Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Originally posted by ChildOfUranus

I don't care what you believe in man either way you aren't gonna listen to us on the other side.

And in which case this discussion should just die because honestly no one will convince you and you wont convince anyone either.

It is not me who has accepted the grand delusion, it is you. I know about evolution because it's been rammed down my throat for years. But most people who believe the evolution myth know nothing about creation. That's clear by their responses and posts.

Originally posted by Fang
Anyone seen the Film yet? A touching piece, quite sad but with a couple of good performances.

I'd probably go see it, just to see how much they have revised his history to look like he was some "Brilliant scientist" he was neither brilliant OR a scientist.

Originally posted by Maslo
Abiogenesis is not microevolution, why do you think it is? Evolution happens after basic cell functions, a.k.a. life, are available. You only disproved completely random abiogenesis. Whether first simple life appeared through random abiogenesis (very improbable), gods creation (i dont think so), or gradual abiogenesis guided by natural laws (i think this is it, but noone has any proof yet), IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

Then Louis Pasteur was wrong is that what you are saying? You can't have it both ways my friend. Either prove life can come from non life or quit assuming it didn't because if it didn't evolution isn't really dealing with abiogenesis then IS IT!

reply to post by ChildOfUranus


One is an observable testable meaning micro, the other is a pipe dream cooked up and never been observed, can't be tested so you are virtually stuck with the God model problem. In other words, it must be believed by faith. Everything to suggest it happens has already been explained and now understood by evolutionist's working feverishly to come up with the next plausible explanation for how we came to be. The will her anything you got as long as it's plausible and as long as it doesn't include intelligence. (which is what I think was the problem the first time they tried coming up with one not using any hehe)

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by Maslo
Abiogenesis is not microevolution, why do you think it is? Evolution happens after basic cell functions, a.k.a. life, are available. You only disproved completely random abiogenesis. Whether first simple life appeared through random abiogenesis (very improbable), gods creation (i dont think so), or gradual abiogenesis guided by natural laws (i think this is it, but noone has any proof yet), IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

Then Louis Pasteur was wrong is that what you are saying? You can't have it both ways my friend. Either prove life can come from non life or quit assuming it didn't because if it didn't evolution isn't really dealing with abiogenesis then IS IT!

It would appear that their is overwhelming proof for the evolution of the evolution theory. The addition of new terms, throwing out old ones,.... addition of new theories, .....throwing out old ones,..... modifying, mutating, generating, transforming, re-defining, distancing, etc....it's enough to make a sane person's head spin, which I suspect is their goal. Could their god be the "god of confusion?" Na, couldn't be.

"Scientific Contortionism" would be a more suitable name.

bbbrrr buzzzs boing

god created the gay man, please keep chatting to yourseves on that...


zazz bot out.

bing bizzz

apendix, appendix where for art though appendix?

What? god made a mistake? he gave humans a grass processing sack for nothing that is de-evolving?

bing does not compute..

bbzzzz---hisss smoke.BOING!

warning warning

zazz bot shuts down....




[edit on 22-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by John Matrix
It would appear that their is overwhelming proof for the evolution of the evolution theory. The addition of new terms, throwing out old ones,.... addition of new theories, .....throwing out old ones,..... modifying, mutating, generating, transforming, re-defining, distancing, etc....it's enough to make a sane person's head spin, which I suspect is their goal. Could their god be the "god of confusion?" Na, couldn't be.

"Scientific Contortionism" would be a more suitable name.

That's the way science works, the theories have to be falsifiable and when they are falsified the false theories have to be thrown out. If Human fossils and dinosaur fossils are found in the same sedimentary layer, we may have to throw out much of the current theory on evolution.

I agree it seems like contortion at times, but as John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

reply to post by John Matrix


reply to post by Stylez


When you two guys get done verbally making out, let us know and maybe we can get this thread back on track... Either that, or go get a virtual room...

I'd just like to add that I love you, Jaxon!
Oh but really...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
When you two guys get done verbally making out, let us know and maybe we can get this thread back on track... Either that, or go get a virtual room...

Jealousy will get you nowhere!

Back on track? You mean American and Christian bashing?

We buried Darwin and the whole evolution faith a few pages back.

I'm surprised to see you eager to beat a dead horse.

Micro-evolution: is the study of variation and adaptive responses in species. Calling these things "evolution" is misleading.

These adaptive responses and variations are part of the genetic program.....the DNA was designed that way. It's evidence for a creator/designer, not evolution.

