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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 11
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Natural processes never built a Red Ferrari, yet you want me to believe it can come up with something as complicated as a single cell....or a human being and all other life forms?


You seem to possess an extremely down-to-earth notion of what's natural. Case in point, even a humble snowflake, when examined under the microscope, exhibits a wondrous degree of complexity and symmetry. I'm not sure you are willing to propose that snowflakes are manufactured by an army of elves some place in heaven.

The process of mutation and procreation is happening on such a massively parallel scale that it is indeed hard to imagine -- but that's exactly what gives the computer called "Nature" the power to "compute" working living organisms. Sorry, no red ferrari for you, they are not life forms.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
My technical difficulties persist, so I only got to read the 1st bit of page 10, but as long as nobody else posts an embedded ATS media portal vid, I'll be here again
!
@John Matrix
So, did you manage to demonstrate that if something appears not to be one thing, then out of all the imaginable, & as yet unimaginable, things it might be, it must be but a single choice? How about step 2?
Or did you simply decline to engage in the step by step process of logic?
I heard that you did reply, I just dont know what you said, but I'm curious...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's impossible for even one branch of evolution, let alone the thousands of parallel evolutions that would have had to take place for us to have the thousands of so called evolved species.


Pray tell why this is impossible. You seem so confident stating this. When you are at it, explain prenatal development of human fetus featuring many features of predecessors of humans, as they stand in the evolutionary chain. Gills, tails and all.


The theory that the stages of human development is observed in the womb has been debunked long ago....LOL...the fish stage, chicken stage.....you were joking right?....or where have you been?. I learned that in science classes back in the early sixties. Never believed it then, and still don't.

Why am I so sure of what I speak of? I had a white light mystical experience 27 years ago, and at the same time I had a visit from a messenger(angel), a very large and powerful angel in the Divine Spiritual Kingdom. This event was the most profound event in my life. It even beats becoming a member of ATS and getting my first star, first flag, and first applause all put together into one happy moment.


You cannot debunk my personal experience. It is what it is.

[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]

[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 





Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.


Sometimes I love movieguide.org. They leave me wondering what exactly are crimes against cloning and genetic engineering?


That said, fundamentalist d-bags scare the hell out of me.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by John Matrix
Natural processes never built a Red Ferrari, yet you want me to believe it can come up with something as complicated as a single cell....or a human being and all other life forms?


You seem to possess an extremely down-to-earth notion of what's natural. Case in point, even a humble snowflake, when examined under the microscope, exhibits a wondrous degree of complexity and symmetry. I'm not sure you are willing to propose that snowflakes are manufactured by an army of elves some place in heaven.

The process of mutation and procreation is happening on such a massively parallel scale that it is indeed hard to imagine -- but that's exactly what gives the computer called "Nature" the power to "compute" working living organisms. Sorry, no red ferrari for you, they are not life forms.


The processes involved in making a snow flake, including the fractal nature of the Universe, was designed that way. Once one sees it, they can see that the structure of water molecules predicts random patterns forming from water molecules freezing with dust particles to form snow flakes, and no two are supposedly alike.

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

beyondrawfood.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
and no two are supposedly alike.


Sorry to be a pedant, but isn't it that they are all alike but no two are identical.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Videos featuring a former evolutionist and engineer for the military space program discussing the evidence for creation in our solar system.
Be sure to view all nine videos.....pop some popcorn, grab a coffee, sandwich, beer, whatever, and relax and enjoy:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamhat

Originally posted by John Matrix
and no two are supposedly alike.


Sorry to be a pedant, but isn't it that they are all alike but no two are identical.


Right...Science notes six different kinds of snowflakes, but the patterns they form are not identicle.

Thanks for that. Here is some info on the tetrahedral arrangement of the water molecule.
witcombe.sbc.edu...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
[Right...Science notes six different kinds of snowflakes, but the patterns they form are not identicle.

Thanks for that. Here is some info on the tetrahedral arrangement of the water molecule.
witcombe.sbc.edu...


Thanks, I am currently involved in a flirtation with a molecular chemist (I'm only interested in his mind/work sadly), you've kindly provided me with another string to my bow.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Videos featuring a former evolutionist and engineer for the military space program discussing the evidence for creation in our solar system.
Be sure to view all nine videos.....pop some popcorn, grab a coffee, sandwich, beer, whatever, and relax and enjoy:
www.youtube.com...


This guy has been debunked already.

www.youtube.com...

Everyone should watch his Creation Astronomy Propaganda series. It's quite educational and humorous.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee

This guy has been debunked already.


I understand there are explanations for the evidence that differ, but to say it is debunked is bunk my friend. It might be debunked as far as you are concerned, but logic and reason does not end with your opinion.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by John Matrix
Videos featuring a former evolutionist and engineer for the military space program discussing the evidence for creation in our solar system.
Be sure to view all nine videos.....pop some popcorn, grab a coffee, sandwich, beer, whatever, and relax and enjoy:
www.youtube.com...


This guy has been debunked already.

www.youtube.com...

Everyone should watch his Creation Astronomy Propaganda series. It's quite educational and humorous.


The video you linked to is a cute, adolescent effort filled with insults, half truths, misrepresentations, and a lot of bias.

You don't seriously think that video qualifies as debunking the video I linked to....come on!!



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by John Matrix
Natural processes never built a Red Ferrari, yet you want me to believe it can come up with something as complicated as a single cell....or a human being and all other life forms?


Case in point, even a humble snowflake, when examined under the microscope, exhibits a wondrous degree of complexity and symmetry. I'm not sure you are willing to propose that snowflakes are manufactured by an army of elves some place in heaven.



Exactly.

Arguing complexity proves the need for a creator is completely illogical.

BUT

Arguing evolution negates the existence of a creator is also completely illogical.

