Charles Darwin Film 'Too Controversial for Religious America'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

All the things you are listing are not conrete evidence supporting only one theory of speciation, they would also support a common design.

Alright, what would be evidence for the theory of evolution that would not support “common design” and vice versa? What are the predictions of “common design”?

and anyone who uses astronomy to back up science I have no fatih in, these are all mathematical models. That change everyday, most using preset parameters or iterations that greatly impact the results of the model.

My comments were referring to the issue of whether you could measure or assess that which is not directly observable, but your reply reflects a deeper conflict. If you don’t accept astronomy (or chemistry or physics apparently) as a valid realm of science, what fields do you accept as science? Geology? Genetics? Paleontology?

Also, it should be noted that magnetic monopoles, predicted by Maxwell’s equations and required in string theory, were just confirmed to exist on the 4th, so pretending that these “mathematical models” are constructed on the predilections of their makers and have no basis on reality would be foolishness.

I do have access to peer reviewed journals, and like I said far stretch, some have even gone so far to try to use the presence of bukyballs on meteorites as eveidence,

But you missed the ones on the Nylon Bug, E. coli long-term evolution experiment, speciation of lizards, etc.

I separate my science and my faith, all I am asking is for the same coutesy

Again, the theory of evolution (and science as a whole) has nothing to do with whether or not a deity exists.[/quote]

I love when people try to use physiochemical models to predict biological process, it is fun, some of the scientist I work with do it all the time forgetting the complexity of biological process beyond the predictable models of physcis and chemistry, they help but are never even close to being a true measure.

I’m sorry but what does string theory have to do with evolution in terms of supporting an evolutionary model?

262

I beleive in evolution and I beleive there could be life on any planet beyong ours with the right circumstances.But from what ive read on here no one has questioned self awareness.At what point did humans or our great ancestors become self aware and how did that come about.

263

how do you define self awareness and how can it be measured?

I have another question, for anyone else that has performed recombinant genomics research both in vivo and vitro.

Have you come across anything supporting the idea fo slow evolution in your actual studies leading to speciation? I am not asking for someone who thinks they understand to site a journal, I mean real hands on work.

I have performed recombinant studies with vector insetions of regions suspected to be involved with different phenotypic properties of virulant strains of bacteria. then testing altered strains with there infectious abilities in different species of animals.

Have also done work sequencing and mapping clones from human neural tissue.
I don’t see consistencie with the slow speciation model of evolution and what we know about he gene model thus far, not accounting for a god or a creator, just in the information presented it doesn’t mesh.

264

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

I love when people try to use physiochemical models to predict biological process, it is fun, some of the scientist I work with do it all the time forgetting the complexity of biological process beyond the predictable models of physcis and chemistry, they help but are never even close to being a true measure.

I’m sorry but what does string theory have to do with evolution in terms of supporting an evolutionary model?[/quote]

There seems to be some confusion. I was not using string theory to support evolution; I referred to it when I was countering some other arguments you had made earlier. The course of that argument with commentary is as follows:

apbt55:

Me:

Your reply:

My reply:

If I misunderstood or misrepresented your argument, please correct me.

265

[quote]horsepuss wrote:
I beleive in evolution and I beleive there could be life on any planet beyong ours with the right circumstances.But from what ive read on here no one has questioned self awareness.At what point did humans or our great ancestors become self aware and how did that come about.[/quote]

I think it stands to reason that if you give an automaton that will hopefully extend your existence to the next generation, it makes sense to equip this automaton with a rough idea of its surroundings.

As these maps become more complex they sooner or later must include a rough idea of who or what develops the map.

You could say that a sophisticated enough map must also contain the mapmaker.

Voila, self awareness.

266

This sounds very strange to me. Are we sure the movie couldn’t find a distributor because it sucks? I mean that’s a possibility. I just don’t understand what’s controversial about evolution, so much to the point that it cannot be find a distributor. Lord knows we don’t shy away from controversial shit around these parts. Maybe the movie sucked so bad that it could not find a distributor despite the fact that it was controversial.

267

[quote]pat wrote:
This sounds very strange to me. Are we sure the movie couldn’t find a distributor because it sucks? I mean that’s a possibility. I just don’t understand what’s controversial about evolution, so much to the point that it cannot be find a distributor. Lord knows we don’t shy away from controversial shit around these parts. Maybe the movie sucked so bad that it could not find a distributor despite the fact that it was controversial. [/quote]

Yup that sounds true.

If there is one great thing about America it is that some entrepreneurial shlup would get that this is the FUCKING CHANCE OF HIS LIFE and run with it.

So maybe the movie is just a POS.

268

[quote]orion wrote:
horsepuss wrote:
I beleive in evolution and I beleive there could be life on any planet beyong ours with the right circumstances.But from what ive read on here no one has questioned self awareness.At what point did humans or our great ancestors become self aware and how did that come about.

I think it stands to reason that if you give an automaton that will hopefully extend your existence to the next generation, it makes sense to equip this automaton with a rough idea of its surroundings.

As these maps become more complex they sooner or later must include a rough idea of who or what develops the map.

You could say that a sophisticated enough map must also contain the mapmaker.

