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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


Well, the Judeo-Christian concept of God then. And I don't.




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Maybe I should clear up what I meant when I said that science requires faith.

I understand that idea that 2+2=4 does not require faith, not even from the most illiterate of people. However, for the common person, most high science does require a lot of faith. I don't mean that people should question whether the planets move around the sun but that they don't understand the science that has led up to many things we've taken for granted.

We like to think that science is provable and factual and we rely on scientists to tell us the answers. When we do that we're placing our faith in these scientist and being faithful to the idea that they are correct. This, to me, is the same as a common church goer trusting that his or her priest knows and understands those things that they don't.

Theoretical science requires a lot of faith, especially on the part of the scientists studying these theories. In some cases, these theories are built off earlier theories that can not yet be totally proven as the theories deal with things more advanced than our technological and scientific abilities.

Science has proven many theories true yet it has proven even more theories false. I believe it's correct to call the belief in unproven or unprovable theories as faith due to the fact that any given theory could, in fact, be proven wrong yet you may have taken it as a matter of faith that it was true.

I, at least personally, feel that science only increases spiritual faith as it shows the universe to be ever more complicated, ever more dynamic. The more I learn, every new discovery, makes it harder and harder for me to accept that the universe was created by chance with no purpose what so ever. If I didn't know how complicated, yet perfect, the universe is I'd have no problem with being a total atheist.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Unless I misread your post, I think we agree


I'm just tired of hearing the arguments between "creationists" and "evolutionists" because all that means is "religious people who are apparently opposed to science" versus "science based atheists who dismiss all spirituality or religion" and it's ridiculous.

I've never seen or heard one good reason why science and religion can't coexist in the same (at least personal) "theory of everything". Modern science is known to have grown from the ancient art of alchemy. Alchemy combined both scientific advancement and spiritual growth, it acknowledged both sides of the coin and the necessity of both in our lives.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Shadowflux
 

There is no need, or room for faith in science.


I am completely opposed to this statement, as you can discern from my other posts.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by blupblup
 

blupblup I'm not trying to disagree with you here, but Jim Scott DID post a reference source, so perhaps if you want to be critical of the assertion he made you could review his reference, which is an article written by:

Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.

December 10, 2008



Unfortunately that wasn't in his post.... there was just a link that was broken and i couldn't get it to work.

Here is the post I'm referring to.

Perhaps it's only not working for me.

Is it Geocentricism that's being referred to in said article?


Originally posted by Jim Scott

Apparently science has recently found we are most likely at the center of the universe. Sorry.. might want to catch up here: "74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:fyCm7e0hG9QJ:catholicintl.com/articles/Dark_Energy_or_Geocentrism.doc+earth+is+center+of+known+universe&cd=10&hl=en&ct =clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a"

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




And of course we'd have to be the centre of the universe...

Our egos wouldn't have it any other way.





[edit on 14/9/09 by blupblup]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I may be called a heretic by some here but I am christian and I beleive in the theory of evolution. Why not? To a being without time what's a few billion years to make stuff? Nothing at all!

39% is an amazing number! Can't beleive it's so low!



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by blupblup
 

blupblup I'm not trying to disagree with you here, but Jim Scott DID post a reference source, so perhaps if you want to be critical of the assertion he made you could review his reference, which is an article written by:

Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.

December 10, 2008



Unfortunately that wasn't in his post.... there was just a link that was broken and i couldn't get it to work.

Here is the post I'm referring to.

Yes we are talking about the same post, and that link didn't work directly for me either, I had to copy and paste it in my browser, then it worked.

Let me post an edited version of the same link here and see if it works any better for you:

Dark Energy or Geocentrism? Modern Science at a Crossroads

Does that one work for you?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes we are talking about the same post, and that link didn't work directly for me either, I had to copy and paste it in my browser, then it worked.

Let me post an edited version of the same link here and see if it works any better for you:

Dark Energy or Geocentrism? Modern Science at a Crossroads

Does that one work for you?



Cheers

Yep, that one works.

I'll have a read although as i kind of stated....I'm not a subscriber to geocentricism.

We are the centre of perhaps what we can see...the edge that we cannot see past because of the speed of light.
Not being able to see a galaxy that is further away in light-travel time than the universe is old...does not mean one doesn't exist, it just means we are limited to what we can see.

