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: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buds84
 
Also part of the Expelled movie is Ben Stein's interview of Richard Dawkins. The animosity in Dawkins book towards God is obvious. And the retreat position that life may have been seeded here from somewhere else puts him in the same category as the alien visitation believers here on ATS. Which guy was it that said he would rather believe in anything than believe in God? I'm going to track that down. I have a couple of guesses, but don't want to misquote anyone.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

You are just upset that you cannot manipulate me with your religion and recruit me into the evolutionist ranks.
John, I'm not trying to recruit you into my ranks, because A) I dont have any ranks & B) if I did, I wouldn't want you in them, since your debating skills are so poor.
Nor am I trying to manipulate you. I simply set forth a logical argument & then formulated a simple logic problem which, if solved, would refute my argument. After much evasion, you attempted to solve it & failed. That isn't manipulation John, its how what truths we can know are arrived at, by statements being subjected to formal logic & either demonstrated to be irrefutable, unprovable or false.
Btw, I notice that you are still using the oxymoron "creation science", even tho you were unable to demonstrate that creationism is the only alternative to evolution theory. Having failed, as far as you know, creationism is not science, as it remains illogical. What you are doing then is deliberately posting information you know to be false, which is a T&C violation.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I really have to agree with refuse_orders with his statements. This is an absolute disgrace! Only 39% of the American people believe in evolution? That is just plain INSANITY! De-evolution is a real problem with people over here!

Here is a little known fact in the science community:
When a theory can be bashed, crushed, tested, and streatched and it STILL proves replicatable results every time, the theory is no longer a theory. It's a little insignificant thing called a LAW.

Evolution has stood up to the test and passed thousands or millions of times over! I do not hold a degree YET but I would consider evolution to be a LAW.

Now has anyone been able to prove the existence of some invisable man that lives in the sky or a talking snake? NOPE! NEVER! Not even one single time! But some how the invisable man and the talking snake has won over science every time. Can some one explain to me how that is even remotely possible?

I'm sorry, but I'm a guy who "believes" in little insignificant things such as atoms, viruses, bacteria, dinosaurs, stars, planets, Earth being round, gravity, inertia, and the Earth NOT being the center of the universe. I have this real idiotic thing I do, it's called thinking for myself. I tend to "believe" in things that I can actually see like stars, plants, and animals. Not invisable men who live in the sky and talking snakes. And I like to form my own thoughts and opinions. I know that this makes me a very bad American and religious person.

I know that my words are blasfimous and makes people cry, but I REALLY don't care! And do trust me, in this day and age people STILL think of other as being witches. I should know! I once went to court at 17 years old because 5 people tried to kill me. The 5 people who tried to kill me accused me of being a witch and that is why they tried to kill me and guess what? ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED AND I WAS ACCUSED, IN COURT, OF BEING A HERATIC!!!! This happened in the great state of New Jersey in the United States! How F'ed is that crap huh!!!

But on the other hand, I have one single problem with evolution. If a lobe fined fish took 50-75 million years to evolve wrists and ankles, and it took 55-60 million years for the ambliocetus to evolve into whales, how did humans go from 100% primate to 100% human in just 3 million years? This very thing violates evolution. I have found the answer to this conundrum as well. Since I am a person who thinks for himself and is a life long student of science and history I decided to do research on this very problem. 100% of all ancient human cultures, civilizations, and societies that have ever lived down through all time make mention of extraterrestrial people. Most of these cultures elude to or straight up say that we are either not from here or have been genetically altered or upgraded. Our last huge upgrade being 200,000 years ago.

Now to some I have just become the devil himself. Not only do I believe in evolution, but I also believe that evolution can happen on other planets in other star systems!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Valkyr8
 




how did humans go from 100% primate to 100% human in just 3 million years? This very thing violates evolution.


Huh? We're still primates, members of the great apes family.
Hominidae

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.

Primates

The Simiiformes infraorder emerged about 40 mya, and contains the two clades: the parvorder Platyrrhini that developed in South America and contains New World monkeys, and the parvorder Catarrhini that developed in Africa and contains the Old World monkeys, humans and the other apes.


Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or us, came about roughly 200,000 years ago, however there are a number of different hominid species present in fossils.
Human Evolution Timeline

Dunno, take a look, it was more than 3 million years.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by novacs4me
 

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).
Good argument, star

1st, I am not discounting creationism per se, I am saying its unscientific; a spiritual belief structure only. I believe in divinity & so such may have created the universe, life & guided the various processes. But those are subjective beliefs which are not subject to the scientific method.
From a purely logical standpoint, I agree that the possibilities of C-Z can not invalidate B, unless & until evidence is presented which actually supports any such theories. However, in concluding a paper, to be logical, a scientist would either have to stop @why their interpretation of the evidence disagrees with A, or, @the very least, mention that whilst they lean toward B, C-Z may exist & that, since there is no physical evidence for any of B-Z, merely against A, such an idea cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis as, without physical evidence, it cannot be tested.
Therefore a conclusion which insists on B alone is illogical, thus unscientific & so "creation science" is an oxymoron.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me
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!

Thank you for the star. And I thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that he answered my prayers last night, and kept me from giving you 'potential comedy gold'.

Edit to add: I think you meant rationale, not rational. You see, we do share a love of language.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by novacs4me]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by newworld
I don't "believe" in evolution, i "know" about evolution theory and I'm convinced that it is scientifically sound and is probably the strongest scientific theory out there.
Saying that you believe/don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in gravity.


I don't believe in gravity.

I don't believe the scientific method is proper to describe reality.
It is proper to use things, to understand and predict how they seem to work, not to know them.
It doesnt tackle reality nor being, just appearances and utilitarianism.

It is a tool, a useful and efficient one.
But it is grossly misused when applied out of its assigned domain.

And that's what believers in scientism do. They use scientific theory to address metaphysical issues like "what is?".


Well you cant know "what is" through using the scientific method because that method doesnt bypass the mind and senses' filter.

We have brains and senses and as long as you use tools that are conditionned by these, you cant tell anything about what is and what isnt. Period.

One of the basic tenets of scientific theory is that the observer doesnt modify the observed.

Well that's not how reality works, at all.

So it makes the scientific method very useful, but only under strict limits. To build a rocket, science rocks. To know who and what you are, or what anything is, it blows majorly.

It is a materialistic tool to be used for materialistic purposes.
Dont mix god-questions with science, it's just ridiculous.
You wouldn't use a kitchen appliance to know the meaning of life either.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by quintal]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


There wasn't any focus group and nobody took offense to the original title. It was the publisher Scholastic and Rowling who decided to change the title. The change was because in the US one does not associate a philosopher with a magician or witch. They chose a word that a child(who the books are made for) could associate with a witch.

www.imdb.com...

Hope this stops you from talking out the wrong end.


quoting from the above link :


The decision to change Philosopher to Sorcerer was made because, in the U.S., a philosopher connotes a scholar of philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. Philosopher does not typically connote an alchemist or magician, and magic is essential to the Harry Potter books.


Well even in France, blessed land of the oral tradition of alchemy, "philosopher" rarely has an occult meaning. The obvious alchemical reference that is "the philosophers's stone" is about the only occurence where "philosopher" is used as meaning an alchemist, therefore a magician.

So, the question is, don't the americans know about this alchemical tradition like the europeans do?

I'd venture to say that they too have heard of the philosophers' stone, just as much as their european couterparts... but i couldnt be too sure.

I've long been lamenting at the lack of alchemical tradition of the anglo-saxon internet contributors to occult-related discussion venues.

We do have a strong alchemical tradition here in europe that the americans seem to be direly lacking. They're plunged into OTO/Crowley crap like there's no tomorrow, whereas in europe Crowley is just a secundary source of occult lore.

Funny thing is, Crowley was arguably no philosopher but undoubtedly a sorcerer.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
I simply set forth a logical argument & then formulated a simple logic problem which, if solved, would refute my argument. After much evasion, you attempted to solve it & failed.

Btw, I notice that you are still using the oxymoron "creation science", even tho you were unable to demonstrate that creationism is the only alternative to evolution theory. Having failed, as far as you know, creationism is not science, as it remains illogical. What you are doing then is deliberately posting information you know to be false, which is a T&C violation.


Like most evolutionists, you are quite a spin master.....I'll give you that.

Why do you come across as so self arrogating and attacking?
It is you that needs to sharpen your debating skills.

I never attempted to solve your logic problem. That's an issue you need to take up with a psychologist.

Creation Science is not an oxymoron. Creation Science is the scientific study of evidences(by qualified scientists in their fields) which refutes evolution and supports special creation.

www.allaboutcreation.org...