Voila, self awareness.
[/quote]

I am pretty sure that most relatively well evolved animals are self aware. You can’t really measure awareness. That is not a uniquely human characteristic. Reason, rationality, postulations, morality, etc. Those are more unique characteristics to humans.

269

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
horsepuss wrote:
I beleive in evolution and I beleive there could be life on any planet beyong ours with the right circumstances.But from what ive read on here no one has questioned self awareness.At what point did humans or our great ancestors become self aware and how did that come about.

I think it stands to reason that if you give an automaton that will hopefully extend your existence to the next generation, it makes sense to equip this automaton with a rough idea of its surroundings.

As these maps become more complex they sooner or later must include a rough idea of who or what develops the map.

You could say that a sophisticated enough map must also contain the mapmaker.

Voila, self awareness.

I am pretty sure that most relatively well evolved animals are self aware. You can’t really measure awareness. That is not a uniquely human characteristic. Reason, rationality, postulations, morality, etc. Those are more unique characteristics to humans.[/quote]

I dont think so.

Morality is most certainly there, though the cooperation inducing aspect is more out in the open-

Plus, animals can learn from each other. That means that they not only have an idea if me and you but also the epistemological premise that when you can do it I might too.

Plus, I would not be too fond of our intelligence.

It might well be that a little bit of intelligence is great but to much of it kills you-

Happened to Sabre tooth tigers and the herbivores they had an arms race with. Several times actually.

270

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

I love when people try to use physiochemical models to predict biological process, it is fun, some of the scientist I work with do it all the time forgetting the complexity of biological process beyond the predictable models of physcis and chemistry, they help but are never even close to being a true measure.

I’m sorry but what does string theory have to do with evolution in terms of supporting an evolutionary model?

There seems to be some confusion. I was not using string theory to support evolution; I referred to it when I was countering some other arguments you had made earlier. The course of that argument with commentary is as follows:

apbt55:
it cannot be observed directly and therfore cannot be measured or assessed. We cannot do controlled studies.

Me:
So positrons, quarks, black holes, etc. don’t exist according to you? [things that can be measured or assessed indirectly from different realms of science]

Don’t you have access to a site that has peer reviewed journals like BIOSERV? [for controlled studies]

Your reply:
and anyone who uses astronomy to back up science I have no fatih in, these are all mathematical models. That change everyday, most using preset parameters or iterations that greatly impact the results of the model. [apparent discounting of examples, astronomy/chemistry/physics are not reliable, mathematical models are based on the biases of their creators rather than reality]

My reply:
If you don’t accept astronomy (or chemistry or physics apparently) as a valid realm of science, what fields do you accept as science? Geology? Genetics? Paleontology? [asking for clarification in order to present more examples]

Also, it should be noted that magnetic monopoles, predicted by Maxwell’s equations and required in string theory, were just confirmed to exist on the 4th, so pretending that these “mathematical models” are constructed on the predilections of their makers and have no basis on reality would be foolishness. [mathematical models such as the ones in chemistry or physics are based on reality and have predictive power]

If I misunderstood or misrepresented your argument, please correct me.[/quote]

Not really, I have a very analytical brain, currently what I do for a living, develop analytical methods primarily for biochemical determinations.

I just have hard time with analysis that has not been substantiated through a true orthoginal method. And many mathemtatical models such as the ones supporting entropy theory of the universe have not been substantiated as such and in most likelihood won’t be plausible in our lifetime, are used as strong arguing points to support an extremely complex biological process such as phenotypic shift or slow speciation theory of evolution depending on the model you like.

And I know I will catch flack for saying I am analytical and I believe in a creator, such is life. From my personal experience this is my belief and maybe someday something will convince me otherwise.

But what gets to me is that I can leave my beliefs out of my science and my experimentation. I will let the results dictate what is supported or what is not. But most people creationist and evolutionist alike have already dictated the outcome of their experiments because of their beliefs, setting the experiment up to support their idea, their model or their concept, not truly holding all variables or parameters equal.

This is bad science on both sides. but for the most part only the creationist are scrutinized for it.

271

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And I know I will catch flack for saying I am analytical and I believe in a creator, such is life. From my personal experience this is my belief and maybe someday something will convince me otherwise.

[/quote]

Maybe you are very analytical because you have an emotional need to find a reason why things happen.

Since science cannot give you one on the big question, you turn to religion.

Fits together very well, where is the problem?

272

[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

And I know I will catch flack for saying I am analytical and I believe in a creator, such is life. From my personal experience this is my belief and maybe someday something will convince me otherwise.

Maybe you are very analytical because you have an emotional need to find a reason why things happen.

Since science cannot give you one on the big question, you turn to religion.

Fits together very well, where is the problem?

[/quote]

Where science cannot give me an answer, I admit I don’t know. I might speculate, but I still don’t really know.

273

[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

And I know I will catch flack for saying I am analytical and I believe in a creator, such is life. From my personal experience this is my belief and maybe someday something will convince me otherwise.

Maybe you are very analytical because you have an emotional need to find a reason why things happen.

Since science cannot give you one on the big question, you turn to religion.

Fits together very well, where is the problem?

