ian zombies are great at trench warfare, the idea of super powered colonials freaks the French out, and they jail the super priest. Some time later, the two military officers (Dean Jagger as Armand Logue, and his friend Clifford Grayson), a woman who they are, of course both in love with, and the girls father, as well as a shady French general, are all in Angkor Wat, trying to find the secret to the zombie formula. I don't actually understand the transition as to why they should end up there. However, what happens is that after Grayson wins the affection of the girl, Loque turns to evil, finds the "zombie" formula (which really is more like a mind control formula: these are not in any way "undead" zombies, of either a scientific or supernatural origin, just people who do whatever the man who has the formula wishes), and uses it to, first control the natives, and then to control everyone, sending his rival away so he can get the girl.
If that was hard to read, it was also hard to watch. I didn't really get the first 40 minutes of the movie.
The last twenty minutes of the movie are a bit more clear, and even have a message. This is a love triangle where a man seizes power to win love, and fails at it. When he realizes his earthly power can't win him love, he releases his "zombies", both Cambodian and European, and they react by, as the title suggests, revolting. That scene is all within the last 5 minutes of the movie. Taking away the supernatural aspect of the story and we have a workable drama about a man trying to gain power to make up for his own insecurities.
As far as the movie's possible racism: well, it is a movie made in 1937 that chooses to use Cambodia as an "exotic" locale, without much respect to the real history of Cambodia or Angkor Wat. And the idea of the natives being "zombies" commanded by a white man is certainly problematic, except for the fact that the white characters, as well, are turned into zombies. And the movie makes it clear that the man who wishes to command and control people is the villain. In fact, the movie still has a bit of relevance: Loque is both a colonialist and a "nice guy" whose motivations seem to be petulance over romantic rejection of the girl he "deserves", and an assumption that he should be in charge of everyone.
On balance, though, while I would say the movie is a serviceable drama that has some interesting scenes, overall, I felt that both the movie making craft of 1937 in general, and the special effects to make a horror movie, were too crude to make something that is interesting beyond being a curiosity.
Oh, and the role of Bela Lugosi? When a scene shows that someone is being mind-controlled, flashing bright eyes are superimposed over them. These are, apparently, the eyes of Bela Lugosi.The left seems obsessed with touting “settled science.” From the theory of evolution to global warming, or its newer replacement “climate change,” liberals frequently pound textbooks with fanatical enthusiasm, smugly dismissing anyone who dares question pre-approved narratives.
As any true scientists understand, however, “settled science” is an oxymoron. Science is an ongoing process — not a set of perfect answers. Just don’t tell Al Gore.
Over the last several weeks, that point was made once again when one of the core assumptions about evolution was shown to be untrue.
Two scientists just published a discovery that calls into question many of the tenets of Darwin, and seems to vindicate people who have been pointing out flaws in evolution theories for decades.
“Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland […] together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds,” reported Phys.org, a major research news site.
“It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time,” the source explained.
To the chagrin of many, it turns out those textbooks were wildly wrong.
A study of widespread DNA samples conducted by Stoeckle and Thaler found that genetic diversity among billions of humans and millions of birds “is about the same,” in the words of the lead researcher.
That flies in the face of what evolutionary science has taught for years — namely that genetic diversity increases dramatically over time, setting up the conditions for natural selection, described by Darwin, to occur.
It has also been long assumed that many animals roamed the earth long before human arrived.
But the new study found something amazing: The animals on earth today seem to have come into being at the same time as humans.
“In analyzing the (DNA) barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans,” Phys.org explained.
90 percent of the species on earth, including human beings, all came to be in the last 100,000 or 200,000 years, a relatively short time span to evolutionists.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” David Thaler, one of the scientists behind the study, declared.
Think about that for a moment: While he eventually concluded that his past assumptions were wrong, this scientist has just admitted that instead of following the data to their conclusion, he “fought against” evidence that didn’t fit an existing narrative. So much for the claim that scientists are impartial.
The science news site specifically steered clear of mentioning faith, but it’s worth noting that many religious people have long believed that a cataclysmic event like a flood took place in the not-so-distant past. There’s also the possibility that creationist theories would answer the “clean slate” question.
Almost everyone has heard the term “missing link.” This is the fabled “in-between” stages that link different species, such as ape-like animals and humans.
If evolution theories are correct, there should be numerous examples of these missing links. In a puzzle that has perplexed theorists for decades, however, there is little evidence of these in-between creatures.
The recent DNA study came to a similar conclusion: The “missing links” are still missing, even at the genetic level.
The major takeaway from all of this isn’t that every piece of evolutionary theory is wrong, but rather that “settled science” is a myth.
Every time someone is mocked for raising legitimate questions about global warming, evolution, or even modern medicine, it’s worth remembering that science is always wrong more times than it is right.
That’s the point — in order to be effective, the scientific process must keep correcting itself, and find past assumptions that turn out to be incorrect. The science is never settled, and anyone who says otherwise is a snake-oil salesman with an agenda.
Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga newspaper were not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days but those days are long gone. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.
In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.
Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!
World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the