It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: IMAX theaters Reject Science Shows under Religious Pressure

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
evolution is just a bunch of hogwash. that being said i see no reason that the movie should not be played unless of course it says that "this is what happened". makeing it sound as if it is established fact. keep in mind it is JUST a theory and not established fact.

as for schools if they have to teach evolution they should have to teach the creation as well as both are not established fact. maybe they should leave both out of schools. both take faith to believe after all.




posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Drogo,

I have to take issue with your statements.

Evolution may be a theory but it is one that uses scientific facts to come to said conclusion.

Creationism is simply taking what a book says as the truth with no basis in fact

Evolution can be shown to still be taking place.

Creationism/Religion has no explanation for the change in animals over time. In fact the Bible says it should not happen.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Evolution may be a theory but it is one that uses scientific facts to come to said conclusion.

Creationism is simply taking what a book says as the truth with no basis in fact

Evolution can be shown to still be taking place.

Creationism/Religion has no explanation for the change in animals over time. In fact the Bible says it should not happen.

I don't grasp the evolution argument the same way. I see an ever changing supposition that masks itself as conclusion. There are no conclusions in evolutionary theory. While it appears differing life forms did certain things or have a propensity to do certain things, with or without man's often benign interference adaptation seems the rule rather than some new species development.

What am I missing here?

Look at Arnold (Cal. Governor)- is he evolved or adapted? Physically, Arnold took it upon himself to change himself. I just don't see this as evolution. Perhaps I don't understand the concept of evolution?

If so, then when people forget things have they devolved? When a body builder quits body building and starts getting fat is he evolving or devolving or neither?

As to creationism, I confess I apparently don't understand that concept either.
    separate the wheat from the chaff,
    the firstlings of his flock,
    kill certain people and not others,
    marry these and not those,
    go here and not there

If this is creationism then it seems that selective breeding can not be evolution? Directions such as these, after all, are nothing more than choosing the best from others.

But this detracts from the thread- where is the line drawn? Are snuff films to be banned? Do we or anyone have the right to ban a film showing the deliberate killing of another human?

Why don't we show films of beheadings at IMAX? How about a film of chicken processing? The intricate details of boiling still still alive chickens, de-feathering, gutting- - now that is part of life. No one could argue evolution or creationism- just plain old entertainment!
.

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Joe,

Evolution is a generational concept. A specific mutation develops over several generations.

Your reference to Arnie is not a mutant (no matter what many people think). He is simply someone who did something to change their appearance.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Evolution is a generational concept. A specific mutation develops over several generations.

Like modern racehorses. Over time selected attributes are devolved. Corn is also a good example. Modern corn has very little resemblance to Mezoamerican, pre-Columbian corn. Modern corn (for the most part) cannot even plant itself and must have intervention to survive.

Back to horses a moment- a highly adaptable animal- is this evolution? Some horses are large and others are not. As with humans, there are varying sizes.


Gowyo.com (horse evolution)
Michael Denton in, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis writes, "Considering that the total number of known fossil species is nearly one hundred thousand, the fact that the only relatively convincing morphological sequences are a handful of cases like the horse, which do not involve a great deal of change, and which in many cases like the elephant may not even represent phylogenetic sequences at all, serves to emphasize the remarkable lack of any direct evidence for major evolutionary transformations in the fossil record. A great deal has been made of the horse series and other similar cases. The traditional view is that they provide powerful evidence of the reality of evolution; and that what has happened in the case of the horse happened in all other cases, but the fossil links were not preserved or have not yet been discovered. In other words, the horse is the exception which proves the rule" (Denton, p.185). Why weren't we told that many of the supposed links of the horses have never been found? Because that doesn't make the data fit evolutionary theory. Instead of waiting for evidence to support their theory, they drew pictures of intermediates from what they believed they should look like, and told the unsuspecting learner, "here is proof of evolution".
What about Eohippus? Again, we were told that was the first horse which was very small and had 3 toes in back and 4 in front. The problem with this is today there is an animal still living called the hyrax. This creature has a skeleton very similar to that of Eohippus yet it has not "evolved" to what the present day horses are. If evolution were true Eohippus, nor anything like it, should be found today.
Michael Denton again remarks, "The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by 60 million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species.. . . If the horse series is anything to go by their numbers must have been the 'infinitude' that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or mollusks and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record" (Denton, p. 186).

