Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

i find this completly stupid. in the country were porn stars are celebrated and very gory and anti relgiouse movies are shown daily. lol they wont allow a movie on darwin. im a muslim i believe god created people. but if other believe otherwise thats fine to. i dont think they should be able to ban a movie just cuzz they think it might be harmful lol . i mean come on there are some terriable movies out there lol. but yet they ban a historical movie from playing. it dont make sense to me, and its only gna boost the sales of that movie ten fold i know i will get myself a copy from some other country


salaam

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Mapping of regolith layer thickness for the lunar nearside is carried out with Arecibo radar data at 70 cm wavelength (T. W. Thompson 1987, Earth Moon Planets 37, 59-70) and distributions of iron and titanium content derived from Earth-based optical data (Yu. Shkuratov et al. 1999, Icarus 137, 222-234). For the mapping a new simple model of radio wave multiple scattering in the regolith layer was used. A comparison of this map with independent estimates of regolith layer thickness for landing sites and other areas of the lunar surface showed a good correlation. It was found that regional variations of thickness are almost the same for maria and highlands, though the average thicknesses are different (5 and 12 m, respectively). A relatively thin regolith layer (4 m) covers a portion of Mare Serenitatis, Mare Tranquillitatis, and Mare Humorum, while the thickest regolith layer occurs in Mare Nectaris (9 m). A thin regolith layer is a characteristic of the cryptomare Schiller-Schickard. Very small regolith thickness corresponds to the crater floors. In this case, the model cannot yield reliable estimates of thickness; it predicts only a characteristic distance between rock inclusions buried in regolith. A thick highland regolith occurs at the southeast portion of the lunar disk and the highland to the north of Mare Imbrium and Sinus Iridium. For the lunar nearside, the regolith thickness generally correlates with the surface age: the greater the age, the thicker the regolith. The results are consistent with a higher rate of regolith growth for times earlier than 3.5 byr ago, when meteorite flux was much higher.

So the regolith is an average of 5 meters thick in the maria and 12 meters thick in the highlands, or call it 16 feet and 39 feet if you prefer.

I suspect what you are referring to is how much of the regolith is compacted versus how much is uncompacted, and you're right that the the regolith a few inches below the surface is compacted, but it's still regolith.

You got me on that point: skepticwiki.org...
I'll research further to see what the response is.
Two thumbs up for ya.

Originally posted by jmacbeth
i find this completly stupid. in the country were porn stars are celebrated and very gory and anti relgiouse movies are shown daily. lol they wont allow a movie on darwin. im a muslim i believe god created people. but if other believe otherwise thats fine to. i dont think they should be able to ban a movie just cuzz they think it might be harmful lol . i mean come on there are some terriable movies out there lol. but yet they ban a historical movie from playing. it dont make sense to me, and its only gna boost the sales of that movie ten fold i know i will get myself a copy from some other country


salaam

It's not that they won't allow it. The distrubutors refused to buy it. It was a business decision and has nothing to do with government censorship, or any censorship for that matter.

But I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion by a quick review of the bias in the OP.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So the regolith is an average of 5 meters thick in the maria and 12 meters thick in the highlands, or call it 16 feet and 39 feet if you prefer.

I suspect what you are referring to is how much of the regolith is compacted versus how much is uncompacted, and you're right that the the regolith a few inches below the surface is compacted, but it's still regolith.

You got me on that point: skepticwiki.org...
I'll research further to see what the response is.
Two thumbs up for ya.

I'm sorry I misjudged you John Matrix. I thought you were one of those creationists who would stick to their beliefs no matter how great the observational evidence to the contrary. Now that you have demonstrated to me that you actually do consider such overwhelming evidence, even posting a link that says:

To their credit, some creationists are abandoning the moondust argument

then I have to agree with that statement, that it's to your credit that you consider the evidence against that argument!

So two big thumbs up for you too!

reply to post by John Matrix


But isn't an adaptive response proof of evolution on a very small scale? I believe it is and you sound like you don't so are we just haggling over degrees of evolution? Are you saying that a man could not possibly evolve from an ape or are you saying that if over hundreds of years that a population changes and these changes stay from pigmentation to height to a whole realm of things....isn't that really evolution? (despite the websters defination etc...this is what most people think) What do you think? You opinion not a quote from a text book if you could. Thanks for the reply to my reply by the way.

reply to post by amazing


What I believe, (without quoting test books) is that no matter how many adaptive responses an organism demonstrates, "speciation" does not occur. A bird remains a bird, a frog remains a frog, a human remains a human.....no new species are created by adaptive mutations.

The frequency of mutation is low and random. Positive random mutations are extremely improbable.

This leaves me with the question: How many consecutive and positive random mutations does it take to make a new species?

