Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Equinox99

People are entitled to their beliefs. In the US there is a concept of freedom of religion, so there's no problem at all in the US with different beliefs (with the exception of terrorist extremest Muslim or other extremist beliefs prone to violence).

However, there is a problem when someone poses their religious beliefs as a form of science, and then works to pass a law to have those religious beliefs taught in school as if they were science.

Or in the case of the topic of this thread some people who otherwise might enjoy seeing this film about Darwin might be deprived of that enjoyment due to the religious beliefs of some they don't wish to offend.

But aside from that, I agree with your message of tolerance, and the founders of a website called religioustolerance share our beliefs that it would be great if we can all get along.

So let everyone have the freedom to choose whatever religious beliefs they want. But please let's stop there and not allow people to insist on forcing their religious beliefs on others who have their own beliefs which may be different, and especially don't allow them to pass off religious beliefs as science. I think if we can all agree on that, then it will be a lot easier for all people with different beliefs to not only coexist but get along.

Originally posted by Huggiesunrise anyone stop to consider the film might not even be THAT GOOD?

Hilarious timing coming after what I'd previously posted!
Ah... Serendipity, dont you just love it?

reply to post by novacs4me


Happy for you to have that bit to cling to. BUT, your "faith" in a dead guy and the understandng of a scientific principle that is well-established, and has been shown to be solid factually for at least the last 150 years do not have to be mutually exclusive.

...hearing evolution presented as FACT in my high school and university biology classes, made it almost a foregone conclusion that I would become an atheist.

That makes no sense. Those who understand evolution, and how it works, the processes, can also comprehend in a larger 'unknown' aspect that could be referred to as a "creator"...those sorts like to see things in the OVERALL context of the entire Universe, not just our little backwater Solar System.

If there is no creator, how can there be a God?

See above. Perhaps some have too limited and narrow view of what they think "god" is.

So don't assume that those of us who now can see that creation science explains things JUST AS WELL OR BETTER than evolution are uneducated.

Sorry, but the mere phrase 'creation science' is an oxymoron.

Firstly, there is no such thing, no matter how hard some people like Kent Hovind wish it to be so.

Secondly, there is NOTHING in the so-called "science" proposed by the propenents that remotely resembles real science.

At least, when we are focusing on the "Young Earth" nonsense.

Now, if you wish to suppose some sort of supreme responsible for setting this all in motion initially, by our measure of time about 13-14 billion years ago.......then I have no answers on that.

Questions, though --- plenty on the 'christ' mythos. There is a LONG recorded history of mankind, and MANY 'saviours' have been urgently revered. This is just one of the latest.

WHY? Not the scope of this topic, really, but just food for thought, to cogitate on. IF there is going to be a ONE. TRUE 'saviour' for all of mankind, wouldn't it have occured a LONG TIME ago?? AND, wouldn't it be plainly obvious?? WHY all the mystery, the 'faith' requirement?? Seems cruel, and vindictive, to me.......

Originally posted by John Matrix

I'm saying that evolutionists teach that the planets evolved after the big bang.

And you would be wrong, again, because evolutionists do not talk about the big bang, planets, galaxies, stars, magnetars, pulsars, black holes, nebulae, etc etc etc. Evolution talks about the changes of organisms on our planet through generations. The evolution of the universe is what physicists and astronomers deal with. Again, please do a little self education so you aren't throwing out disinformation. But from your responses in this thread, it is readily apparent that this ignorance to science must be trolling because i don't see how anyone could be this blind.

reply to post by Stylez

...please, by all means share with us how this is proven, using the scientific method and Ill show you where it trips over the logical fallacy...

Well, I'll be very interested to see your logical skills in action, since the very premise you are working from, that science proves anything, is a logical fallacy. Science, by definition does not, can not, nor sets out to, prove anything.
As has been posted earlier, it produces theories. These survive as long as they make useful predictions, but since logically the possibility exists that even the most widely accepted & seemingly correct theory may, with new evidence or better understanding, be in whole or part disproved, then nothing can ever be called proved, except a mathematical equation of course. "Proved" is a laymans term only. Indeed it is the very process of discarding or tweaking old theories that science thrives upon, as in so doing it refines knowledge.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Happy for you to have that bit to cling to. BUT, your "faith" in a dead guy and the understandng of a scientific principle that is well-established, and has been shown to be solid factually for at least the last 150 years do not have to be mutually exclusive.