See my problem? Horses should have a pretty straight forward line from some past, yet they don't so it gets 'invented?' Is there a conspiracy in science? A wilting or unwitting process or group of processes that is postulating something and then carefully (as in Piltdown, not so carefully) cobbling together stuff they call evidence to convince people something that is not true is true? I'm not saying evolution could not be true, I'm just wondering (on these pages) what lay behind the continuing push for acceptance as fact that which is not.

As with this IMAX thread, is there some kind of agenda? Are religionists behind it? Are competitors of the 'volcano' film behind it? Are competitors for funding behind it? Is this (IMAX) just over religious beliefs or is there something else involved?

I still have a hard time understanding why religious people were invited to a screening relating to volcanos anyway! Something else is going on here methinks.
.

.

[edit on 22-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
BTW...

evolution has NOT been proved to be true...

we have NOT found the "missing link"...

evolution IS a GREAT THEORY to teach though...

but don't say it is TRUE (but it IS probably true)...

i am NOT pro-bible either...





posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It sounds to me like it's an economic issue. You can't force people to pay for something they don't want to see because it conflicts with their beliefs.


Ok, this is the first thing I take issue with.

Buddy, obviously, you have no clue about american politics or you would have never said such a thing.

We have serious issues all the time with things like this. For instance, Howard Stern. I strongly dislike his radio show. However, it has consistantly generated an audience bigger than any other radio show in history. Yet, the voices of a small number of people with the help of some political figures who have decided to tell us who we can and cannot listen to, have forced their agenda on a much larger group of people because this country is too afraid of polical correctness.

You see, if that was economic....Howard Stern wouldn't be having an issue. The same goes for the IMAX. Just because you arent smart, and consequently believe in fantasy that excludes science of today, does not mean you belong to the majority. You just belong to the side that includses babies that cry louder.

Pay attention, and maybe you will begin to understand economics just a bit, because as it stands now, you need tutoring.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
WTH are you talking about Seapeople? Have you even read the article, especially the original source article from the New York Times? There is no government censorship here. There are no protests pressuring anyone. What has happened is a decision from private businesses to not carry a product because they believe it wouldn't be popular with their customers. There's nothing wrong, not free, or unamerican about that!



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Pay attention, and maybe you will begin to understand economics just a bit, because as it stands now, you need tutoring.

All ears here-
enlighten us. Explain why market forces are or are not relevant to the IMAX 'incident.' Will your explanations also help me udnerstand other economic questions I have?

I am sure curious about this



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Joe Doaks,

First off, where was your "anthropology 101" class? What school did you take that at? You made a few claims I want to discuss. First and foremost. Neandertals and Cromagnums evolved on a different path according to anthropologists and history. One is not believed to have come from the other as you have claimed.

Secondly, it is common knowledge that Neandertals are extinct, and that humans couldn't have evolved from them. Well, at least it is unlikely. And thats as honest as I can get. You knew that though, since you are so educated as you keep proving to all of us on a daily basis.

However, I would like to point out that you did call your belief system, speculation. Even if you did so in comparing it to the belief system of those who know evolution is how we arived in this state. This I commend you on.

Your views on censorship. Let me just say a few things on it in relation to the passion of the christ. First off, all that hupla about how brave melly gibson was for producing such a controversial movie was sickning. All those claims of oppresion. As if he, and the people who actually wanted to see that movie were martars or something. The fact is that the movie did very well. It did very well because agnostics and other smart people werent in the street wasting their time protesting against it as was claimed. Sure, there were some Jewish folks, and athiests who caused a stir. It also did well because people, like myself, actually attended the movie. I will confess it was a major waste of time. None the less, I gave it a chance.

Evolution is far more than speculation. However, to you, and your infinite wisdom, it will never exceed that standard. You could watch it occur before your eyes, and you wouldn't believe it. Simply because the leaders of your community don't want you to, and you don't question their authority.