The odds are outside of our human ability to comprehend. There are probably fewer electrons in the Universe than the staggering number of odds for speciation occurring through a series of positive, consecutive, random mutations.

That's for one speciation. Consider all the other species on earth. We are indeed talking about hundreds of millions of random positive consecutive mutations happening for each species at the right time, in the right order.
The odds defy all possibility and reason.

I believe the adaptive response was built into DNA to help the organism adapt to it's environment. We were designed to adapt. We were not designed for speciation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm sorry I misjudged you John Matrix. I thought you were one of those creationists who would stick to their beliefs no matter how great the observational evidence to the contrary. Now that you have demonstrated to me that you actually do consider such overwhelming evidence, even posting a link that says:

To their credit, some creationists are abandoning the moondust argument

then I have to agree with that statement, that it's to your credit that you consider the evidence against that argument!

So two big thumbs up for you too!

I appreciate your response. I understand how passionate we all are about our beliefs on this issue.

That I find one argument is no longer valid to support the creationt view, it's still not fatal to my belief in special creation and an intelligent designer creating with purpose in mind. There are many other evidences for special creation.
www.everystudent.com...

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Maslo
Sexual reproduction had not evolved in multicellular organisms. It was here before them.
Many protists reproduce both sexualy and asexualy, so even your absurd example is not a problem for them, because when they had not yet fully evolved sexual reproduction capable of fully substituting the asexual way, they can use the asexual to reproduce too.
But it gives them some comparative advantage over the mutants with only asexual reproduction.

This is basic biology, for the sake of fsm...

en.wikipedia.org...

You are comparing the reproduction of higher forms of life to protists(micro-organisms)?

It is your dance around the topic at hand that is absurd.

Evolution is all part of the grand scheme to dumb down the sheeple.

It's working.

How people that can articulate as well as you, Bunken Drum, and a few others and yet believe in such nonsense is nothing short of a miracle.

Yes, I am comparing evolution of reproduction of higher forms to single-celled forms, in a way.
The evolution of multi-cellular genders was similar, with hermaphrodites in the beginning, evolution of two sexual chromozomes, and extinction of heramphrodites due to advantages of two sexes.

There are still open questions on the evolution of sexes, but it is not disproving evolutionary theory.

biomed.brown.edu...
www.interciencia.org...
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...

Hi! The Origins of Man (dvd netflix). The dvd is a three part disc set,
that is facinating and intelligent. They said Darwind's theory could not be backed up. Its missing all the linking skeletons. They are leaning towards Alien DNA expeiments on the primates to produce humans. They discussed the human footprints with the dinasaurs 2-3 million years old, found with a hammer tool in the same strata layer that was an iron cloride compound forged from liquid metal 2-3 million years ago. Humans were
pouring metals into molds and made staple clamps to hold stone blocks together at Tenonacha (SP?). They also emplasized that cataclismic event
caused crust displacement, and glaciers (which were two miles thick) to melt rapidly flooding the oceans 500 feet. These are today's scientists
theories, why does Darwin of the past matter so much? I think that new information is comming all the time that out dates old speculations. We need to remain open to new ideas.

IN THIS THREAD:
People seeking to confirm their own anti-american stereotypes.

Honestly, this has to be bull#. If the film was turned down by American distributors, it wasn't because of any anti-creationist content.

In case you've all forgotten, Bill Maher's 2008 film 'Religulous' was ENTIRELY anti-religion and yet it was the highest grossing documentary released in America last year, and the 7th highest grossing of all time. So you people really believe that a blatantly anti-christian film could be released in America to commercial success, and yet a Darwin film would be prohibited?

I am an agnostic living in the Deep South of all places, and I assure you that the "All Americans are religious fanatic nutjobs" stereotype is laughably untrue. What we have here is a conservative religious minority that is so vocal that they tend to drown out the rest of us normal citizens on any issue like this. We're slowly getting rid of them.

Originally posted by frugal
They are leaning towards Alien DNA experiments on the primates to produce humans.

Go ahead and open yourselves up, folks. I've been hearing more and more that scientists are speculating that life was seeded here from somewhere else, or that aliens came and got the human race going. How many posting here are ready to believe that?