...hearing evolution presented as FACT in my high school and university biology classes, made it almost a foregone conclusion that I would become an atheist.

That makes no sense. Those who understand evolution, and how it works, the processes, can also comprehend in a larger 'unknown' aspect that could be referred to as a "creator"...those sorts like to see things in the OVERALL context of the entire Universe, not just our little backwater Solar System.

If there is no creator, how can there be a God?

See above. Perhaps some have too limited and narrow view of what they think "god" is.

So don't assume that those of us who now can see that creation science explains things JUST AS WELL OR BETTER than evolution are uneducated.

Sorry, but the mere phrase 'creation science' is an oxymoron.

Firstly, there is no such thing, no matter how hard some people like Kent Hovind wish it to be so.

Secondly, there is NOTHING in the so-called "science" proposed by the propenents that remotely resembles real science.

At least, when we are focusing on the "Young Earth" nonsense.

Now, if you wish to suppose some sort of supreme responsible for setting this all in motion initially, by our measure of time about 13-14 billion years ago.......then I have no answers on that.

Questions, though --- plenty on the 'christ' mythos. There is a LONG recorded history of mankind, and MANY 'saviours' have been urgently revered. This is just one of the latest.

WHY? Not the scope of this topic, really, but just food for thought, to cogitate on. IF there is going to be a ONE. TRUE 'saviour' for all of mankind, wouldn't it have occured a LONG TIME ago?? AND, wouldn't it be plainly obvious?? WHY all the mystery, the 'faith' requirement?? Seems cruel, and vindictive, to me.......

Jesus is NOT dead. Maybe you heard: He resurrected! The rest of those 'saviours' have long sense been reduced to bones and/or dust. And all those greek and roman gods? They were just myth. Jesus is the real deal. Those of us who have sought Him have been rewarded with a relationship with Him. What is cruel about that? I don't get all this cruel, vindictive, etc. stuff that atheists keep telling me about the Jesus I have known as my very best friend for over 30 years. You must be talking about some other god, one that I don't know. The Jesus I know only showed love while he was on this earth, and loves all of us, still. I don't know what happened to make you so angry at Him, but He isn't angry with you. He loves you and wants you to come home to Him.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Abstinence is working for Isaac and Simon - and for tens of thousands of teens and twentysomethings proudly attending virginity rallies in Uganda. But Aids activists and development officials point to the 130,000 Ugandans infected with HIV last year alone [2006] - up from 70,000 in 2002 - and say the recent obsession with abstinence is handicapping the country's once-successful fight against the virus.
Health workers see the fingerprints of America's Christian right all over the chastity message and believe the Bush administration is using its financial might to bully them into accepting evangelical ideology at the expense of public health.

www.independent.co.uk...
So evangelical pastors are looking after the orphans, eh? Seems like the least they can do, since there wouldn't be so many dead parents if the christians weren't so desperate to stop people "sinning" that they'd rather watch them die of AIDS than countenance sex with condoms.

You are incorrect to think that Christianity will be gone in 200 years. Jesus will return as He promised He would, and then even you will bow your knee to Him. Remember that I said this! I hope by then you and I will be brother and sister in Christ. You can have a relationship with Him, too. No one is beyond His love. You are just another lost sheep like I was. He came to save you, too.

It wasn't me that said 200yrs. As for Jesus, well whilst you're waiting, more & more of us will get on with our lives in the here & now; growing along our own spiritual path without anyone telling us what to think, or not bothering, as we choose; keeping our spiritual beliefs or lack thereof out of material concerns & being better off for it.
"Lost sheep"? By christian standards I'm 1 of the goats & heading into being a horny old 1 @ that

I saved myself thanx!

I have no quarrel with abstinence, nor with condoms. I apologize for mistakenly thinking that you were the one who said 200 years. As far as you being one of the goats, well, no way, my friend. Again, I am hoping one day you will recognize that you are valuable in His sight, and that He died for your sins, so that you could be blameless before God when you reach the end of your life on this earth.

reply to post by novacs4me

So don't assume that those of us who now can see that creation science explains things JUST AS WELL OR BETTER than evolution are uneducated. I didn't give up on my faith in evolution until years AFTER I accepted Christ as my savior when I was 24.