[edit on 17/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
lungfish turn into an actual amphibian should be no suprise, since science has barely got going compared to evolutionary time.
I'm not going to bother listing the predictions the theory of evolution makes which have been born out by the evidence, because you're not listening. What I will repeat is that arguments based on speculative maths, or logical postulations based on assumption that simply because a thing is not fully understood it never will be, against the theory are not evidence for creationism. Until a piece of noodly appendage is found, the Triple Goddess turns up, or Jesus raises the dead in a lab, there cant be any.



This organism was discovered in a small pond in the middle of an African desert made just 30 hours before in a flooding rainstorm, the first in 28 months. Dozens of vibrant healthy lungfish were in the same pond. It has been found that the lungfish is capable of surviving long periods of drought, up to four years in a carefully constructed underground burrow which it inhabits when water begins to dry up. It enters a dormant state and waits for the next rainstorm. Evolutionary biologists claim the organism to be “unchanged for 60 million years.” Let’s go back 60 million years and imagine how the lungfish might have “evolved.”

The fossil record shows this organism appearing suddenly. No transitional forms are available to support adequately the theory of its evolution. But admitting there might be transitional life forms yet unfound, how would the lungfish arrive according to the theory of evolution? —A non-lungfish interacting with environmental change turns into a lungfish capable of surviving four years of extreme temperatures (in excess of 130°F) and no moisture. As the weather gradually changes so must the “lungfish in training” —generation after generation, no mistakes, learning to burrow into the mud to a depth neither too shallow, or be baked, nor too deep, or be trapped. It must secrete an exact amount of slime to harden into its protective covering and lower its heart rate to one beat every 10-20 minutes. During this evolutionary training period of, let’s say, 30 million years, the weather must change gradually.... What would happen if after 15 million years the lungfish trainee has only learned to burrow up to its pectoral fins? If it doesn’t rain sufficiently, the animal’s tail will get quite a suntan!


Always chasing raaaainbows



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me

Originally posted by Bunken Drum reply to post by novacs4me 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!
Thank you for the star. And I thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that he answered my prayers last night, and kept me from giving you 'potential comedy gold'. Edit to add: I think you meant rationale, not rational. You see, we do share a love of language.
[edit on 17-9-2009 by novacs4me]
I sit corrected!

It was even later over here, but I usually work nights, but right now I'm doing some days, some nights. My sleep pattern doesn't know what hit it!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please note, this reply is directed at Stylez, who chose to post a cartoon about evolution. Therefore I am recommending that Stylez watch this but nobody else.


Originally posted by Stylez
The stuff we believe about Darwin is what cartoons are made for. Our Imagination in animated format.





Stylez, unlike your cartoon, at least some cartoons consider both the Darwin and the creation views:


Well the Darwinists who made the one used in this example i posted sure didn't but whats your point? You thinl evolutionists are going to be fair and "impartial" ha ha




However they are just cartoons, I don't take any cartoons seriously. I do think the cartoon you posted would be a little more watchable if they avoided the repetitive edits of the same words over and over again.


Watchable or not try refuting the central idea that Dawkins doesn't have a clue



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valkyr8
I really have to agree with refuse_orders with his statements. This is an absolute disgrace! Only 39% of the American people believe in evolution? That is just plain INSANITY! De-evolution is a real problem with people over here!

Here is a little known fact in the science community:
When a theory can be bashed, crushed, tested, and streatched and it STILL proves replicatable results every time, the theory is no longer a theory. It's a little insignificant thing called a LAW.

Evolution has stood up to the test and passed thousands or millions of times over! I do not hold a degree YET but I would consider evolution to be a LAW.



Oh I'm sure you would, too and likek most of the post modernist wordsmithed tactics of "languaging us into such verbal gymnatsics bastardizing the very science vernacular so as to stretch it and expand it over every undeserving status they can creating a verbal catch 22 if you will, that if we merge the two meanings of micro and macro evolution, then if you believe in one you automatically must believe the other.

I have heard a lot of hyper embellished crap about evolution before but calling it a LAW! HA HA HA HA HA Ok you go call the law of evolution and when they ever figure out wht enforces that law, you let me know k thanks



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by quintal
I don't believe in gravity.

I don't believe the scientific method is proper to describe reality.
It is proper to use things, to understand and predict how they seem to work, not to know them.
It doesnt tackle reality nor being, just appearances and utilitarianism.