Where science cannot give me an answer, I admit I don’t know. I might speculate, but I still don’t really know.[/quote]

Mebbe, but this is about it works out in his brain.

I was just trying to show that there is one possibility how that is not a contradiction at all.

274

[quote]orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

And I know I will catch flack for saying I am analytical and I believe in a creator, such is life. From my personal experience this is my belief and maybe someday something will convince me otherwise.

Maybe you are very analytical because you have an emotional need to find a reason why things happen.

Since science cannot give you one on the big question, you turn to religion.

Fits together very well, where is the problem?

Where science cannot give me an answer, I admit I don’t know. I might speculate, but I still don’t really know.

Mebbe, but this is about it works out in his brain.

I was just trying to show that there is one possibility how that is not a contradiction at all.

[/quote]

You asked where the problem is, the problem is that it’s still basing existence on a lie.

275

[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

And I know I will catch flack for saying I am analytical and I believe in a creator, such is life. From my personal experience this is my belief and maybe someday something will convince me otherwise.

Maybe you are very analytical because you have an emotional need to find a reason why things happen.

Since science cannot give you one on the big question, you turn to religion.

Fits together very well, where is the problem?

Where science cannot give me an answer, I admit I don’t know. I might speculate, but I still don’t really know.

Mebbe, but this is about it works out in his brain.

I was just trying to show that there is one possibility how that is not a contradiction at all.

You asked where the problem is, the problem is that it’s still basing existence on a lie.[/quote]

Ah, well I do not think that a belief in a creator really changes the way he lives his life.

For 99% it is probably completely irrelevant and quite frankly I am a-ok with everybody who does not try to use force to make me live by his beliefs.

276

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, well I do not think that a belief in a creator really changes the way he lives his life.

For 99% it is probably completely irrelevant and quite frankly I am a-ok with everybody who does not try to use force to make me live by his beliefs.[/quote]

That depends on how you define force. When people try and say public schools should teach creationism (and now I’m moving into the general, not targeting him) then I have a problem.

277

[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Ah, well I do not think that a belief in a creator really changes the way he lives his life.

For 99% it is probably completely irrelevant and quite frankly I am a-ok with everybody who does not try to use force to make me live by his beliefs.

That depends on how you define force. When people try and say public schools should teach creationism (and now I’m moving into the general, not targeting him) then I have a problem.[/quote]

That just goes to show that every area the state enters gets politicized.

Since I would like to live in peace with my neighbors I do not want that.

Therefore, public schools are a terrible idea.

See, the use of force does not start at some arbitrary point but the second you have a government, that is way it is at best a necessary evil.

278

Okay, I’ve been reading a bunch of the posts and I need to speak up. The Theory of Evolution is not about the existence of God. Period. Stop turning it into an arguement that cannot be resolved. Address the question that the Theory addresses. What mechanism causes organisms to change over time? The answer, as far as the brightest minds who study this question are concerned, is Natural Selection.

Is the Theory of Evolution 100% correct? Probably not. Does it make the Theory invalid? No. Unless someone can show that the Theory is invalid through evidence. This is how scientific knowledge progresses.
As much as some of you would like to say that accepting Darwinism = belief, that is about as far from the truth as possible. It’s not belief at all. It’s about accepting that the Theory fits the Observable and Testable Evidence. If you do not believe in the Theory, then you are not alone. I also do not believe in the Theory, but I accept it as THE BEST ANSWER WE HAVE TO DATE! Prove it wrong! We (scientist speaking here) would LOVE you to prove it wrong. If you can’t prove it wrong, and you don’t accept the theory based on your religious/philosophical stance, your arguments don’t count. Only scientific scrutiny can disprove a theory. Not idle speculation.

279

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Okay, I’ve been reading a bunch of the posts and I need to speak up. The Theory of Evolution is not about the existence of God. Period. Stop turning it into an arguement that cannot be resolved. Address the question that the Theory addresses. What mechanism causes organisms to change over time? The answer, as far as the brightest minds who study this question are concerned, is Natural Selection.

Is the Theory of Evolution 100% correct? Probably not. Does it make the Theory invalid? No. Unless someone can show that the Theory is invalid through evidence. This is how scientific knowledge progresses.
As much as some of you would like to say that accepting Darwinism = belief, that is about as far from the truth as possible. It’s not belief at all. It’s about accepting that the Theory fits the Observable and Testable Evidence. If you do not believe in the Theory, then you are not alone. I also do not believe in the Theory, but I accept it as THE BEST ANSWER WE HAVE TO DATE! Prove it wrong! We (scientist speaking here) would LOVE you to prove it wrong. If you can’t prove it wrong, and you don’t accept the theory based on your religious/philosophical stance, your arguments don’t count. Only scientific scrutiny can disprove a theory. Not idle speculation.[/quote]

Late to the party, but you brought the good stuff.

280

If you believe that God in fact created every animal, and that evolution is not happening;

Why the hell does viruses/bacterias like AIDS, the bubonic plague, etc. exist? Why do many forms of parasitic organisms, who only leech of other living creatures and contribute nothing to a ecological system, exist? Why would God create these forms of life with intent?