Charles Darwin Film 'Too Controversial for Religious America'

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

There are many interesting points in this thread, along with some complete hogwash. This is one of the most interesting points. The point about Catholics accepting evolution. For some reason, people seem to think that faith and science don’t mix. I don’t understand that.

A magnificently complex world, structured by science and ordered by evolution only compliments my faith in a divine creator (read: God). Also, my reading of Genesis seems to read like a description of evolution.

Take a look for yourself. Also, part of the problem people have knocking down evolution is that they don’t really define it, but I think the same can be said for creationism. Can anyone define creationism here? Honest question.

[quote]Chuck24 wrote:
If you take into account male and female reproductive organs you can expand your thinking on evolution vs. creationism.

If evolution is the evolving of an organism or whatever into something different it must mean it was to evolve in each step to a better organism as additions such as ears,eyes,fingernails,reproductive organs, etc. would develop basically into what we are today.

All this basically formed over time basically from nothing. Ok…If we evolved and got different features over long periods of time how did evolution know what ingrediants it would take for humans to reproduce?

Your not talking about 1 miracle now as in the evolving of 1 human but your talking now about an evolving 2nd type of human as in the female. Are you saying something intelligent that created itself knew how to do this and figured out male and female reproductive parts before everything became extinct?

Your not just talking about humans but the whole animal kingdom have VERY similar looking reproductive parts. Evolution seems to have figured all this out and said to itself “ok we got reproductive figured out now lets make this happen with all similar looking parts for the whole animal kingdom”.

Evolution could have done reproduction many ways but it happens almost all the same in every animal. Thats a very smart evolution. It figured out males and females and what it took to reproduce. Thats just the start of everything complicated thats left to discuss. I dont buy evolution whatsoever as everything its about agreed with itself and evolved all animals with the same looking and the same acting reproductive parts.

I believe we were created by an eternal creator who resides outside of time who got it right the first time. I dont believe Life came from no life, Intelligence came from non-intelligence, cause came from no cause and meaning came from no meaning.

[/quote]

good post chuck

[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. 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.
[/quote]

great points however i don’t totally agree with your last statement in some sense and in another sense i do.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah 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. 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.

great points however i don’t totally agree with your last statement in some sense and in another sense i do.[/quote]

His last point was clearly ergonomically designed to be grasped easily by all.

I think that because it cannot be refuted as knowledge itself but an opinion, you believe that it can be wrong or right, this is disregarding the issue of instigating yourself’s or another’s thought process as to what is correct from applicable knowledge.

[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
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.

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.

There are many interesting points in this thread, along with some complete hogwash. This is one of the most interesting points. The point about Catholics accepting evolution.

For some reason, people seem to think that faith and science don’t mix. I don’t understand that. A magnificently complex world, structured by science and ordered by evolution only compliments my faith in a divine creator (read: God). Also, my reading of Genesis seems to read like a description of evolution.

Take a look for yourself. Also, part of the problem people have knocking down evolution is that they don’t really define it, but I think the same can be said for creationism. Can anyone define creationism here? Honest question.[/quote]

I want an evolved fish decal (complete with legs), but instead of Darwin has the Greek “Ichthys.” Then I get to tick everyone off.

[quote]Otep wrote:

lokidj wrote:
Otep wrote:
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we’re so rediculously culturally successful, there’s no way we could have done it on our own.

Lol - Yeah so culturally successful that you have the highest crime rates in the world and also the fatest population in the world. What a culture!!! Mc DOnalds and gangbanging!

So… American culture is NOT culturally successful because people across the world adopt it DESPITE the fact that it hurts their health and makes them look stupid (McDonalds and Gangbanging, respectively). Interesting.[/quote]

So your argument is that mc donalds and gangbanging are a meter of americas cultural success because it has been adopted by other countries???

Wow what a great argument…

What other great cultural things has America bought to the rest of the world?
Please enlighten me…

[quote]Otep wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Would you go to this country???

http://www.expelledexposed.com/videos.php

Chris Comer: Expelled for Real
Christine Comer was the Director of Science for the Texas Education Agency for nine years, until she was forced to resign for failing to remain neutral on creationism.

And what did she do??? She was teaching Evolution in a science class.

Man you people live in a messed up country!

I appreciate how you just referred to Texas as a country. Thank you.[/quote]

I was referring to the States.

[quote]Chuck24 wrote:
If you take into account male and female reproductive organs you can expand your thinking on evolution vs. creationism.

If evolution is the evolving of an organism or whatever into something different it must mean it was to evolve in each step to a better organism as additions such as ears,eyes,fingernails,reproductive organs, etc. would develop basically into what we are today.

All this basically formed over time basically from nothing. Ok…If we evolved and got different features over long periods of time how did evolution know what ingrediants it would take for humans to reproduce?

Your not talking about 1 miracle now as in the evolving of 1 human but your talking now about an evolving 2nd type of human as in the female. Are you saying something intelligent that created itself knew how to do this and figured out male and female reproductive parts before everything became extinct?

Your not just talking about humans but the whole animal kingdom have VERY similar looking reproductive parts. Evolution seems to have figured all this out and said to itself “ok we got reproductive figured out now lets make this happen with all similar looking parts for the whole animal kingdom”.

