It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:32 PM
The concept of evolution makes man an advanced primate, a kin to the apes. By changing the mental orientation of the individual from a child of God to a child of an ape, men feel free to follow their own inclinations, some of which are at an animal level.

This was predicted in the Bible in Romans 1:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So, who is surprised at the increases in crime, abortion, infidelity, divorce, etc. since evolution became taught in schools in the early 60s?

Historically, President Eisenhower saw that America was falling behind in education in science. He proposed teaching evolution in schools and provided funding. Now look what we have. If you examine the proponents of evolution on ATS you will find that many are "free thinkers" who are Wiccans, homosexuals, etc.

I turn this around and say we don't have evolution. We have extinction. People, look around you. Your world is dying. The fossil record shows we had 70 phyla, now we have 30. You are the cause of this death. You are the parasite on this Earth that is killing its host. You murder, decimate rain forests, kill elephants for their tusks, fish everything out of the ocean and watch it die. You do it. Wake up. It's not evolution. We had a world full of life. We killed it. Why did we do it?

1. Fear. We don't like monsters in the dark. We don't like things that go bump in the night. We don't like animals that eat our children.

2. Pride. We treat those who kill the "monsters" like bears, lions, tigers, etc. as heroes. We admire their taxidermy collections, their awards for biggest captures, etc. We admire the men who bring back the head of the beast that threatened the village.

3. Greed. We buy stock in companies that make profits at any cost. We support the decimation of the rain forest so we can mine bauxite (aluminum). We destroy our forests for profit and fail to replant them.
We pollute our ground water and air without thought of who comes after.

People: it's you!

When the big bang theory falls apart, they come up with excuses like dark matter and dark energy.

When evolution will be dis-proven, they come up with more theories.

Where will you go when you have no place to hide? You will have no evolution, no big bang. Then what will you believe? Will you keep avoiding the care for this planet? Will you keep thinking there is no God? By the time you stop believing you are an animal, it will be too late.

Watch this video by Michael Jackson and come back to this thread and tell me I'm wrong.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Jim Scott]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:37 PM
Catholics believe in evolution. Maybe all the Protestants should become Catholic, so we can finally believe in science.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by bettermakings

Actually, maybe they don't. Here's some refs:

On a more Catholic note, did you know of the conference that was held in Rome in November of 2008, "A Scientific Critique of Evolution"? Interestingly, the press release states that it coincided with one being held by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who refused to allow the scientists with the evidence contrary to evolution to participate. Quite the pity.

I found this out through an article in the Remnant Newspaper, a traditional Catholic publication. The article was titled: "The Darwin Delusion" and was also an interesting read, touching on the religious and scientific discrepancies the theory of evolution presents.

It definitely notes the discrepancies in the Church on the view of evolution.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by refuse_orders

Ye gods I wish people would allow themselves to notice that evolution and the idea that we were created need not be at conflict with each other. My what fools we morttals be.................

I've been saying this for so long...But it's just blowing in a windstorm. No one ever seems to be able to reconcile these two concepts...

What if God believes in evolution?

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:56 PM
Oh man, I'm going to get attacked for this, lol

Guys, why is it so hard to stop talking like our universe is centered around Earth? We are not the center of the universe. Stop, take a deep breath, and forget about monkeys...

There are billions of other human-like extraterrestrials in the milky way galaxy alone. Human descendants started in Lyra, and then moved throughout the universe. Earth is an experimental place where DNA was spliced together to create super humans. However, at some point it got out of control and the Pleadieans actually destroyed most of the humans on Earth, then abandoned us. This was when the Reptilians and perhaps other ET's came in. They changed our DNA, removing our super human abilities, and reducing our frequency level, so we could not see into high dimensions. We have been controlled ever since.

At no part in our evolution do "monkeys' play a roll in anything. They are living beings and they may share some traits with humans, but all earth animals share some common trait with humans. It is preposterous to be so close minded.

WE know for a fact that there are aliens. To dismiss something that is a fact is lunacy. Evolution can be proven (with facts) to be completely wrong.

The evolutionists and creationists are both correct. We were created by gods, (not one single god). We were put here as an experiment, the experiment shifted from the good guys, over to the bad guys. Right now, we are being controlled by the bad guys. Simple as that.

No reason to be upset, because the more you get upset and try to argue, the more you feed the power grid. Why don't you try unplugging yourself from the Matrix? If you suddenly start feeling appreciation and kindness, instead of volatility and hostility, then you will stop feeding the ET rulers who feed off our negative emotions.

If you enjoy the beef, and you want nothing to do with the truth, then you can stay in wonderland. However, if you want to see the vastness of space, and the millions of other life forms out there, then you need to start appreciating things and stop arguing. Most importantly, we need to stop basing our truth on "EARTH CENTRIC" things.... We are NOT the center of anything.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by supermuble]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by supermuble
Guys, why is it so hard to stop talking like our universe is centered around Earth? We are not the center of the universe. [snip] Most importantly, we need to stop basing our truth on "EARTH CENTRIC" things.... We are NOT the center of anything. [edit on 13-9-2009 by supermuble]

Apparently science has recently found we are most likely at the center of the universe. Sorry.. might want to catch up here: " =clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a"

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Jim Scott]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:49 PM

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.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix
You cannot straddle both sides of the fence my friend. You are either on the one side of the issue or the other. There is no in between, no merging of the two beliefs. They are in opposition to each other.