It is a tool, a useful and efficient one.
But it is grossly misused when applied out of its assigned domain.

And that's what believers in scientism do. They use scientific theory to address metaphysical issues like "what is?".


Well you cant know "what is" through using the scientific method because that method doesnt bypass the mind and senses' filter.

We have brains and senses and as long as you use tools that are conditionned by these, you cant tell anything about what is and what isnt. Period.

One of the basic tenets of scientific theory is that the observer doesnt modify the observed.

Well that's not how reality works, at all.

So it makes the scientific method very useful, but only under strict limits. To build a rocket, science rocks. To know who and what you are, or what anything is, it blows majorly.

It is a materialistic tool to be used for materialistic purposes.
Dont mix god-questions with science, it's just ridiculous.
You wouldn't use a kitchen appliance to know the meaning of life either.


Your post is a profound perspective that I have not heard in the many threads on this topic that I participated in.

For those still attending: My position is that both sides use the same evidences, make observations, conduct experiments, test it against other evidences to see how it fits into their model, interprets the evidence and provides explanations for it.

I believe the creationist interpretation is more logical and reasonable. I believe evolution has serious problems.

The argument that have been presented by the evolutionists is that evolution is science and creation is theology. The implication being that creation science is not science. Yet, creation science uses all the same scientific methods to study evidence, observe phenomena, conduct experiments, and provide explanations as to why the evidence supports their theory. That the Bible, supports the creationist view does not make creation science a religious view. The Bible is not a religion, it is a book of history, prophecy, poetry, genealogy, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. etc. Humans can make a religion out of anything. That they have religions centered around the bible does not make the bible a religion, nor is creation science a religion simply because the bible happens to support it, or because Christians support it.

Once people get over the idea that evolution is science, and creation is theology, only then can we really move on in this debate. Evolution is not science and science is not evolution. Science is science, and no side can say they own science exclusively to the discredit of the other.

www.allaboutcreation.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 
From what I know about Dawkins (and I don't claim to know too much about him, just a little) I think that early in his life he was swayed by the amazing complexity of existing lifeforms, and he couldn't conceive how such complex organisms could possibly arise from natural processes.

But rather than hold on to that conclusion with a closed mind like some people do, Dawkins decided to examine the evidence for himself. Obviously at some point he discovered enough evidence to sway his opinion to the belief that amazing as it is, and no doubt it IS amazing, natural processes can be and are responsible for the complexity we see in life forms.

And the fact that Dawkins paused to think about a good answer shows me he's a thoughtful person instead of spouting some BS off the top of his head without thinking about it, as some others might. Just go on youtube and search for "whale evolution" and you'll find numerous videos that show transitional forms, many of which are relatively recent finds, or in some cases the finds sat for a decade after being dug up before the fossils could be painstakingly processed and extracted from the surrounding rock.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by quintal
 
Thats a great perspective. As far as I'm aware tho, its usually only laymans language science reporting that seems to ask "what is?", except theoretical astrophysics anyway, which is long on imagination, short on investigable hypotheses these days. Still, we may have the means 1 day.
The actual scientists involved in the various studies which go together to support evolution theory are looking @life & asking, "How did this happen the way it did? What can we infer will happen next? How can we test that prediction?"
Love the kitchen appliances... Careful with that analogy tho, next thing we know, the new best seller will be "Zen and the Art of Smoothy Making"



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by refuse_orders

Once again I find myself speechless, why do the American general public have such a mistrust for science?


Well lets see, could it be that science doesn't want to follow the same rules it uses against any theory but Darwins?

Could it be that Science lies so much cheats so much and now that it has an agenda to advance athiesm ala Neil DeGrasse Tysons own words to the members of the NAS.

Or How about Science reluctance to chip away at the so called mountain of eveidence it says it has and start getting on the ball removing the instances of fraud and hoax which the mountains is made of.

How about quit calling evolution a fact untill you substantiate what evolution is a fact? ALL of it ? Any Kind? what exactly does that mean to say its a fact? A fact of what?

Anthropology claims to have a fair amount of support for the theory of evolution. Piecemeal bone fragments, it says, provide glimpses at our ape-like ancestors. However, a lot of fraudulent input exists from this discipline also. A few examples:

A piece of bone dated at 5 million years was thought to be the collarbone of a human-like creature. This bone is actually part of a dolphin rib.