Well, perhaps you haven't yet read & digested my response to John Matrix's attempt @ my logical challenge, so maybe you didn't also give up on reading comprehension when you became fervently religious either, however, since all the pieces of the puzzle have been right in front of you since page 8 of this thread, I'm guessing you did.
Perhaps you'd like to have a go? You too Stylez?
The logic problem is simple: demonstrate that if the evidence does not support evolution, it must therefore support creationism.
Really, as a man with spiritual beliefs, a scientific job & a love of language, I greatly look forward to your semantic gymnastics in attempting a rational for the inherently illogical as potential comedy gold!

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me

 

So don't assume that those of us who now can see that creation science explains things JUST AS WELL OR BETTER than evolution are uneducated. I didn't give up on my faith in evolution until years AFTER I accepted Christ as my savior when I was 24.

Well, perhaps you haven't yet read & digested my response to John Matrix's attempt @ my logical challenge, so maybe you didn't also give up on reading comprehension when you became fervently religious either, however, since all the pieces of the puzzle have been right in front of you since page 8 of this thread, I'm guessing you did.
Perhaps you'd like to have a go? You too Stylez?
The logic problem is simple: demonstrate that if the evidence does not support evolution, it must therefore support creationism.
Really, as a man with spiritual beliefs, a scientific job & a love of language, I greatly look forward to your semantic gymnastics in attempting a rational for the inherently illogical as potential comedy gold!

Well, my favorite answer is related to lunar recession. Evolution requires so many iterations over so many years that you need a much older earth than lunar recession supports. I'll start with that.

reply to post by Equinox99

There are more important things in the world to solve, why do you fight
with each other?

Because mate, the 1st thing that needs to happen, in order to solve the important things in the world, is that the spurious claims made by religious leaders to have any right to a say in anything other than purely spiritual matters needs to be debunked. After which, many of the invisible lines you go on to mention will disappear. @Which point, with considerably less division, it will become obvious that most people's political opinion is formed of ideas from all over the spectrum. It will be much easier to see that, whilst we may not agree wholeheartedly with someone, some of their ideas aren't a million miles from our own, that we can get along fine with them, so long as they're prepared to reciprocate concerning our own ideas.
Its very simple really. Religion is the opium of the masses, but opium doesn't just make a person happy, it saps their energy. Wean people of depending on it in their material lives & all that energy will be available to get stuff done to improve our lives, instead of looking to leaders & ages old & out of date books for answers.

It's getting late here on the east coast of Canada, so I am going to make one last post before signing off for the night. I expect you will try to debunk the work of Dr. Donald B. DeYoung as regards the lunar recession. I don't claim to know a lot about carbon dating, but am studying the book 'Thousands, not billions: challenging an Icon of Evolution Questioning the Age of the Earth' by Dr. DeYoung and his colleagues in the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group. I suspect this is the area where evolutionists discount a young earth, and which the RATE group gives their argument in favor of a young earth. It's a bit too late at night for me to scoop out the salient points to counter whatever argument you may have. But if you are interested in taking their work on directly, here is the link: Thousands, not billions. Signing off, but I will check back tomorrow!

reply to post by novacs4me No seriously, I'm a goat. Read my siggy... I'm a capricorn too! Apart from bestiality, incest, rape or murder, I've done/am doing just about everything christianity says I shouldn't. Am I unrepentant? Not strictly, because I know I have nothing to repent for. The mistakes I've made: I've apologised &, where possible, made amends.
Like I said, I saved myself thanx. Since I will never stand before your god, I dont care if I'm blameless in your religion's eyes or not. I found my own path & I'm happy to walk it.

Are you primates arguing over evolution again ???

The distributors probably said theres no market for the movie, .. not because its controversial, .... but because it sucked, and this is the directors way of bringing attention to it, ... which is obviously working.