Macro-evolution: involves the theory of speciation.

Abiogenesis: is the theory or belief in spontaneous random generation of life from inanimate matter.

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution or abiogenesis. Macro-evolution and abiogenesis have NEVER been proven.

What's left to talk about?

Do you have something new for us to cover?

Originally posted by muggl3z
I am officially embarrassed as a proud American.

The biggest problem in this country is ignorance, complete absence of information.

It isn't an absence of information but a willful ignorance of it. Good information is out there to be discovered by anyone who is paying attention. Sadly, most Americans find it much easier to believe in fairy tales.

bbbrrb beeep
zazzbot sees nothing other than theory, no science has debunked evolution, just absolutism theory. This is not fact nor science.

Brbrbp beeep

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
When you two guys get done verbally making out, let us know and maybe we can get this thread back on track... Either that, or go get a virtual room...

Jealousy will get you nowhere!

I'd just as soon kiss a Wookie!

Princess Leia- Star Wars: Episode 4 'A New Hope'

Back on track? You mean American and Christian bashing?

Discussion of the embracing of ignorance is not bashing, although those who do embrace ignorance would see it that way.

We buried Darwin and the whole evolution faith a few pages back.

Not even close. Every point was countered with facts proving your allegations false. Neither you or your 'boyfriend' have yet to dispute or refutiate the creation of organic matter from inorganic matter via meteor strikes or the source I linked to. You both just keep cherry picking that which you think you can dispute, and failing everytime.

A few posts back you stated that those who support evolution lack any knowledge of the Creation Myth. I would be willing to bet the opposite. I was brought up to believe the '7 days' story. It wasn't until high school that I was introduced to the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis in any detail. Once I opened my mind to any and all possibilities, I could see that the evidence did indeed point to the scientific point of view and did not support the religious standpoint whatsoever. It did not shake my faith in a Creator, it defined the Creator's methods. My Faith is not built on the words of Man, but instead in a personal relationship with my Creator.

You both claim to have open minds, but your words tell such a different story. They show the minds of those so wrapped up in their schema that any information that challenges these beliefs must be false. One could suggest that your faith is so fragile that the acceptance that this portion of the Bible is incorrect would shatter it completely. This need not be so. One need only to bear in mind that this was written by an ancient people trying to explain their origin. But then you would not be able to try to force Levitican Law on the rest of us, as it's validity would also be called into question (which it already is).

Another thing is that while all Creationists are religious, not all Evolutionists are atheist. Many who have faith also accept Evolution, with no conflict. If the Creator is all knowing, and all powerful, could this Creator not create the Universe with the Big Bang, knowing exactly where it would lead, and what life would come of it?

Mathematicians have stated that if they knew where every single particle of matter was, and which direction and velocity it was traveling, they could calculate everything that has ever happened, is happening, or will ever happen until the end of time. Could not the Creator do the same thing?

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
bbbrrr buzzzs boing

god created the gay man, please keep chatting to yourseves on that...


zazz bot out.

So you're agreeing their is a God? Splendid!

Oh and by the way Zazz, is it Gods choice what we have sex with or ours?

Just curious but I guess that is for another topic. Maybe Jaxon Roberts can make a thread

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Not even close. Every point was countered with facts proving your allegations false.

They aren't "allegations" Jaxon Roberts, they are assertions. and no they weren't proven false. I made no claims, because I know better than to attempt to prove a supernatural entity using a finite scientific method. That is the reason most of the evolutionists say creationists have zero proof. Now their is a theory floating around the halls of academia that may change that but for now, we are just going to have to suffer knowing our 100% proof means squat in a world that isn't looking for the truth

You want us to refute the creation of organic matter from inorganic matter? I,m not sure I was ever in a debate on that subject and just because you may have tossed a link in there about that and we didn't respond is most likely because it was just another one of your usual red herrings you like people to jump through hoops for you over.

If you haven't noticed Jaxon Roberts you got beat by your own theory and yes it is dead. At least for now, I guess the numerous new ones they come up with will always be around and we will always have to hear about how THIS time is is a FACT when the only FACT is, even when you take evolutions top scientist's and put them in a room all together, none of them see eye to eye on even the basic tenets of evolution and any time you want to have a more formal debate on science Jaxon Roberts,, Please, feel free to humiliate me with your staggering intellect.

You lost this one boyo just like the last one, it's part of life ya know.

Some times you kiss, sometimes ya get kissed.

wasn't that a song by Depeche mode?

