Charles Darwin Film 'Too Controversial for Religious America'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
First, let me say that I’m 100% in favor of science and evolution and think the religious crazies are out of control and are a threat to the future of science in America. Notice I use the word “crazies.” I fully realize that there are rational people who can reconcile their religious beliefs with science. To these folks, I say well done. Which is why I too have wondered why some religious people are so hostile to science and evolution in particular. Then one day I was standing outside the theater in our nature and science museum after we had just finished watching an Imax movie on black holes and the universe. Really cool stuff. I overheard a lady say to her friend, “That was interesting, but I prefer creationism. It’s simpler.” And there it was.[/quote]

Very true. Those kinds of people really piss me off. But it is also possible that some religious people get hostile because they are exposed to the equivalent example to your creationist lady in scientists----aka arrogant sons of bitches who look down on them simply for being religious. I wouldn’t take it too well if some random asshole started calling me a neanderthal out of a superiority complex. I submit one Richard Dawkins for evidence. He’s an asshole. A good scientist, but a grade A US PRIME twat. And he pisses ME off with his attitude. I can’t imagine what the majority of thinking religious people must feel. There are literally thousands more like him, they just don’t have the public visability he does.

42

bpeloquin is exactly correct though, you just can’t refute him on your own created terms so you try to drag his argument down, it cannot be observed directly and therfore cannot be measured or assessed. We cannot do controlled studies. And thoughs claiming to be able to make very far stretches in their claims.

My job is to develop and optimmize biological/chemical methods, have worked doing research for gov’t in recombinant genomics and proteomics. I have not seen any evidence that definitively supports evolution over creationism, or that we are part of the matrix, they are both fatih driven are both beliefs and neither has any business being tought as a universal truth. hell we don’t even have one clear concise definition of what a species is.

GOD and science should not be mixed, the whole idea of God is beyond understanding, how do you either support or refute something that is unmeasurable.

43

I don’t believe in evolution, I accept the scientific theory of evolution.

Creationism = fiction
Evolution = rational scientific theory

44

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
Evolution on a small scale doesn’t prove the origin of the universe. Viruses evolve? Who gives a shit. That doesn’t prove anything. [/quote]

Evolution has only tried to prove the origin of species. It has never, ever, tried to prove the origin of the universe. That is the work of cosmology and theoretical physics. It hasn’t even tried to prove the origin of life. Evolution just takes it for granted that life was here. From there, evolution explains how simple micro-organisms evolved into the various species we have today. This is probably why many religions, the Catholic Church being an example, accept evolution and believe that it is fully compatible with the existence of a divine being.

45

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
Was anyone there, 5 billion years ago to observe what took place?[/quote]

Do you take the position that past events can only be confirmed by first hand accounts?

We can analyze the fossil and chemical record and make inferences from those observations that can provide the basis for further research, in fact, that is what has happened.

Like what?

Edit: Also you never defined what you believe the theory of evolution is. Do it.

46

[quote]VikingsAD28 wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
Was anyone there, 5 billion years ago to observe what took place?

No, but we do have these neat things called fossils that give us a sense of what took place millions of years ago.

These neat fossils also have huge gaps in them. We should be finding thousands of fossils of transitional species. They claim whales came from wolves, how come we have no fossils of whale-wolves?[/quote]

I never heard of whales coming from wolves. I have heard, however, that modern day cattle and modern day whales share common physical characteristics and probably descended from the same ancestor. The fact that whales are mammals that require oxygen to breathe is interesting, don’t you think? Going back to my little story, if I were an all-powerful being, I wouldn’t create a sea creature with lungs that requires air to breathe. Too much can go wrong. What if this poor creature got trapped under water? It would lead to a certain death. Not exactly an intelligent design.

The so-called gaps in the fossil evidence are not nearly as great as some make them out to be. But even if there are gaps, at least there is some physical evidence on which evolution can hang its hat. By contrast, there is absolutely no physical evidence for the existence of a divine being. To me, that’s one big ass gap. BTW - I am not an atheist and I tend to believe that there is some type of supreme force that set the universe in motion. I just don’t mix theology and science.

47

[quote]VikingsAD28 wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
Was anyone there, 5 billion years ago to observe what took place?