It's kind of silly to argue against evolution, and its Ironic that you would, ...... because doing so, proves the theory of evolution ....... because anyone who doesn't believe it, .... is obviously a few steps back in the evolutionary scale.

reply to post by novacs4me

Well, my favorite answer is related to lunar recession. Evolution requires so many iterations over so many years that you need a much older earth than lunar recession supports. I'll start with that.

I did not ask you to defend creationist ideas, I asked you to attempt to solve the logic problem @the heart of the idea that creationism is science. Having done this almost to death with John Matrix, I'm only going to recap once:
Whatever the phenomenon under examination, can you demonstrate that if the evidence does not support current evolutionary theory to explain it, that the only other possibility is intelligent design?
Please dont evade again.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

Originally posted by John Matrix

I'm saying that evolutionists teach that the planets evolved after the big bang.

And you would be wrong, again, because evolutionists do not talk about the big bang, planets, galaxies, stars, magnetars, pulsars, black holes, nebulae, etc etc etc. Evolution talks about the changes of organisms on our planet through generations. The evolution of the universe is what physicists and astronomers deal with. Again, please do a little self education so you aren't throwing out disinformation. But from your responses in this thread, it is readily apparent that this ignorance to science must be trolling because i don't see how anyone could be this blind.

No I am not wrong.

Here is one of your evolution websites. It appears I know more about the religion of evolution than you do. And you know nothing about creation science.
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
It's kind of silly to argue against evolution, and its Ironic that you would, ...... because doing so, proves the theory of evolution ....... because anyone who doesn't believe it, .... is obviously a few steps back in the evolutionary scale.

Coming from one who believes his ancestors swung by their tails from trees, such an opinion is expected.

I believe my ancestors were created as human beings....just like we are today, but the gene pool has since degraded through the generations.

Be patient, there will be discoveries and breakthroughs in science very soon which will put an end to this fraud.....and it is a fraud....and has been from the beginning.....take a look for yourself:
www.geocities.com...

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
John, please dont attempt the moral highground when you yourself have engaged is just as much smartarsery as I.

Not true. You are just upset that you cannot manipulate me with your religion and recruit me into the evolutionist ranks. Your religion is a fraud, not a science. Read it and weep.
www.geocities.com...

Darwin = Eugenics = Garbage.

Darwin's time never knew what a cell is, so that ends his worthless lifes work as soon as we learned about cells.

This is just some brain washing for the sheep.

Smart Scientists and Teachers lose their jobs and more for questioning Darwin at all.

Watch this movie instead

www.youtube.com...

Seriously.

reply to post by John Matrix


Wow, ... I just looked at your " evidence" ..... and all it talks about is drawings of embryo's....... are you serious ??? Did you even look at the quality of website it was on ???

see John, unfortunately your problem is that you allow religion to dictate what you believe, not the other way around.

The whole basis for creationism is the bible. THE BIBLE !!! see, you only look at evidence and try to fit it into your narrow view of science/reality. Only to discard what doesnt make sense to you, because it doesnt correlate with the bible.

Now does that make sense ??? believing the scientific majority is wrong or perpetrating a great conspiracy .... because it DOESNT FIT INTO A BOOK !!!

One of looks bat sh#t crazy, .... unfortunately you think its me.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Well, my favorite answer is related to lunar recession. Evolution requires so many iterations over so many years that you need a much older earth than lunar recession supports. I'll start with that.

I did not ask you to defend creationist ideas, I asked you to attempt to solve the logic problem @the heart of the idea that creationism is science. Having done this almost to death with John Matrix, I'm only going to recap once:
Whatever the phenomenon under examination, can you demonstrate that if the evidence does not support current evolutionary theory to explain it, that the only other possibility is intelligent design?
Please dont evade again.

It was never my intent to evade. I'm sorry, I thought you wanted those of us who believe there IS intelligent design to defend our positions with scientific evidence. Now I see that you are presenting a logic problem. Essentially you are saying this, if I can take ANY liberties at all here: 'Prove that if A (evolution) is not true that B (ID) must be true.' And now we are at the crux of the matter. Because if B doesn't discount all other possible theories (A, C - Z), that I lose the argument. I surmise the point of your insistence on addressing this logic problem is to discount B. Logically speaking though, the possibility of unnamed theories C-Z does not lessen the validity of B until all the scientific discoveries have been made and accounted for by each theory (A-Z).