But that does not mean that we are the centre of the entire universe.

That's like some ant colony thinking that their entire farm is the world and the living room they look out on and observe is the entire universe.




[edit to add]

I do think this is extremely interesting but definitely off topic.
Perhaps a thread should be started to carry on the discussions?

This was about the Darwin film after all

[edit on 14/9/09 by blupblup]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 

Great, glad the revised link works for you!

That article does point out that your belief (and mine by the way) is the widely accepted one, based on the "Copernican Principle", so you're in good company!


They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.


So even though it's a shocking conclusion I intend to read the paper anyway, as I try to be open-minded to new evidence even if it may contradict my current beliefs (whether it's dark energy, the Copernican Principle, or evolution) and the fact that the paper is authored by 3 astrophysicists from Oxford, might make it worth reading even if their credentials are no guarantee the paper is correct.

Regards



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I am deeply saddened by this thread. We have creationists declaring it to be a science with no obvious understanding of science at all. They offer no empirical evidence, only anecdotes and presumption. If you would only open your eyes and see that evolution can be seen on a daily basis: look at influenza; it mutates and evolves at a rapid rate -- this is only one small example. To deny evolution is both ignorant and naive. Perhaps one day you will see that your faith is not incompatible to science and realize that this combatant disgust for all things scientific and factual are akin to the dark ages where any free thinkers were persecuted for their research. Do we really want to devolve like we did for so many centuries?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

LOOK, there are scientists that believe in evolution and there are scientists that believe in creation
No you look, there are scientists that believe their babies are the most beautiful things on earth, even tho they look like Winston Churchill; some believe the USA is in Iraq to fight terrorism; some believe a Hawiian shirt makes a geek look cool. Just because a scientist believes these things does not make them scientific. As I have already demonstrated, the circular argument of creationism does not submit to the scientific method, thus is not scientific & any peer review carries the same weight as agreeing that Hawiian shirts are cool. Creationism is a reactionary philosophy, since before the theory of evolution there was no need to support the prevailing theology. I was however mistaken about 1 thing, this philosophy which is trying to pass itself off as science does make a prediction which can be tested: that we dont see evolution. Wrong.
The theory of evolution predicts that simple life forms ought to evolve most rapidly. In fact viruses evolve into new forms every year & bacteria are not far behind them, having changed into drug resistant forms of their ancestors. That we have not yet documented a 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.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So even though it's a shocking conclusion I intend to read the paper anyway, as I try to be open-minded to new evidence even if it may contradict my current beliefs (whether it's dark energy, the Copernican Principle, or evolution) and the fact that the paper is authored by 3 astrophysicists from Oxford, might make it worth reading even if their credentials are no guarantee the paper is correct.

Regards



As i said, I'll have a read.
From the excerpt you just posted, it seemed like instead of Geocentrism it was referring Heliocentrism.

I'll just read the article when i have time... that would be easier.

And yeah... the article sounds good... 3 astrophysicists from Oxford, I'm from Oxford too


So that's cool.

Thanks for the discussion.




[edit on 14/9/09 by blupblup]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

By your definition one could say Evolutionism is not science either.
there is no such thing as "evolutionism", in the same way that there is no such thing as a scientific theory of creationism. These are merely attempts to place creationism in the same light as science in the minds of those who do not fully understand the difference between philosophy & science or that "logical" doesn't actually mean "said by Spock".
Oh & I dont have a religion, I have spiritual beliefs. These are my toolbox I reach for during existential type life situations. I have a toolbox of scientific beliefs which I reach for during practical life situations. By comparison, creationism is a cheap multi-tool that fulfills neither function.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix reply to post by Bunken Drum
 
I'm going to use some of your own words and reasoning to demonstrate how it can apply to your religion too: To jump to the conclusion the evidence proves evolution is unscientific, because there is no evidence of such, just speculation, which cannot be tested by experiment or discovered by evidence. This is why the evolutionist religion should stay out of science: they are 2 completely different disciplines with no common methodology & precious little common language even.
& in doing so you reveal your fundamental misunderstanding. The theory of evolution is being tested & tweaked even as we speak. The 3 step circular argument of creationism just loops on round over every new evolutionary idea, adding nothing, just dissenting.
Truly, creationism is like 1 of those dogs that just wont stop barking. You'd have to shoot it to shut it up, because it doesn't have the brains to understand that the cars that keep passing are not the sheep it was bred to herd.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by John Matrix
 


No, no John, you said that creationists had their papers peer reviewed. Unless you are talking about publications that are openly biased towards creationism then that is not true is it.

