Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
I know exactly what you are talking about. You're claiming that evolution dealt with the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life, when in fact evolution only deals with the change in organisms on our planet. But, feel free to continue to spread disinformation like you know what you're talking about.

I cannot tell you how many times I heard scientists from the government money train mention the planets evolving from spinning gases and matter forming around our sun.

I know what I am talking about. Do you?

Originally posted by John Matrix

I cannot tell you how many times I heard scientists from the government money train mention the planets evolving from spinning gases and matter forming around our sun.

I know what I am talking about. Do you?

So you're saying astrophysics, abiogenesis, and evolution are one and the same?

Originally posted by John Matrix
Sure! From a book called: Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species.

I've just searched an online version and cannot find anything referencing the origin of life. I didn't read every line so I may have missed it.

There is however a german translation where the author has added his own thoughts

[edit on 16/9/2009 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

Originally posted by John Matrix

I cannot tell you how many times I heard scientists from the government money train mention the planets evolving from spinning gases and matter forming around our sun.

I know what I am talking about. Do you?

So you're saying astrophysics, abiogenesis, and evolution are one and the same?

I'm saying that evolutionists teach that the planets evolved after the big bang.

reply to post by John Matrix

Evolution begins with the premis that natural processes created the universe, our earth, and all life.....which cannot be tested.
Add the premis "punctuated equalilibrium".....which cannot be tested.
Add the premis "mutations" supposedly beneficial to the species leading to transformations to higher life forms/more advanced species.....which cannot be tested.
Where does that leave us.

hypothesis
• noun (pl. hypotheses) 1 a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

www.askoxford.com...

premise
• noun 1 Logic: a previous statement from which another is inferred. 2 an underlying assumption.

[url]http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/premise
Thus we see John that whilst it suits your position to claim that science is the same as religion in this matter, in fact you are incorrect. The hypotheses you mention are being tested by observation of the natural world right now. In 10,000yrs, assuming ignorance has been sufficiently denied so that humans still exist, the hypotheses of the science of the day will still be being tested. It may be that a new theory will replace evolution. It may be that a snake will be observed expressing the genes for legs & once more becoming a lizard. It may be that a noodly appendage is found; Mohammed may appear in the sky on a fiery horse; Robin Goodfellow may come out of the forest with green plants springing up under his feet... If any of this happens, science will discard those hypotheses disproved by evidence of divine beings.
However, if there are still christians, many of them will look @the same phenomena & see them as demonic & thus evidence that their god created the universe. That is the difference between a hypothesis & a premise; between science & religion.
So where does that leave your argument?

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Thus we see John that whilst it suits your position to claim that science is the same as religion in this matter, in fact you are incorrect.

I never said that science is the same as religion. That is your premis.

However, if there are still christians, many of them will look @the same phenomena & see them as demonic & thus evidence that their god created the universe. That is the difference between a hypothesis & a premise; between science & religion.
So where does that leave your argument?

And that describes your premis which at it's core is based on personal biases and prejudices. It's a very cute explanation, but I don't buy it.

Hopefully, after you have satisfied your desire to get degrees, you will go out into the real world and acquire humility. Then you and I can communicate on an equal footing.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Jezus
Arguing complexity proves the need for a creator is completely illogical.

Evolutionists argue that increases in the complexity are the result of natural processes, adaptations, mutations, and mythical events like punctuated equilibrium. But it's ok for evolutionists to say complexity is the result of evolution, but when creationists say it's the result of creation it's illogical? That, my dear friend, is illogical.

Scientists say complexity is the result of evolution because they understand the biological mechanics.

Creationists say complexity is the result of "God" because they don't understand the biological mechanics.

Instead of trying to fit the world into your beliefs try to reconcile your beliefs with the observable world.

Evolution is undeniable but it certainly does not disprove a creator.

Originally posted by novacs4me

Originally posted by Bunken Drum Once people realise that, if religion has a place @all in modern society, its behind closed doors dealing purely with spiritual matters, then we'll all be better off.

