Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Let me also say that shortly after I joined ATS, I got into a thread where there was at any given time one Christian and probably five or six people who had their knives out for Christians. I found it terribly difficult to think clearly when being struck from all sides with many antagonistic questions. I am NOT a debater. I do not think things through quickly. I learned the hard way not to try to respond to all questions from all opponents. Most people who come to ATS are at least somewhat introspective. This does not make us great debaters, although we do listen carefully to learn as much as possible, and to make informed decisions. What I saw when I first entered this thread was many of those opposed to creation science firing questions right and left at John Matrix, and I was impressed by his well-researched responses. I didn't post right away, because I did not think I had anything to add to what John was saying. I think he made a very good case for all of you to look into what creation science is investigating. Many long held beliefs within the evolution theory are now being reviewed. It is like a big tree with many limbs and branches. It is easy for our scientists to keep moving farther out on an already studied limb, without questioning whether or not the limb is correct! I'm not sure I am being clear enough about this, but one example is the relationship of the old-earth theory with the concept that the moon is moving away from us. How does that work, exactly? The only scientists interested in that question are those who are questioning all the old assumptions of evolution. The creation scientists are actually advancing science, by reviewing old assumptions, and finding some are false.

reply to post by novacs4me Yeah, I remember something without having to look it up too:

Who let the dogs out? Who? Who? Who? Who?

No but seriously... this was easier to copy & paste than type, but it inspired me to get on with it plenty of times:

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun
And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking
And racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in the relative way, but youre older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death
Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time
Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way
The time is gone, the song is over, thought Id something more to say
Home, home again
I like to be here when I can
And when I come home cold and tired
Its good to warm my bones beside the fire
Far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spells.
Pink Floyd "Time"

See, when I am old, I want to be used up. To know that I wrung every morsel out of life & thats not going to happen by asking for the fellowship of the faithful. I associate with the brave, the crass, the tricksters & the libertines. Keep the light. We prefer the night.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for making sure I saw that.
But no I didn't miss it.
I didn't know of any way to reply to that without the reply coming off as some kind of ad hominem attack, so I chose to let that comment speak for itself, and speak volumes it does, to anyone who knows what science is.

No no, I just meant you left it out of the post I was replying too. But yeah, volumes indeed. A whole stack of them... all the same book.
TBH, if there is a debate to be had I'll stay away from the ad hom, but if there isn't, well... no respect to be gained or lost, eh? Might as well flex the old wits...

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me

See, when I am old, I want to be used up. To know that I wrung every morsel out of life & thats not going to happen by asking for the fellowship of the faithful. I associate with the brave, the crass, the tricksters & the libertines. Keep the light. We prefer the night.

You describe the very people that Jesus hung out with when He was here. He had NO use for "white-washed sepulchres", which is what he called those who kept all the 'rules' but had nothing but disdain for those who didn't.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Still, you missed out the classic @the end of your exchange:

Originally posted by John Matrix
Oh, I get it.....it's not science unless it's falsifiable!
That is halarious.

I mean WTF? In an actual serious debate about science? Boggles the flipping mind...

Thanks for making sure I saw that.

But no I didn't miss it.

I didn't know of any way to reply to that without the reply coming off as some kind of ad hominem attack, so I chose to let that comment speak for itself, and speak volumes it does, to anyone who knows what science is.

Did you every think that my comment, and the little laughing face emotican, was placed there because I thought the statement was funny due to the fact that I have been falsifying your evolution hypothesis with links to sources to back me up?

Ironic isn't it.

[edit on 17/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

That I find a statement that says "It's not science unless it's falsifiable" funny seems to have become your favorite point of criticism.

My Source: creation.com...

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.

SOURCE: creation.com...

I stopped reading here. Was this written by someone in kindergarten? I must ask, because the second paragraph is so absurd, I almost fell off my chair. Scientists have examined the CLAIMS of creationism, young earth, and the flood (claims, not evidence, CLAIMS), and were found incompatible with the EVIDENCE that scientists have been testing for generations.

They (the scientists) aren't talking about the evidence of creationism, they're talking about the evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old, etc. and contrasting them with the CLAIMS (keyword here) of creationism. In order for something to be considered in the realm of science, it has to be tested. And we currently do not have the ability to test the supernatural.

I'm done with this thread; it has been both educating to how absurd creationists are and at the same time, comedy gold. So thanks for that.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
I stopped reading here. Was this written by someone in kindergarten? I must ask, because the second paragraph is so absurd, I almost fell off my chair. Scientists have examined the CLAIMS of creationism, young earth, and the flood (claims, not evidence, CLAIMS), and were found incompatible with the EVIDENCE that scientists have been testing for generations.