You said;


Intelligent design is predicted by the evidence, supports the hypothesis and theory of creationist scientists, and is accepted in peer reviews, therefore it is a legitimate theory and based on scientific observations of existing evidence.


Can you provide an example of this or not?


So you think the only peer review that is legitimate is peer reviews by evolutionist scientists?

Both sides have peers don't they?

Both sides review their prospective scientists work. Therefore, peer review. Like it or not, it's the way it is.

Remember, the majority of scientists believe evolution in order to get on the money train(grants and funding by the gov.) Since greed describes the majority of the human race, people believe almost anything if you pay them to believe it.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargon of Akkad
Since Creationists cannot actually prove there is a God, it is logically unprovable that said god then created anything at all.

I find their constant claims of Creationism to be a science at best absurd, and at worst a complete debasement of the scientific principle.


Same goes for the gods worshipped by evolutionists....such as: natural processes, punctuated equilibrium, random processes, mutations, time, etc. all working together to form life and bring about thousands of increasingly higher orders of life evolving over the course of billions of years.

Remember, when you talk about evolution, you are actually talking about thousands of parallel evolutions happening all at once. And it all happened a long long time ago....so no one witnessed it, and no one is supposed to question it....


With faith in that, it sounds like a whole lot of religion to me.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I may be called a heretic by some here but I am christian and I beleive in the theory of evolution. Why not? To a being without time what's a few billion years to make stuff? Nothing at all!

39% is an amazing number! Can't beleive it's so low!


You can believe what ever you want. I don't think anyone is saying any different. However, I don't believe straddling both sides of the fence is the result of a true in depth study of both theories. Once you study both sides thoroughly, I sincerely doubt that you hold to your present position.

That's what I believe, and I can believe whatever I want as well as the next person.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
I am deeply saddened by this thread. We have creationists declaring it to be a science with no obvious understanding of science at all. They offer no empirical evidence, only anecdotes and presumption. If you would only open your eyes and see that evolution can be seen on a daily basis: look at influenza; it mutates and evolves at a rapid rate -- this is only one small example. To deny evolution is both ignorant and naive. Perhaps one day you will see that your faith is not incompatible to science and realize that this combatant disgust for all things scientific and factual are akin to the dark ages where any free thinkers were persecuted for their research. Do we really want to devolve like we did for so many centuries?


Evolution is built on assumptions and secondary assumptions, so look at the other three fingers pointing back at you when you point the finger at creation scientists and claim they are ignorant and naive.

Ya, we can all look at the flu virus everyday.

Survival mechanisms are designed into DNA. We were created to adapt, but not physically evolve. Look at modern bodybuilders. Their physical developement is due to genetically designed adaptive responses at the DNA level. Given the right amount of training and nutrients, they adapt larger than normal muscle mass, more density to their bone structure, and lower than normal body fat. They do not mutate nor will they ever mutate and evolve into something else.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
I have a toolbox of scientific beliefs which I reach for during practical life situations. By comparison, creationism is a cheap multi-tool that fulfills neither function.


Whatever repairs and floats your boat I quess. However, if a group of scientists coin the term scientific creationism and define it, then that's good enough for me. Just because you say it doesn't exist, does not make it so.

I'm simply stating my position after having spent several years studying scientific creationism and 5 decades of having evolutionism in my face....so I have sent a lot of time looking at both sides, and I conclude that creation science has the more logical and reasonable explanations and interpretations of the same evidence evolutionists use.

I find evolutionists are hell bent on denying God His rightful credit for His creation and intelligent design work.



[edit on 14/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 
Does it depress you when you state the situation clearly & people just blythely carry on like what you said went in 1 ear & out the other like a flipping neutrino? For the love of copulation! It does me...
What is this talk of "proof", people? Science doesn't prove anything, nor does it set out to. It provides theories which survive as long as the predictions they make prove more useful than those of other theories.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join