The world would be much better off if christians stopped being part of the problem, and became part of the solution. Rather than reject science, and condemnign those who do not, as you have done for thousands of years, you should embrace it. Case in point, Copernicus had mathematical data indicating that the earth was not the center of the universe as christians believed. People who subscribed to that view were murdered and persecuted. Though the world works a bit differently today, preventing the mindless slaughter of millions of smart people as was done by christians in the past, the mindset of them still exists. They reject science. Slowing progress that is inevitable. Copernicus' ideas eventually got out. Though he was on his deathbed when they did, and the church eliminated portions of his papers, and modified others. However, this was decades after the ideas were solifdified. He feared christians admittedly. And, his work was preceded by lifetimes of work by others.

Christians today accept that we are not the center of it all. It took about 500 years or so to push that whole thing through. However, they have a new battle.

My challenge is this. Instead of christians being such a negative bunch of hypocrits, why don't they stop. Christians out there. You should seek knowledge. You should want to know. Embrace new scientific ideas, and accept the clear and obvious fact that your doctrine may have serious flaws. Stop getting in the way of human progress. Embrace Knowledge!



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
why would www.livescience.com lie about this???

i can assure you, there were protestors...





posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by Seapeople
Pay attention, and maybe you will begin to understand economics just a bit, because as it stands now, you need tutoring.

All ears here-
enlighten us. Explain why market forces are or are not relevant to the IMAX 'incident.' Will your explanations also help me udnerstand other economic questions I have?

I am sure curious about this


Actually I already did explain it breifly above. I however am compasionate to an extent and realize that most people involved in certain groups such as yourself, are not easily able to comprehend.

Suggestion. Read my original thread about 15 or so times. Then ask the question again.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
evolution is just a bunch of hogwash. that being said i see no reason that the movie should not be played unless of course it says that "this is what happened". makeing it sound as if it is established fact. keep in mind it is JUST a theory and not established fact.

as for schools if they have to teach evolution they should have to teach the creation as well as both are not established fact. maybe they should leave both out of schools. both take faith to believe after all.


Drogo,

"Evolution is a bunch of hogwash"

How enlightening. It is nice to see an example of what I described earlier. Truly, thanks for showing everyone.

You say evolution is hogwash. Tell me. Have you ever read a package of antibiotics? Or a prescription for one? "Even if the symptoms dissapear, maintain proper dosage for the amount of time prescribed by your doctor"

Why is it that we have to do this? Well, lets look closer at the hogwash. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT, that when you take antibiotics, they will kill certain strains of viruses and infection. It is also SCIENTIFIC FACT that some of these viruses or infectous agents may survive the initia dose of antibiotics. Continuing, it is also SCIENTIFIC FACT, that if you stop taking an antibiotic before killing a virus in whole, some of that virus is still alive. This remaining virus ws strong enough to survive the initial dose. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that the remaining viruses all will be stronger as compared to the antibiotic. Sidenote, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that all things that reproduce pass on traits from themselves or the source. It is SCIENTIFIC FACT that when these remaining viruses reproduce, their offspring will be stronger as compared to the antibiotic. Thus, when the virus reproduces enough, it likely will be immune to the original antibiotic.

Every year, there are new versions of the flu and such. Variants of many animals are seen with the naked eye each day. This is just SCIENTIFIC FACT. Go ahead, read your prescription. The doctors must be lying to you huh?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople

I can tell you read my post with the same care for detail that you used in authoring your own.


common knowledge

Is that the same kind of knowledge that once stated as fact the earth was flat or is it the enlightened knowledge that 'confirmed' that Piltdown was a common ancestor of modern man? I suppose it could be neither, but I'm unclear what is meant by the text.

I am still waiting for proof of evolution.

It seems from reading some of the preceeding posts I am to agree that Copernicus was a plagerist? I'll have to give that some more thought. I had never thought such things. With no links relating to such claims makes the task difficult.


School of Math, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
Copernicus's cosmology placed a motionless sun not at the centre of the universe, but close to the centre, and also involved giving several distinct motions to the Earth. The problem that Copernicus faced was that he assumed all motion was circular so, like Ptolemy, was forced into using epicycles (see for example [78]). It was consequently considered implausible by the most of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers until the middle of the seventeenth century.

Back to Old Coperni- if the above assessment is true regarding his theories he wrong, wasn't he?

Things like that happen sometimes when you trust Greeks (Ptolemy)(Trojan Horse pun)


St. Andrews, again
Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.