Evolution could have done reproduction many ways but it happens almost all the same in every animal. Thats a very smart evolution. It figured out males and females and what it took to reproduce. Thats just the start of everything complicated thats left to discuss.

I dont buy evolution whatsoever as everything its about agreed with itself and evolved all animals with the same looking and the same acting reproductive parts.
I believe we were created by an eternal creator who resides outside of time who got it right the first time. I dont believe Life came from no life, Intelligence came from non-intelligence, cause came from no cause and meaning came from no meaning.

[/quote]

Read Richard Dawkins’ book the Selfish Gene.

He explains that evolution is not about the outer shell you see as as a tiger, a dog or a human it is all about the genes. The animal is just a vehicle for the gene.

Atoms naturally form molecules which naturally form chains because these are more stable. These molecules can be proteins and some of these proteins can self replicate and use the molecules around them to make copies. Science has proven this process and have shown it happening in a petri dish! The important point is that the replication is imperfect and small changes occur at random. These mutations lead to the next generation to be better or worse at competing. These replicators are called genes.

Now to get everything from organs, to behavioural traits, to male and female sexes this can all be explained by genes competing to the death and replicating and mutating. Everything from shells on snails to why I prefer women who don’t sleep around can be explained. Dawkins goes through these examples in his book.

So to your question about why do a lot of animals reproduce with similar organs the answer is that we all share this trait from a common gene. Notice that not all living organisms have a similar reproductive system to humans, bacteria is much different probably because bacteria and humans common gene goes a lot futher back prior to reproductive system. Maybe bacteria and humans never shared a common replicator.

I’m not wholly against God those atoms that stabilsed into molecules and replicators must have come from somewhere. You could say God created evolution - that would shut me up.

Where is the evidence for God???

[quote]lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???
[/quote]

Romans 1:20

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20[/quote]

Huh???

[quote]lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???[/quote]

Look it up

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20[/quote]

Circular much?

[quote]lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???[/quote]

Sounds more like a hypothesis than evidence. God is immeasurable so evidence will be hard to obtain. What would Karl Popper have to say about this?

[quote]lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???[/quote]

Using the bible as evidence for God is both begging the question and just a weak argument. However, that does not mean that there are not better proofs for God. I refer you to contemporary versions of Anselm’s ontological argument (not Descartes’. his is trash).

Really read through it. Also, William Lane Craig’s version of the cosmological argument as found in his book “Reasonable Faith”. Actually, reading that entire book is really worthwhile.

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???

Look it up [/quote]

So, according this verse, anyone that doesn’t/didn’t believe in god, is condemned to hell, even if they had never been exposed to a monotheistic religion? Native Americans? Cave Men? Vikings? ect…

[quote]Chuck24 wrote:
Evolution could have done reproduction many ways but it happens almost all the same in every animal. Thats a very smart evolution. It figured out males and females and what it took to reproduce.

Thats just the start of everything complicated thats left to discuss. I dont buy evolution whatsoever as everything its about agreed with itself and evolved all animals with the same looking and the same acting reproductive parts.

[/quote]

This was an amusing post, but again it shows ignorance about evolution. The fact that so many different species have similar reproductive organs, as well as many other similar organs, is a fact that tends to prove evolution, not refute it. Organs evolve in order to adapt to changing conditions.

If a particular organ works well, then there is no need to replace it with something better. Evolution is based on the idea “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Go back to my example with the ostrich or any other flightless bird. Flightless birds have wings which serve no purpose.

But, because their wings neither help nor help, there was no reason for these birds to lose their wings, so they remained as useless appendages. Now, who knows. Perhaps in evolutionary history there were some mutant sexual organs that may have worked better.

However, unless this better organ provided a substantial advantage to survival, those creatures with the “super penis” weren’t any better at survival than there “regular penis” counterparts, so that trait didn’t win out in the natural selection process and didn’t become the only trait for that species. Interestingly, male stingrays have two penises.

[quote]bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???

Look it up [/quote]

that is evidence to god???

Hahahahahahahaha your citing a passage from the bible as evidence. LOL

Your useless!

Poor little sheep… Bheeeeee

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???

Look it up

So, according this verse, anyone that doesn’t/didn’t believe in god, is condemned to hell, even if they had never been exposed to a monotheistic religion? Native Americans? Cave Men? Vikings? ect…[/quote]

Never being exposed to a religion has nothing to do with it, if you read the verse. Creation alone is proof of God. That is what I was getting at.

[quote]lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
bpeloquin wrote:
lokidj wrote:
Where is the evidence for God???

Romans 1:20

Huh???

Look it up

that is evidence to god???

Hahahahahahahaha your citing a passage from the bible as evidence. LOL

Your useless!

Poor little sheep… Bheeeeee

[/quote]

It appears that you are so closed minded into thinking that your so open minded, that you do not regard religion as a viable part of creation…

Because it is unknown to know how existence came into existence, you honestly regard your opinion as superior because Religion approaches the creation of life in a different manner???

I am not Christian, in fact, I believe in Evolution, but, to see someone so close minded like that, seriously needs a slap in the right direction, by a person who is of importance in his life, not us. Nothing we can do will be epiphal for him.