Hesperopithecos, cited as evidence for very early man in North America, was a skull entirely formulated from a single molar tooth from a fossil pig. This does not reflect well on evolutionary anthropologists. Shouldn’t a pig’s tooth be part of a pig’s skull?

Piltdown Man, claimed to be the earliest Englishman, was another hoax. This was compiled from the jawbone of an orangutan and a modern human skull. A student priest was involved in this hoax which included teeth filed to make them appear human and chemical staining of the jawbone and teeth to give an old appearance.

Peking Man was constructed from a skull cap closely resembling that of a great ape The cast of Peking Man, which took two years to construct, no longer exists. All that remains is a plastic model which itself was not taken from the original. This is on display in the Red Chinese Hall of Science and Evolution Exhibit. The original material has been “lost.”





Originally posted by newworld

I don't "believe" in evolution, i "know" about evolution theory and I'm convinced that it is scientifically sound and is probably the strongest scientific theory out there.


Is that what you believe?



Saying that you believe/don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in gravity.


Why don't you believe in gravity?



Evolution is a FACT, we know that it occurred due to DNA evidence, fossil evidence, vestigial organs, microevolution actually being observed, etc.
The "theory" comes to how exactly did the process take place, when did certain species branch out, etc.


If you would be so kind, may I see the most compelling item of data about DNA , your best evidence for "vestigial organs" etc.



I feel sad for the U.S., the country I live in, that showing a movie about about Charles Darwin is deemed too controversial. This speaks volumes for the low level of scientific knowledge that our country suffers from.


Well Darwinian evolution is all they teach in that area of science so what do you expect



However, the U.S. has no problems with showing all those movies about christianity and divine intervention in the cinema at every chance they get.




This is saddening, really. I think I have lost a bit more of my fate on humanity reading that even the U.K. thinks we are dumb in the states.


Yeah, and you believe them? Dude, they believe a frog can turn into a prince for god sake. They said the same thing when they came over here to teach us a lesson marching through the forrest in those bright red coats. They still think that old bag over there has royal blood for god sake, and if they ever get in a tiff with anyone like Russia, would it be the smartest thing for us to help them ?

makes ya wonder considering how dumb we all are to them.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Stylez
 
From what I know about Dawkins (and I don't claim to know too much about him, just a little) I think that early in his life he was swayed by the amazing complexity of existing lifeforms, and he couldn't conceive how such complex organisms could possibly arise from natural processes.

But rather than hold on to that conclusion with a closed mind like some people do, Dawkins decided to examine the evidence for himself. Obviously at some point he discovered enough evidence to sway his opinion to the belief that amazing as it is, and no doubt it IS amazing, natural processes can be and are responsible for the complexity we see in life forms.

And the fact that Dawkins paused to think about a good answer shows me he's a thoughtful person instead of spouting some BS off the top of his head without thinking about it, as some others might. Just go on youtube and search for "whale evolution" and you'll find numerous videos that show transitional forms, many of which are relatively recent finds, or in some cases the finds sat for a decade after being dug up before the fossils could be painstakingly processed and extracted from the surrounding rock.



You missed the point or didn't watch the whole thing. I am asking for someone to clarify Dawkins inability to give a "Scientifc" explantion of evolution in that video where it clearly shows the many contradiction's he makes moreover you are not telling me a thing superimposing your reasons for why Dawkins did this or that early in life. I have met the man hve all his books and like you he assumes evolution is true when he talks about it yet every single solitary dialogue I have seen and been in with darwinists, they just can't acknowledge the blatant reach for speculation, conjecturing their way through more BS they ALWAYS get busted on later.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez
Why don't you believe in gravity?


Gravity is a lot like evolution in that we see evidence for both of them everywhere we look. But nobody claims to know all the details about either, we still have a lot to learn about both of them.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Stylez
Why don't you believe in gravity?


Gravity is a lot like evolution in that we see evidence for both of them everywhere we look. But nobody claims to know all the details about either, we still have a lot to learn about both of them.


Oh I am aware of all that , I was just trying to set newworld up for a little fun. in his first quote he says:



I don't "believe" in evolution, i "know" about evolution theory and I'm convinced that it is scientifically sound and is probably the strongest scientific theory out there.


Then later he says not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. Well then he must not believe in gravity because he said he didn't believe in evolution. so I was just playin on how serious he takes himself



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join