Uhm, so what if your belief is that both sides are true? There can be a very simple reasoning to this: God created evolution. Or you can look at it from the oppsite side: Since we are the image of God and we are slaves to evolution, that must mean God suffer evolution too... Or at least He did sometimes during His, eh, evolution.

What, you're gonna cry heresy? I dont care. You've already made it very clear that you are right and everyone else is wrong just on the basis that... well, you're always right. Because there's only one right way of thinking and that's yours.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by supermuble
Guys, why is it so hard to stop talking like our universe is centered around Earth? We are not the center of the universe. [snip] Most importantly, we need to stop basing our truth on "EARTH CENTRIC" things.... We are NOT the center of anything. [edit on 13-9-2009 by supermuble]

Apparently science has recently found we are most likely at the center of the universe. Sorry.. might want to catch up here: " =clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a"

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Jim Scott]

You mean our GALAXY be in the center of universe. Our galaxy be in the center is far far away from earth to be in the center. But you nitpicking science debates about dark matter to prove what exactly?

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
Your idea that there was a all mighty god that designed us would be a hypothesis since you have no observable proof to support your claim besides scripture (which is not evidence, in fact).

If by observable proof you mean evidence, then creationists have all the same evidences as evolutionists....the only difference is how each group of scientists explains the evidence and how it fits into their hypothesis and theory for what is and how it came to be.

No one has observed evolution taking in changes toward more complexity and higher life forms. Likewise, no one witnessed the 6 days of creation as described in Genesis. So in that sense, neither side of this issue has proof. What we have is "evidences" and differing "explanations" for the very same evidences. I find the creation science explanation more logical and reasonable.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a solid scientific theory that has been tested for the past 150 years through observable evidence.

Creation is also a solid scientific theory arrived at by the examination of evidences dating back to several hundred years.

To address your other point: we are essentially animals (mammals) of the Homo Genus (Homo Sapiens). But to claim that people act like animals if they're taught that we are animals is absolutely ridiculous.

Human beings have a soul and spirit and they are accountable for their actions. Remove that innate sense of accountability by brainwashing people with the evolutionists doctrines and people will loose their sense of accountability. The bible refers to these people as having their consciences seared with a hot iron.

Also, it would be good to perhaps learn scientific terms before you spout your ignorance on what they are not.

It would be best for you to mind your manners and read the T&C on ATS before personally insulting me and attacking me....or anyone else.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by refuse_orders

just like to add that darwin hate him or love him was a clever man, fact
there has never been any proof of a god or a creator ,fact
evolution has been a theory that still cannot be proven absolutely ,fact
truth is no-one really has any proven and absolute facts, we never have,one day we might,lets hope that day is soon.
the film about darwin is probably a good film,as the guy was someone who was in an argument with himself as to evolution or creation,so why anyone with religious faith would object to this film is daft,if the reason given in the news article is right ,then please help america please

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by DraconianKing

Why do people always bring up the crusades from several hundred years ago and blame it on Christians?

The printing press was not even invented until 1440...therefore the general population that claimed to be Christian during the crusades were not educated people....they had never even read a bible. The protestant reformation did not begin until 1517....77 years after the invention of the printing press.

It should be obvious that the printing press was instrumental in bringing about the protestant reformation. The printing press was instrumental in educating many more people than had been previously possible. Prior to the printing press, the Bibles were hand scribed...and the cost was equivalent to a years wages. So, People could not afford a bible.

The Roman Catholic Church also forbid lay people reading the people relied on the RCC for guidence.

To blame christians for the distant past is a weak argument to use against creationsts.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:06 PM
There is plenty of evidence for intelligent design if you would just look. Here is a good start for you:

Enjoy your research.....I do!

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:14 PM
Ok I've had enough: creationism is not science.
Science notes phenomena, hypothesises explanations & examines evidence to determine if the predictions made by the hypotheses are true. Through peer review, those that work are kept, the rest discarded. Eventually a theory will be formed in an attempt to combine all tested hypotheses &, if the theory successfully predicts further evidence, it will become widely accepted. However, it will never be proved. New evidence may disprove it, but the entire functioning of the scientific method is based on the idea that all knowledge is subject to review in the light of new understanding. Science is the ongoing process of "standing on the shoulders of giants". Newton has been disproved. Doesn't mean his work is bunk, just that someone spotted discrepancies & added to it.
Creationism is a new thing. Before scientific enquiry into the differentiation of life, people either believed their deity responsible, were agnostic, or rejected theism & presumably waited for a new explanation. Once science came up with evolution & it became accepted, theism had opposition. Creationism was the reactionary counter-opposition. As such, creationism begins from either 1 of, or a combination of 2, premises: 1) the religious belief in a divine creator is correct 2) the scientific theory of evolution is wrong.
From there, creationists look @the evidence & find either A) no evidence divinity does not exist, therefore it does or B) insufficient evidence for evolution, therefore a divinity must be responsible. This is not science, it is circular reasoning. If a scientist doesn't accept that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, all they can say is, "Needs further enquiry." It takes a faith to then assume, without evidence, the intervention of divinity.
In fact the only prediction that creationism does make is that creationists will not accept evolution, regardless of evidence, because faith requires none, nor can it be disproven. Thats not science either.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:51 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by debunky

Next please.