My Faith is not built on the words of Man, but instead in a personal relationship with my Creator.

Wow [[[((((shivers))))]]] s,s,ssounds real deep and stuff" Jaxon Roberts

You both claim to have open minds, but your words tell such a different story.

People that have the truth jaxon roberts and they know it, don't have to keep looking for it once they found it. You see, our Faith is not built on the words of Man, but rather, a personal relationship with the Creator

Another thing is that while all Creationists are religious, not all Evolutionists are atheist.

Well actually I think John and I (winks at John Matrix) hehe are both believers in evolution Jaxon Roberts,

just not "all" of it. You know, the part that has never been proven and never will be proven. The part one must believe by faith. Yeah that part.

that the acceptance that this portion of the Bible is incorrect would shatter it completely. This need not be so. One need only to bear in mind that this was written by an ancient people trying to explain their origin. But then you would not be able to try to force Levitican Law on the rest of us, as it's validity would also be called into question (which it already is).

Sooo many times I here evolutionists bitching and whining that they are sick and tired of hearing bible thumping in topics like this and yet invariably, it is the evolutionists to be the first to bring the subject up by attacking it or indirectly by mocking it etc. amazing.

Many who have faith also accept Evolution, with no conflict.

Well of course they do, faithful people understand what faith is and admit it without shame whereas many evolutionists have faith in evolution and deny it up and down as if faith were a plague. There hasn't been one scientific discovery where there was no faith in the hypothesis, the experiments conclusions the persistence to try again when they failed but still have faith in the idea, that maybe another method would bring the right results etc. I submit however, that as long as science sees Christianity as a threat, science will suffer for it and has a great deal already. Can attribute that with proof? No, but I can predict as long as it shuts God out of science, the more delusional science will become, the more fraud we will see being committed by scientist's the more credibility they will lose till they will be as mocked and as ridiculed as "fundies" are now. Count on it.

If the Creator is all knowing, and all powerful, could this Creator not create the Universe with the Big Bang, knowing exactly where it would lead, and what life would come of it?

An infinite creator has infinite possibilities, which one he decides on only makes those who have no idea, ask "why that one" or why this one"

why ask why, when, (as leo Buscaglia said] "what is, IS"

and what isn't, or never was, is irrelevent

Mathematicians have stated that if they knew where every single particle of matter was, and which direction and velocity it was traveling, they could calculate everything that has ever happened, is happening, or will ever happen until the end of time. Could not the Creator do the same thing?

Didn't you just get through saying he is "all knowing" ?

I think you answered your question Jaxon Roberts



[edit on 23-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Lilitu


It isn't an absence of information but a willful ignorance of it. Good information is out there to be discovered by anyone who is paying attention. Sadly, most Americans find it much easier to believe in fairy tales.

I don't know how you can say that about "most Americans" I know you can't possibly know MOST, so I suggest you need to get out more lilitu and quit fantasizing about your intimate knowledge of "most Americans"

reply to post by Stylez


OK the zazz bots been disabled.

Stylez, Can we discuss in dot points only as Im getting alittled muddled here.

Do you believe that original life was created? and that Evolution took place over wheever?
Or
Do you belive that all changes to hominoids and life came from divine creation?

Thanks, and pls keep it briefish, Im just tryng to get your actual premise here.
thanks zazz

Originally posted by John Matrix
Micro-evolution: is the study of variation and adaptive responses in species. Calling these things "evolution" is misleading.

These adaptive responses and variations are part of the genetic program.....the DNA was designed that way. It's evidence for a creator/designer, not evolution.

Macro-evolution: involves the theory of speciation.

www.talkorigins.org...

1. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

2. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

Personally I don't see any clear distinctions between microevolution or anything bigger than microevolution. Let's say you have microevolution, then more microevolution, then more microevolution. It seems to me like those small changes can add up to progressively larger changes over time. Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see clear distinctions either. It seems like creationists imagine some cutoff point between microevolution and larger changes without defining what that cutoff is exactly, and without any proof of such a cutoff.

More reading:
Macroevolution Its Definition, Philosophy and History

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Stylez, Can we discuss in dot points only as Im getting alittled muddled here.

Do you believe that original life was created? and that Evolution took place over wheever?

asked and answered

Do you belive that all changes to hominoids and life came from divine creation?

Asked and answered

Thanks, and pls keep it briefish, Im just tryng to get your actual premise here.

Premise? mmm don't you mean "angle"? Naaah like you'd admit it lol