I don't deny some sentient entity could alter DNA.

I also don't deny the existence of some super natural intelligent force of nature.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I was wondering when Jezus was going to chime in to settle this debate!

Those comments sound very similar to the statements Dr Hazen made about how some of his fellow scientists see God reveal Himself in the way he set up the universe such that life can evolve.

Regarding the video debunking the planet Mercury claims. I agree it comes off as a little insulting. However when one makes claims that the density of Mercury is impossible and scientists know exactly how that density IS indeed possible but someone has chosen to ignore or disregard that explanation without explaining why he's doing so, then yes one opens oneself up to ridicule and insults, as do those who blindly follow pseudoscientific beliefs that have major holes in them.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 

Arguing evolution negates the existence of a creator is also completely illogical.
Yeah. Which is why biologists & other scientists studying life & its processes dont do so. They merely present their findings & thoughts on what their work adds to, or takes away from, the current theory. They abide by the logic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It is creationists who then claim that unless someone breaks with such logic to go a step further & say "lack of evidence of absence confirms existance", they are denying god.
Its not suprising since christianity in particular is heavily based on duality. De good vs de evil; flesh vs spirit; divine vs human; human vs animal etc. You're either with us or agin us!
 
John Matrix, are you ignoring me the old fashioned way, or people, did he say he put me on ignore? Come on, if there is such a thing as creation science, then its tenets must be composed of ideas that follow logically on from each to other. However, if the basic premiss is inherently illogical, then ipso facto, the whole thing is unscientific.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by GeeGee

This guy has been debunked already.


I understand there are explanations for the evidence that differ, but to say it is debunked is bunk my friend. It might be debunked as far as you are concerned, but logic and reason does not end with your opinion.

wow i watched 2 videos by parris, its pretty much the same nonsense every creationist mouth piece does.
he is not an astrophysicist, why should we care what he has to say, hes an engineer, even if its for the space program and has some understanding of astrophysics.
he doesn't seem to know that much about astrophysics or current theory.
he uses TEXT BOOKS for evidence, only morons or someone with an agenda use text books for evidence against science.
text books are horrible sources and they are never current and are affected by things outside of science, such as cost or religion

he quote mines! the second i see three ellipses , i know i can't trust the person, plus he quotes things that don't really support his claims and even tries to be snide about the quote.
but i've seen ken ham videos and kent hovind videos, so nothing surprises me.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Ya gotta love the irony. We'll take a movie where some lunatic chops people into little pieces after raping and sodomizing them, or skins and eats them - but we're offended at a movie about Darwin's theory of evolution?

OH, WAIIIIIIIIIIIIT - I forgot, they couldn't find a distributor for the Darwin movie cause everyone in the US is busy trying to pick the "sexiest" girl for the next iteration of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Nevermind, makes perfect sense now!



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You seem to possess an extremely down-to-earth notion of what's natural. Case in point, even a humble snowflake, when examined under the microscope, exhibits a wondrous degree of complexity and symmetry. I'm not sure you are willing to propose that snowflakes are manufactured by an army of elves some place in heaven.


The process of mutation and procreation is happening on such a massively parallel scale that it is indeed hard to imagine -- but that's exactly what gives the computer called "Nature" the power to "compute" working living organisms. Sorry, no red ferrari for you, they are not life forms.





I'm not sure you are willing to propose that snowflakes are manufactured by an army of elves some place in heaven.


Jeez don't you people ever get tired of using such childish mockery




Sorry, no red ferrari for you, they are not life forms.


Well then ya better come up with another explanation for that snowflake homey, because THAT ain't no life form either.

Speaking of "Life Forms", Just HOW DID life Begin? Or are you going to tip toe out of that one saying "Evolution Don't Play Dat" " Evolution only deals with things AFTER life began" as if nothing evolved before that



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianKing




OMG you are one sad individual. Evolution is the reason for all the bad in the world? Then explain why throughout history you Christians have killed so many millions of innocent people before the scientific theory of evolution was even around? What about all your priests who are raping children? They don't believe in evolution. What about all your precious christian conservative politicians cheating on their wives and having sex with underage boys? They don't believe in evolution. Your logic is so pathetic and the fact that you think that earth is the center of the universe is the cherry on top.


You realize of course, whether any of those believe in them or not, what you just said, if it is true, then all those bad Christians are bad because of evolution. That is what you're saying .

Oh and by the way, next time you wanna recite that tired tripe about the evils of religion. Try looking up how many were genocided by Godless societies hot shot and who it was that finally stopped them. The deaths are in the Millions, and as Einstein said "The Christian Church was the only thing courageuous enough to stand up to the Nazis"

Don't use homosexuals posing as priests to blame the Christian Church for their wanting to molest little boys. Blame that on their homosexual depravity. The Church job is only a method to have access to children and has nothing to do with "what they are"

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by demongoat

wow i watched 2 videos by parris, its pretty much the same nonsense every creationist mouth piece does.
he is not an astrophysicist, why should we care what he has to say, hes an engineer, even if its for the space program and has some understanding of astrophysics.
he doesn't seem to know that much about astrophysics or current theory.
he uses TEXT BOOKS for evidence, only morons or someone with an agenda use text books for evidence against science.
text books are horrible sources and they are never current and are affected by things outside of science, such as cost or religion



Yet you'll not make the same excuses for Chucky Darwin, who was neither a Scientist and stole his theory from a creationist.

You'll make all kinds of excuses however for all the fraud that is so saturated in science today.




why should we care what he has to say, hes an engineer, even if its for the space program and has some understanding of astrophysics.


Why should you care when it doesn't coincide with what and how you choose to believe is what you're saying. Truth is truth no matter if it comes from a dunce or a Scientist and a lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join