Review context.
A snowflake is not an example of life from non life. A snowflake is the result of intelligent design and the fractal nature of water molecules.
Next please...right back at ya.

[edit on 13/9/09 by John Matrix]

Exactly: A snowflake/drop of water isn't even alive, yet if you extract energy from the drop of water, its apparent structure and order increases!

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by debunky

Um still not an example of life from nonlife.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:47 AM
I am American, proud of that too, I am not religious however I do have a problem with Darwin's theory of evolution. I believe we are what we have always been, human beings, only more civilized, or are we? We don't know that another civilization has or has not exsisted before us that was more civilized and advanced technologically. But there is also no proof to back Darwin. I am not a nutjob, nor is the general population. If you want to call names about religion and what one will do because of it methinks your eye needs to turn to the middleast, not America because worshipping God and having faith enough to believe he is your maker is not as 'nutjob' as thinking you must kill all who do not believe in YOUR God, or believing that we came from tadpoles.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by Jim Scott

I was one of those children in the 60's being 'taught' Darwin's theory, and the first time I got what the book was saying I laughed so hard. The whole idea of it was absurd. And I was only a second grader then.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Ok I've had enough: creationism is not science.

True. I have researched "creation science" and it's apparent there is no such thing.

Many creation scientists believe the earth was created maybe 6000-12000 years ago. That's possible, and scientists can't prove that's not the case. But in order to accept that conclusion, we must accept that what the Creator did was make the Earth 6000 years ago to LOOK LIKE it's billions of years old.

And while that may be what happened, we are no longer in the realm of science because our observational evidence tells us the Earth is way more than 12000 years old (The dinosaur fossils for example).

I agree that there's no more proof for abiogenesis than there is for divine creation. So we can look at the fact that life sprang from non-life either with the help of a creator, or without the help of a creator, so take your pick, I don't think either position will ever be proven.

So let's say for a moment I can't believe life sprang from nothingness, so there HAD to be a creator involved, that's the only way life could have started. OK I've answered the unanswerable question about where did life come from. But it seems like now I've just replaced one question (where did life come from?) with another question (where did the creator come from?). So while the creator explanation has its appeal in answering impossible questions, doesn't it create even greater questions, like "where did the creator came from?"

The theory of evolution has it's problems. Some people apparently think that the fossil record is some kind of complete record that should show every transitional form of life that ever existed. Clearly that is not the case. Is the absence of transitional forms due to evolution not being true? Or is it due to the fact that the fossil record is NOT complete? Think about it, it's quite amazing we find fossils of anything that lived millions of years ago, it's the NORM for fossils to NOT survive, it's only amazing serendipity when some fossils DO happen to survive. And there are a few transitional forms like Archaeopteryx

Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[1][2] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.

So that looks like a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. But we can't really trace man's evolution through all the transitional fossils, for either one of two reasons:

1. The theory of evolution is incorrect, or
2. The fossil record is incomplete.

In order to choose #1, you almost have to conclude that #2 is incorrect and the fossil record is complete and therefore the fact that we can't trace man's evolution proves evolution is false.

While I can understand that logic, the premise upon which it is based, that the fossil record is complete, doesn't seem accurate to me. As long as we have been digging we are still making new discoveries of some things we've never seen before.

My last comment is that while the scientists seem to have "won" in court to teach evolution in schools and not permit the teaching of "creation science" alongside it, their victory does not seem to have translated into the beliefs of the American population as much as they had hoped, as shown by the polls indicating so many Americans disbelieve evolution as others have posted here. So I guess it's not surprising that the distributor of this movie saw fit to not carry it given that and other factors they considered.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by John Matrix
I'm not sure I'll bother responding to all the "evidence" you linked to, but some thoughts to be going on with...

Consider that all biologists see clear evidence of design, they just deny that it is true,
intelligent design

From your 1st link
This is pure semantics & the rest of the page developes its argument from it; basically it relies on word play with poor english.
There is evidence of "design" in a pile of sand. Similar sand in similar circumstances will have similar form. Consider a really enormous pile, add some wind, take an arial photo: the self replicating form of the dunes create a more obviously recognisable design. Really tho, there is just each particle interacting with its neighbours under the influence of gravity, friction & wind. It would be better english to describe the result as a "pattern".
There is also a pattern to mammals (1 way alimentary canal, dual symmetry, 4 limbs etc) but it suits creationists to misuse the word "design" because correctly a design cannot exist without a designer, whereas a pattern can exist as a deliberate design or as the result of random chance.
This page is evidence of nothing but somebody's attempt to play to the credulity of the undereducated. I'd be shocked if said folk were not part of the 61% of naysayers alluded to in the OP.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in