No, but we do have these neat things called fossils that give us a sense of what took place millions of years ago.

These neat fossils also have huge gaps in them. We should be finding thousands of fossils of transitional species. They claim whales came from wolves, how come we have no fossils of whale-wolves?[/quote]

Watch the video I posted on the first page about transitional fossils, THEN come back with questions.

48

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
Evolution on a small scale doesn’t prove the origin of the universe. Viruses evolve? Who gives a shit. That doesn’t prove anything. [/quote]

You evidently have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or the origin of life.

49

[quote]Doc L wrote:

I gotta get in on this before it gets out of hand…

In order to be classified as a scientific theory, there must be exhaustive evidence that supports your hypothesis and can be validated by others. It is NOT simply an idea.

Theory in science is not the same as, “hey man, I have a theory (idea) about why my belly button lint is always blue”! Now, you may be on to something with your idea, but it will never be accepted as Scientific Theory until you find a ton of evidence to support it and your friends (and enemies) pick apart your evidence and find it sound.

And…BTW, there appears to be “transitional” species out there right now that ARE currently evolving…Rhagoletis pomonella aka the apple maggot is a nice example. Speciation events are not always as cut and dried as one might surmise.

Today’s molecular biological techniques are also yielding more and more evidence to support evolution because now we can see changes in genes over time and across species.

This is not about belief.

Carry on…

[EDIT] Damn, I gotta learn how to type faster. [/quote]

God, I love science!

50

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
bpeloquin is exactly correct though, you just can’t refute him on your own created terms so you try to drag his argument down, it cannot be observed directly and therfore cannot be measured or assessed.[/quote]

So positrons, quarks, black holes, etc. don’t exist according to you?

Don’t you have access to a site that has peer reviewed journals like BIOSERV?

So the similarity between the human and chimpanzee genome is just coincidence? ERVs? Fossils? Radiological dating? Plate tectonics?

So the millions of separate pieces from all realms of science that are concurrent with the theory of evolution mean nothing? All accurate predictions based on the theory of evolution, just flukes?

A population of organisms in an area that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Just off the top of my head.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a deity or not.

51

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
Evolution on a small scale doesn’t prove the origin of the universe. Viruses evolve? Who gives a shit. That doesn’t prove anything. [/quote]

lol you just said it yourself, viruses evolve, sounds like proof of evolution, or atleast strong evidence in its favour.

What proofs have you of creationism? Nothing apart from an archaic book.
1000â??s of years ago the world was said to be flat and at the centre of the universe, and people believed it because everyone before them was saying it was so, and yet we now know it isnâ??t. So after so many years of guessing the answers, believing that god created the world in seven days, why is it so hard to admit that actually, the bible might be wrong?
I have no doubt there was a Jesus, and he was a great man who had a powerful message for the world about treating everyone as equals (a message which many followers have forgotten).
But to base your views on the world around you from something written thousands of years ago as a means to explain what they did not understand about the world. That just seems illogical.
Then to actually ignore science (which by definition is a systematic knowledge base) seems absurd!

So far creationism/ and the bible has been disproved by fossils, evolution, pretty much everything to do with space and physics. And yet you still chose to ignore the truth and instead settle for Chinese whispers passed down through the ages.

Paraphrasing from a written source I have close to hand:
â??In primitive societies, peoples lives were dependant on their relationship with natural world, religion helps them unite with the natural world. So natural forces are worshiped as gods. (e.g sun gods, gods of love and war .ect)
In more developed societies people are freed of this dependency on the natural world by technology but feel alienated from the society because they have little control over their daily lives. People use religion as a means of expressing their frustrations. It leads people to believe there is a purpose for their suffering, that the world is not unfair as someoneâ??s up there looking out for you, and that an afterlife is there waiting for you, propping you up against the harsh realities of the real world.â??

I myself was a roman catholic, I have read the bible many times. I have since become atheist because of the mounting evidence against religion, and the general implausibility of it. I have however taken the message of Christ and made myself a better person by living with the values that it teaches. But to shun science because one book tells you other wise, one book that you know was written thousands of years ago by people who in this age would seem primitive in their ideas, one book which its very words are twisted by the views and motives of those reading itâ?¦

Ignorance is in my view, the greatest sin.

