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.

 

New Movie About Darwin, Called Creation.

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Trailer for "Creation"

Since Charles Darwin got this whole THEORY of evolution going, this should be interesting to those who don't believe in any form of creation.

I am curious as to how those that are atheists and believe in evolution will view this movie.

Thoughts on the trailer?




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
This movie isn't going to be shown in the U.S. as far as I know unless something has changed, there was a big controversy about it months ago..
I would love to see it but have no plans to travel to Europe anytime soon.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Aquarius1]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 
I saw the movie months ago. It was okay, but not really entertaining. The cast was good and Connelly was fine.

It was pulled from release in the US on health grounds. Apparently, there are still people that believe the Book of Genesis is a science tract. It was a worry that some of them might choke on their popcorn. The confusion when faced with a screen Darwin who was a normal person with a social life may lead to some folks literally stopping breathing. I'm led to understand that some actually believe Darwin only came out at night and had a sinister laugh.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
"You've killed God sir..."

Awesome line.

Haven't heard of this yet, should be an interesting watch.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


They won't show it in the US, isn't that blatant censorship.
If you censor wrong idea's, then soon the right idea's will be censored too.

Don't agree with that.
People need to be free to choose.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
It's more likely that either no one has agreed to distribute it, or that the people who made the film don't wish to show it in the US, both for financial reasons.

Also, Evolution is a real process that actually does happen. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation that works to tell us why and how it works.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Maybe this movie will help explain to people that evolution and the idea of a god are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not deal with what created life but how life changes over time.

Many of the IDers are so dead set on trying to disprove evolution that they fail to realize both can exist in the same discussion.

Evolution IS real. The debate on what or how life started is a completely separate discussion.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 



Evolution IS real. The debate on what or how life started is a completely separate discussion.


This is a controversial perspective to take and I share it completely. Creationists have developed an idea that undermining the Theory of Evolution will somehow reveal God behind the curtains, pulling all the strings. Why should it? Even if Big Bang Theory gains more currency, it doesn't need to negate the concept of God for people that choose to believe. I heard an interview with a female astrophysicist that believed in God....



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Absolutely. I am agnostic and I lean toward being a full blown atheist. I am agnostic because there is not enough information, for or against the existence of god. I dont know and neither does anyone else.

But for the life of me I cannot figure out why religious types try so hard to debunk things that have no effect on their precious god. Like you said, a big bang does not prove that there is no god, only that the big bang was the initial creation of the universe. Maybe it was a god or maybe its just part of an infinite universe. The creation of our universe, came from a black hole in another universe and on and on and on.

I think part of the reason may be that because religions try so hard to define what god is and what he/she has done with such certainty that when something comes along that forces them to move the goal post they feel as if this threatens their entire belief system.

God could exist, but the god defined in modern religion almost certainly does not.

The debate as to whether or not there is a god is fair and usually arguments can be made within reason. Its the argument as to WHICH god that causes all the problems. The big bang and evolution threaten Christianity and other religions, but they do not threaten the existence of god.

And this raises the question, what is more important to theists, the faith in their religion or their faith in a god? Two completely different discussions.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
It speaks volumes. The movie will be screened all around the world except in the US, too hot for US distributors !
It's just a movie, it's only entertainment. Darwin's theory is an almost two-centuries-old piece of science theory, widely known and popular. It makes you wonder what the intelligent and benevolent masters of this world are keeping out of our knowledge because it's too sensitive for us and we wouldn't handle it, we, poor, useless, uneducated, dangerous and foolish eaters.

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Get a dictionary. Learn what 'theory' means in a scientific context.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Sure I will take this definition of theory.


2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


Thus evolution IS a theory by that definition.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Sure I will take this definition of theory.


2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


Thus evolution IS a theory by that definition.


Why not take the first definition?

After all, that's how the word is being used.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Agreed, but with one caveat there are those that believe evolution proves a begining and use it to attack the other boneheads you mention. But the argument SEEMS to have turned into factional silliness where one opposes the other simply because it's the other.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


He won't accept the first definition as it blows his tiny, ill-conceived argument out of the water in one fell swoop. Even though I said 'in a scientific context'.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Good one

Jews control hollywood because we believe in hovind kinda.

so this is just propaganda: everyone knows you just have to wait
and then frogs turn into princes

also, social darwinism



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
And if spamming an old thread with good fun is as my attorney tells me in line with ats tlc, today

xkcd.com...

is extra funny and relevant to this conversation

where today is xkcd.com...



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join