove it. Yet in the case of Adam and Eve, because the assertions are so specific, they can actually be disproven unless the goalposts are moved. Mankind did not have a single common ancestral couple 5,000 years ago, which would coincide with Noah and his oddly nameless wife. Mankind did not have a single common ancestral couple 6,000-8,000 years ago, which would coincide with Adam and Eve. "I know better than genetics" is arrogance. BS. You're not even bluffing. You're just full of crap. Change your diaper.

Arrogance is when you look at science which has been verified independently by repeated experiments across disciplines by people who have no vested interest in agreeing with each other and declare it "arrogant" because it disagrees with something you not only are incapable of proving, but which is disproved by the evidence. You are not engaging in this topic with sincerity and I call on you to stop wasting my time. Lying for Jesus is merely lying, and it does not serve Jesus. You're embarrassing yourself and proving atheists right with your flagrant dishonesty.

"History" doesn't mean history and "happened" doesn't mean happened is precisely what you HAVE been arguing, and you insult my intelligence and the intelligence of all who have been reading along when you pretend otherwise.

Mm Hmm Actually, I can quite easily establish that they are fictitious, but I don't have to, nor should I. See, the way reason works is, those who make an affirmative claim (so-and-so EXISTED) had the burden of proving the claim. The Bible makes the claim. Based on the Bible, we should be able to establish that the human race can be traced genetically to two individuals who actually existed in history 6-10,000 years ago. Science and genetics shows this is not the case. therefore, it is proved that Adam and Eve as portrayed in the Bible did not exist. Now, you may argue that they DID exist based on some bullshit definitions of history, happened and existed, but in order to do so you need to change what the Bible actually says, WHICH MAKES MY POINT. So, umm, I call your bluff. See, we know that folks like George Washington actually exist because there were histories written at the time establishing the reality of his existence. We know the he was the first president under the US Constitution. We know that he was the general of the revolutionary forces. We even know what his job was BEFORE all that happened. The cherry three incident? We know that never really happened. Because we are not stupid. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Were they fictional characters with a narrative purpose? Sure. So is Spider-Man. But that doesn't mean they existed. And it is STUPID to conclude otherwise given the evidence. That's why the story is an actual error.

If I were arguing that history doesn't mean history and happened doesn't mean happened, I would deeply appreciate it if somebody would point out the stupidity of that position.