As a Christian, I can tell you that compartmentalizing our faith is the LAST thing we should do. When one accepts Christ, one dies to their old life and every day, every minute of every day, belongs to Him. So getting us to stay behind closed doors and keep our mouths shut is impossible. You will not achieve that, ever.

Yeah, people would have said that 40yrs ago in the UK. Still, there's really only the diehards left & whilst many of them get out to shout once in a blue moon, the reality is that, in their daily lives, christianity plays no more a part than in the lives of the vast majority of people who answer christian to the census, ie none except for births, deaths & marriages.
The writing is on the wall for religion in the prosperous world...

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

Originally posted by novacs4me

Originally posted by Bunken Drum Once people realise that, if religion has a place @all in modern society, its behind closed doors dealing purely with spiritual matters, then we'll all be better off.

As a Christian, I can tell you that compartmentalizing our faith is the LAST thing we should do. When one accepts Christ, one dies to their old life and every day, every minute of every day, belongs to Him. So getting us to stay behind closed doors and keep our mouths shut is impossible. You will not achieve that, ever.

Yeah, people would have said that 40yrs ago in the UK. Still, there's really only the diehards left & whilst many of them get out to shout once in a blue moon, the reality is that, in their daily lives, christianity plays no more a part than in the lives of the vast majority of people who answer christian to the census, ie none except for births, deaths & marriages.
The writing is on the wall for religion in the prosperous world...

Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in Africa and China. I am well aware that in Western nations, many will claim they are Christian, but they have never asked Jesus to be Lord of their life, and so they aren't Christians at all. See Christianity's changing face

mitochondrial DNA.

the tracing of our origins, through the markers in DNA, carried and passed on by the female of the species....

other proofs, if you just look....

www.pbs.org...

science....verifiable...observable...repeatable

Well John Matrix, you've had the scientific method explained to you in so many different ways that it is inconceivable that you could have failed to undertand whilst being bright enough to use a computer. Therefore I must conclude that you are willfully propounding ignorance & I'm bored of it. In the interests of bringing this to a swift conclusion then, I'll ask you 1 last time...
Can you or can you not explain why a person who finds evidence that does not support evolution theory must conclude that such evidence supports intelligent design?
Before you ignore this question again, pop over to the Member Debates forum. Read how the judges respond to unanswered direct questions. Now here we're unstructured, we dont have Socratic Questions, but we do have repetition. Be in no doubt that your inability or unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.
If you reply, I'll respond. If not, by all means have the last word, but also be in no doubt that you have been defeated comprehensively &, since this question goes to the very heart of the creationism vs science debate, your entire ideology along with you.
You see John, we can all go in for a bit of smartarsery, but @some point the content of our argument must stand up to scrutiny.
Btw, I was married with 2 kids (both now @uni themselves) & my own business by age 23, by which time I had completed my 1st 2 bachelors degrees, partly overlapping. I then ran my business in a fickle industry for 7yrs before taking my 3rd bachelors & masters concurrently, & again running the business, which I still do in bleak times. I've been around John, of that I can assure you. There's no lack of humility on my part. I was very fortunate to make money quickly when I was young, so it gave me the opportunity to do things I wanted, but I grew up very poor & since then, there have been some tough times too, so I fully appreciate what I've had.
What there is currently however is a lack of respect, which you brought on by your inability to debate & some patently absurd statements.

reply to post by novacs4me Frankly, I couldn't give 1 let alone 2 hoots for the changing face of christianity. China is industrialising: they'll grow out of it sooner or later. Africa has many problems, not least with AIDS, which, if they carry on accepting evangelical christianity will more than likely wipe out a lot of christians as abstinance continues to take over as an impossible ideal rather than condoms.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by John Matrix
However, I would like the video to be shown here in North America so creation scientists can debunk it.

[edit on 12/9/09 by John Matrix]

Creation... scientist.. oww the irony makes my brain bleed. There are people who call themselves creation scientists? Do they go to confession and ask forgiveness for lying to themselves and their peers when they do it?

Creation scientists.. ya and I'd like you to meet my friend the morbidly obese Olympic track coach.