52

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
bpeloquin is exactly correct though, you just can’t refute him on your own created terms so you try to drag his argument down, it cannot be observed directly and therfore cannot be measured or assessed.

So positrons, quarks, black holes, etc. don’t exist according to you?

We cannot do controlled studies.

Don’t you have access to a site that has peer reviewed journals like BIOSERV?

My job is to develop and optimmize biological/chemical methods, have worked doing research for gov’t in recombinant genomics and proteomics. I have not seen any evidence that definitively supports evolution over creationism

So the similarity between the human and chimpanzee genome is just coincidence? ERVs? Fossils? Radiological dating? Plate tectonics?

they are both fatih driven are both beliefs and neither has any business being tought as a universal truth.

So the millions of separate pieces from all realms of science that are concurrent with the theory of evolution mean nothing? All accurate predictions based on the theory of evolution, just flukes?

hell we don’t even have one clear concise definition of what a species is.

A population of organisms in an area that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Just off the top of my head.

GOD and science should not be mixed, the whole idea of God is beyond understanding, how do you either support or refute something that is unmeasurable.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a deity or not.
[/quote]

I’d just like to point out that all living things have something like 98% identical DNA. And why is this? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALIVE. THEY ALL REQUIRE THE SAME THINGS TO BE ALIVE. It’s really only the minute genetic differences that make us human and not a banana.

53

I DO NOT COME FROM THE MONKEY!!
Mommy and Daddy monkey makes baby monkey not human. Is it difficult to understand that God made the world in 7 days? I should stomp on your face till you dont know no more!!
T-Nation creationism crowd should be here in a moment from the PWI forum to back me up.

come on guys

54

Americans are stupid.Im american and I know this first hand.Tell an american something that is proven and fully accepted in all other parts of the world and they will laugh and say no way.

I dont beleive in god at all and fully believe in evolution but most american still beleive in the fairy tale of adam and eve.

55

[quote]VikingsAD28 wrote:
These neat fossils also have huge gaps in them. We should be finding thousands of fossils of transitional species. They claim whales came from wolves, how come we have no fossils of whale-wolves?[/quote]

Most arguments against evolution come from gross misunderstandings or just plain ignorance of the theory, as evidenced above.

56

[quote]VikingsAD28 wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
Was anyone there, 5 billion years ago to observe what took place?

No, but we do have these neat things called fossils that give us a sense of what took place millions of years ago.

These neat fossils also have huge gaps in them. We should be finding thousands of fossils of transitional species. They claim whales came from wolves, how come we have no fossils of whale-wolves?[/quote]

Let’s say, hypothetically, I found a “whale-wolf” fossil and showed it to you, would that satisfy you or would you then ask for a “more wolf than whale” fossil and a “more whale than wolf” fossil?

What exactly is your burden of proof for the theory evolution? What was your burden of proof for creationism? Do you think they compare?

57

There is no evidence Jesus ever existed.

The bible was written 300 years after the supposed birth of Christ.

It’s a story made to enslave people’s minds and make them easier to control.

It has nothing to do with being better to each other. It’s population control.

Baaaaaaaaaeeeh little sheep :wink:

funmetal

58

[quote]funmetal wrote:
There is no evidence Jesus ever existed.[/quote]

I disagree. I think it is safe to say that a historical Jesus existed, he just never walked on water or performed miracles.

The separate books of the New Testament (including the probable forgeries) are estimated to have been written 70-200 years after Jesus’s death. They were compiled as the New Testament in 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea which is what I believe you are referring to.

59

Man this shit is just to mind boggling!!! Religion is derived from a latin word to “divide”. Religion brings a nice form of security to different groups of people is all. The way I see it.

Animals always adapt to their ever changing environments, never the other way around. We have only explored barely 5% of the ocean . Who knows how many more fossilized creatures are sitting out there right now!

60

lol calm down karl marx.

i admit the bible was used as a means of controling the population, but it still has fundimental messages about repect and goodwill.

to say its a story made to enslave peopels minds is a bit rich, after all the new testiment was written beacuse the jewish sect of christianity beleived the jewish religion had strayed and so needed change.