They (the scientists) aren't talking about the evidence of creationism, they're talking about the evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old, etc. and contrasting them with the CLAIMS (keyword here) of creationism. In order for something to be considered in the realm of science, it has to be tested. And we currently do not have the ability to test the supernatural.

I'm done with this thread; it has been both educating to how absurd creationists are and at the same time, comedy gold. So thanks for that.

There is a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis that the earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years old, and plenty of evidence for a flood all over the world.

Can you give us your best piece of evidence to support the 4.5 billion year old earth hypothesis?

Originally posted by John Matrix
There is a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis that the earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years old, and plenty of evidence for a flood all over the world.

Can you give us your best piece of evidence to support the 4.5 billion year old earth hypothesis?

So post some then. I'm not the one claiming that the world is 6-10 thousand years old. I was only pointing out that your source on the previous page destroyed his own argument by the second paragraph -- not a very intelligent source -- you'll have to do a little better.

reply to post by novacs4me Well, if Jesus hung around with people like my mates & I, there's a whole lot of very important info missing from the bible. T&Cs forbid me from elaborating, but when I say libertine, I dont mean free thinker, I mean free doer. Think de Sade & then take away the criminal extremes.
See, I just dont think the scourging was done for fun back then, you know?
I wonder if Darwin was into anything outre? There seems to have been a fair bit of drugs & dodgy death around his family.
www.thedarwinpapers.com...
Fascinating website... Amazingly gratuitous use of references without context & speculation. Still, an excellent resource to learn from, if you want to learn how to appear just fair enough to be taken seriously during character assassination.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

Originally posted by John Matrix
There is a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis that the earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years old, and plenty of evidence for a flood all over the world.

Can you give us your best piece of evidence to support the 4.5 billion year old earth hypothesis?

So post some then. I'm not the one claiming that the world is 6-10 thousand years old. I was only pointing out that your source on the previous page destroyed his own argument by the second paragraph -- not a very intelligent source -- you'll have to do a little better.

I asked you for evidence first.
I don't claim the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old, but there is evidence to suggest it, which I will provide after you give me yours.

I don't see how my source destroyed his own argument.

Hmmmm...this argument always amazes me. Basically, you have two religious systems (yes, Darwinism is a religion, although not in the church-going sense) arguing over issues of faith.

One camp will tell you that they have faith in an statistically impossible and woefully unsubstantiated theory that all life on this planet came from a sea of goo, and the other camp will tell you that, in spite of the seemingly absurd idea that an all-powerful being created everything we see pretty much as is, they believe in a directed, spontaneous appearance of mankind.

Just goes to show that people usually believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts or "science".

Anyone can see evolution on a small scale. Viruses evolve/mutate for one. People in different parts of the world are different based on where they live...think darker skin pigment for hotter/sunnier parts of the world--same goes for animals and plant life...think why are camels found in desert regions? Why aren't cacti found in rain forests? In my book god and science can walk hand in hand. You cannot base the age of the world on genesis though. That really would be crazy.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by amazing]

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by novacs4me

 

Well, if Jesus hung around with people like my mates & I, there's a whole lot of very important info missing from the bible.

Well, if you are looking for a Marquis de Sade type friend, Jesus is not your man. But he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors, who were considered a bad crowd back then. And he turned water into wine to keep a wedding party going after the wine ran out. I like the link I attached, because I think it pretty accurately explains the social strata at the time.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by novacs4me]

reply to post by novacs4me Thought provoking link, thanks
Prostitutes are no fun tho, apart from the fact they have to be paid, pretty much any enthusiasm is fake. Still, some people need to make up the numbers when they throw a party & I expect that hasn't changed down through the ages. But tax collectors! A person has to have some standards !!
I liked the bit about comparing them to modern crooks tho. They'd have been extortionists like the mafia, from the thugs getting the money all the way up to the Dons, each taking their cut.
I bring it up because IME, drug dealers & other criminals, when they're doing well, tend to be very generous with their parties. Although Jesus was trained as a carpenter, thats presumably because he would have had no choice but to help Joseph. So it doesn't follow that he was any good @it, eh? Even if he was, all that wandering around in the wilderness & then taking his show on the road wouldn't have left him much chance to actually do much carpentry. So I imagine that a damn good party would seem like a much more preferable option than starving or even whatever was on offer from "respectable" folk.
Maybe you're right, perhaps he would fit right in. I see him as a sub, myself. Still, the beard would have to go...
With all that repressed childhood & killing animals etc, I'd have to peg Darwin as dom. Now, there's a man I expect would be little if any fun @all!