So who to believe? I find nothing denoting Copernicus was mistreated by 'The Christians' as if there had been some pogrom against his theories. On the contrary, the Cathedral Chapter supported him in fine style and paid him well for work he did not do while he pursued his studies. Now that's rich isn't it? Upper middle-class kid gets paid from public funds for goofing off his whole life and some moderns complain he was mistreated


So where does this leave us at this time? Are the Christians ganging up? Are the Copernicus supporters using false arguments and innuendo? Maybe both or neither is true. If neither, then why the disagreements?

I believe that without my requested economics lessons I surely won't understand the impact of the IMAX embroglio. Economics and Copernicus failed to meet any claims he was persecuted, on the contrary he was rewarded. Perhaps that is the message in a few of the IMAX arguments.

Things are just not what they seem.

.

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
WTF? I can't believe how ignorant christian are.... SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE FACT! THEORY OF GRAVITY! THEORY OF RELATIVITY! THEORY OF LEAVE YOUR PIG RAPING BABY KILLING ZOMBIE RAISING RELIGON CRAP OUT OF REALITY! If you want to believe a virgin had a baby who had magic powers and that the world was made in 6 days and that eating meat on a friday is a hell worthy sin, keep it to yourself. People in the REAL world and science and facts are gonna believe what is real, factual, scientific. You see, evolution is real, has been proven. Dolphin use to be a land mammal, they have the fossil records to prove this. The reason the flu virus is able to live against the old flu vaccine is because it evolves a defense against it. Sorry, world is round, not the center of the universe, and is older then 6,000 years. Now, if you don't like reality, facts, science, then to bad, deal with it. I don't like that Satan won't buy my soul for 3 wishes, but I liv with this knowing that is the way things are.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
WTF? I can't believe how ignorant christian are.... SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE FACT!

I just have a hard time equating that.

Could you provide just ONE theory is is an absolute fact?
(proven to always be a certain way)

One will do, thanks



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Theory of Gravity ring a bell? Gravity is a scientific theory, along with Earth being round, or revolving around the sun, those are all scientific theories. You see, in science, you don't say "I AM CORRECT, IF YOU DISAGREE I KILL YOU!" it's "Ok, here is the experiment, did it 3 times, same result. So, one can conclude that when you drop something, gravity pulls it down. AKA Theory of Gravity." Of course, since it isn't in a book with zombies and giants and magicians and baby killing it can't be true. Where in the bible does it say god created gravity? It doesn't say so? Then gravity must not exist, or satan did it. Or religon is bs, science/facts/reality is well, real......



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
James the Lesser, even IF what you say is true, who cares? In the United States, we have the right to believe what we want to and spend our money however we want to (save paying taxes of course). If I believe that the moon is made of cheese, or even the conspiracy that we never landed on the moon, would you force me to pay my money to see a movie or documentary that says otherwise? I think if follow that path, then we have more worrisome concerns than scientific ignorance.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
WTH are you talking about Seapeople? Have you even read the article, especially the original source article from the New York Times? There is no government censorship here. There are no protests pressuring anyone. What has happened is a decision from private businesses to not carry a product because they believe it wouldn't be popular with their customers. There's nothing wrong, not free, or unamerican about that!


I am responding to a posted thread by someone else, and not the source article. That is WTH I am talking about. Try this. Its called reading. Go back through, I know its hard, AND READ!



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Try this. Its called reading. Go back through, I know its hard, AND READ!

Always sage advice



Originally posted by James the Lesser
Theory of Gravity ring a bell?

Good try. This is theory to explain what is already known in such a way that it can be studied more fully and someday understood, is this correct?

The 'theory of gravity' itself is no proof of anything new. Where's the newness? Where is the absoluteness in your example? Your example is a working set of hypothesis, theories and facts rolled together so that something already known can be measured.

The date of its certainty would be nice as well. Don't cheat on me here and grab gravity. This is an accepted natural phenomena and not suitable to the discussion that YOU started.

Let me ask one more time. Maybe I was unclear the first time-
Could you provide just ONE theory [that] is an absolute fact?
      (correction made, perhaps this is where the mis-understanding blossomed?)

(proven to always be a certain way)
.

.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join