I already posted links to web sites built and maintained by or for Creation Scientists. You can malign them all you want, but there are scientists, biologists, geneticists, geologists, historians, physicians, surgeons, etc. who contribute to Creation Science research and believe in the theory of a divine intelligent creator.

Originally posted by Jezus
Scientists say complexity is the result of evolution because they understand the biological mechanics.

Creationists say complexity is the result of "God" because they don't understand the biological mechanics.

Oh, I see...you have to be an evolutionists to understand biological mechanics.

I should have thought that. Thank you for that information.

Understanding bio mechanics and expressing an opinion concerning it's origin are two different things. Creationists see it originating with the creator.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Yeah, people would have said that 40yrs ago in the UK.

Out of all the UK people I know, none are religious or believe in God. I live close to two churches and the visitors of both must average 80 years old. We do however have a religious minster at funerals who usually performs a non-religous service.

If the UK is anything to go by the whole world will have lost religion in 200 years or so.

PS John, can you point out where I can find the origins of life in "On The Origin of Species". Just the chapter will do.

[edit on 16/9/2009 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Can you or can you not explain why a person who finds evidence that does not support evolution theory must conclude that such evidence supports intelligent design?

Can you tell me why this question is important to you?
What is the purpose of explaining this to you?

If evidence does not support evolution, what other alternative is there?

Evolution = Natural processe creating life, and thousands of new species of life.
Creation = Supernatural creation of life.

In all the Universe of THINGS, I see but two states for ALL:

1. Nature left to itself and it's own internal workings, and;
2. The Supernatural manisfested in nature.

I don't believe that number one above is responsible for all life on earth because it is illogical and unreasonable.

I believe that life is the result of the Supernatural being manifested in nature through special creation.

Make fun of me all you want. Be condescending all you want. Get cute all you want. Insult creationists all you want. It changes nothing.

It is what it is.

reply to post by LightFantastic


Coming from the UK I could not agree more, I remember being taken to church as a child and seeing it half full (75-100), my mother still goes and the congregation is about 35-50max.

We have had our share of religious tyranny here, most of us see its not a good thing (imo). Hopefully the rest of the world will grow up and see the same thing one day.

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Yeah, people would have said that 40yrs ago in the UK.

Out of all the UK people I know, none are religious or believe in God. I live close to two churches and the visitors of both must average 80 years old. We do however have a religious minster at funerals who usually performs a non-religous service.

If the UK is anything to go by the whole world will have lost religion in 200 years or so.

PS John, can you point out where I can find the origins of life in "On The Origin of Species". Just the chapter will do.

[edit on 16/9/2009 by LightFantastic]

What do you think the book is about? Replace the word "species" with LIFE. You cannot have one without the other. Darwin is refering to his view of the origins of life.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Frankly, I couldn't give 1 let alone 2 hoots for the changing face of christianity. China is industrialising: they'll grow out of it sooner or later. Africa has many problems, not least with AIDS, which, if they carry on accepting evangelical christianity will more than likely wipe out a lot of christians as abstinance continues to take over as an impossible ideal rather than condoms.

It must gall you to hear that Christianity is growing anywhere. The reason it is dying out in the West is because it is not persecuted here. Christianity ALWAYS spreads during persecution of Christians. You should read 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs', but of course you won't because you just want us all to just go away.

And I do know something about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I know that in many villages, it is the evangelical pastor who takes in and raises the orphans. Evangelical Christians make sure to explain to the uneducated men that having sex with a virgin will not cure them of AIDS. This seems to be a common misconception in Kenya, anyway.

You are incorrect to think that Christianity will be gone in 200 years. Jesus will return as He promised He would, and then even you will bow your knee to Him. Remember that I said this! I hope by then you and I will be brother and sister in Christ. You can have a relationship with Him, too. No one is beyond His love. You are just another lost sheep like I was. He came to save you, too.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
science....verifiable...observable...repeatable

Repeat evolution then.

Ya can't because you can't. That's why evolution is not science. Evolution is a religion that explains the evidence in a manner which supports it's premise that nature is responsible for life and a divine creator is not responsible for all that is.



[edit on 16/9/09 by John Matrix]