Originally posted by amazing
Anyone can see evolution on a small scale. Viruses evolve/mutate for one. People in different parts of the world are different based on where they live...think darker skin pigment for hotter/sunnier parts of the world--same goes for animals and plant life...think why are camels found in desert regions? Why aren't cacti found in rain forests? In my book god and science can walk hand in hand. You cannot base the age of the world on genesis though. That really would be crazy.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by amazing]

Adaptive reposnes are designed into DNA. Plain and simple explanation and has nothing to do with evolution. A virus is still a virus regardless of any mutations. A human being is still a human being, regardless of any adaptive reponses or mutations. Mutations are harmful:

We can summarize why mutations can not support the theory of evolution, in four headings:

1- Mutations are harmful. Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious impact on a perfect and complex structure will lead to destruction, not to improvement. In this respect, mutation in an organism is similar to, taking a microchip out of its place and throwing it away or mounting it to somewhere else in a computer. This only gives damage to the computer, not any benefit. This is just like how the mutations are; they seriously harm the genetic material.

Read More from SOURCE here:
www.ummah.net...


[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by novacs4me

What I saw when I first entered this thread was many of those opposed to creation science firing questions right and left at John Matrix, and I was impressed by his well-researched responses.

Yes, he did get a bit of a savaging, didn't he? Lets not forget his 1st post in this thread tho, in which he wrote:

Originally posted by John Matrix
JAlso remember, it's the government funded scientists that revived or cloned the Spanish flu. Just another retarded move by morons that won't accept the obvious I.D. from a creator.

What has the flu got to do with this? Nothing. The obvious implication, given that he built up to that from an aggressive anti-evolution opening, is that anyone who does not accept ID from a creator is a moron. Did that impress you too? He then went on to describe those who do not accept ID & the christian god as "fools", even quoting the bible to back up that assertion (like that has any validity in a multi-polar debate) & had the arrogance to tell merkla

You cannot straddle both sides of the fence my friend. You are either on the one side of the issue or the other.

What, so he's the arbiter of how people reconcile various ideas?
In fact, if you reread the early parts of the thread, you'll find John Matrix's tone confrontational, arrogant & full of snide remarks plus smartarsery. It was only when people beat him @that game that he began to attempt to support his position with links & commentary.
Notice how he began to whine about arrogance & attack, then suggested there was something to be taken note of in my use of a visceral metaphor, yet John constantly used "rammed down my throat" himself. Oh, he could dish it out, he just couldn't take it.
A savaging indeed & well deserved...

Bunken Drum: That is your take and your opinion on what I said Bunken Drum. I never personally attacked anyone. I already told you that.
I sense an adjustment to your perceptual screen is in order.
Can we get back on topic yet?




[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by novacs4me
Neither I nor my husband have ever heard of fossils referred to as the devil's handiwork. Do you have a reference for that? Thanks!

Here you go! Enjoy!

link





Sorry I couldn't locate the other clip where Black mentions that one creationist called fossils devil's handy work, but this one is pretty close.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem
Thanks for the post. I had not seen this before.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by amazing
Anyone can see evolution on a small scale. Viruses evolve/mutate for one. People in different parts of the world are different based on where they live...think darker skin pigment for hotter/sunnier parts of the world--same goes for animals and plant life...think why are camels found in desert regions? Why aren't cacti found in rain forests? In my book god and science can walk hand in hand. You cannot base the age of the world on genesis though. That really would be crazy.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by amazing]

Adaptive reposnes are designed into DNA. Plain and simple explanation and has nothing to do with evolution. A virus is still a virus regardless of any mutations. A human being is still a human being, regardless of any adaptive reponses or mutations. Mutations are harmful:

We can summarize why mutations can not support the theory of evolution, in four headings:

1- Mutations are harmful. Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious impact on a perfect and complex structure will lead to destruction, not to improvement. In this respect, mutation in an organism is similar to, taking a microchip out of its place and throwing it away or mounting it to somewhere else in a computer. This only gives damage to the computer, not any benefit. This is just like how the mutations are; they seriously harm the genetic material.

Read More from SOURCE here:
www.ummah.net...


[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

[edit on 18/9/09 by John Matrix]

As you wrote, the mutations ALMOST ALWAYS damage the organism (thats actually not so true, because most mutations are neutral because of protecting mechanisms in the cell), but some small fraction of them is positive for it. And thats what matters, because damaged organisms are eliminated through natural selection but the positive mutations remain.

And as you wrote, adaptive mechanisms are incoded into DNA. But there is a big difference between adapting without changing the genome (even genetically similar twins would look different if they live different lifestyles) and genetical adaptation (changing the DNA) through evolution which requires more generations. And thats the case with viruses and bacterial antibiotic resistance, NOT the first case. Proof of evolution.

And every argument on the website in the link is already proven false on talkorigins.org