"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord". Joshua 24:15 I'm sticking by special creation. I may not be able to defend a young earth, but I will never believe we are being visited by aliens, not even if one of them shoves me into a space ship to do an experiment on me.

reply to post by novacs4me


jesus himself wasnt that way but a lot of christians are, including fundies, evangelicals, and several other christain groups.. as show by a couple of them on this thread...( you who you are) they twist the scripture based on their own ideaology and church dogma. they act more like the religious hirearchy the put jesus on the cross.. but as far as this movie in the op.. i for one would like to see it..

reply to post by scorand
I would have no desire to censor this movie. Freedom of expression is VERY important to me. Considering all the movies and TV shows that are available in the U.S., I would be very surprised if conservative Christians stopped it from being shown in the U.S. I'm not convinced that we Christians had anything at all to do with it. If it were on TV, I would begin watching it, until such time as I saw something in it bashing Christians, or blaspheming God. And then I would turn it off. Since my favorite books are biographical in nature, I would give this movie a chance.

Originally posted by Maslo
Yes, I am comparing evolution of reproduction of higher forms to single-celled forms, in a way.
The evolution of multi-cellular genders was similar, with hermaphrodites in the beginning, evolution of two sexual chromozomes, and extinction of heramphrodites due to advantages of two sexes.

There are still open questions on the evolution of sexes, but it is not disproving evolutionary theory.

Abiogenesis, Micro-evolution, natural selection, adaptive response etc. is not evidence for evolution, nor does it stand as proof of evolution.

Micro-evolution can just as easily be explained as the result of a creator using an intelligent design application that He instilled into our genetic makeup.

I'm not saying you are flat out wrong. I'm just saying that the creation view is more reasonable, taking into account the enormous odds against life coming from non-life particles, and the tremendous amount of information contained in DNA within each cell.

I don't believe speciation is evidence for macro-evolution. I have no doubt that variation within groups of organisms proves they adapt to their environments, but these adaptive changes are not without limitation.

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is more logically explained as a genetic instruction being carried out in response to the environment. I believe that DNA contains the design application which contains the adaptive response instructions. In my mind, an intelligent source is behind the application/program/instructions contained within the DNA of each cell in each creature.

In addition to what I have stated above, I brought up the difficulties with "sexes" because it makes evolution that much more difficult to accept.

[edit on 19/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by frugal
Hi! The Origins of Man (dvd netflix). The dvd is a three part disc set,
that is facinating and intelligent. They said Darwind's theory could not be backed up. Its missing all the linking skeletons. They are leaning towards Alien DNA expeiments on the primates to produce humans. They discussed the human footprints with the dinasaurs 2-3 million years old, found with a hammer tool in the same strata layer that was an iron cloride compound forged from liquid metal 2-3 million years ago. Humans were
pouring metals into molds and made staple clamps to hold stone blocks together at Tenonacha (SP?). They also emplasized that cataclismic event
caused crust displacement, and glaciers (which were two miles thick) to melt rapidly flooding the oceans 500 feet. These are today's scientists
theories, why does Darwin of the past matter so much? I think that new information is coming all the time that out dates old speculations. We need to remain open to new ideas.

You make some good points. I would add: even if our earth was seeded by aliens, and we are being visited by aliens in UFO's....it takes nothing away from my creation view or my view of God. The aliens that seeded the earth could well have been "other dimensional." God is a spiritual being, and definitely exists in other dimensions.

I believe our material physical dimension made up of space matter and time is but a weak out-birth of the spiritual realm. The physical has it's counterpart in the spirit realm.

Aliens in so called spaceships could easily be spiritual beings in spiritual crafts that defy our physics and understandings, such as Lucifer himself (who roams to and fro about the earth to seek whom he may devour). Some could also be Angels from God sent to protect countries, leaders, and other groups or individuals, by warding off Lucifer and his demons.

To the materialist, this may sound far fetched. To those inclined to contemplate the metaphysical, I don't think it's a big stretch of the imagination.


[edit on 19/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by John Matrix

Abiogenesis, Micro-evolution, natural selection, adaptive response etc. is not evidence for evolution, nor does it stand as proof of evolution.

Micro-evolution can just as easily be explained as the result of a creator using an intelligent design application that He instilled into our genetic makeup.

I'm not saying you are flat out wrong. I'm just saying that the creation view is more reasonable, taking into account the enormous odds against life coming from non-life particles, and the tremendous amount of information contained in DNA within each cell.

I don't believe speciation is evidence for macro-evolution. I have no doubt that variation within groups of organisms proves they adapt to their environments, but these adaptive changes are not without limitation.

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is more logically explained as a genetic instruction being carried out in response to the environment. I believe that DNA contains the design application which contains the adaptive response instructions. In my mind, an intelligent source is behind the application/program/instructions contained within the DNA of each cell in each creature.

In addition to what I have stated above, I brought up the difficulties with "sexes" because it makes evolution that much more difficult to accept.

[edit on 19/9/09 by John Matrix]

Just to clarify, there is a big difference between adaptation of one organism (as you wrote, different genetic instructions being carried out in response to the environment, but the genome stays the same), and micro-evolution, which is a change in genome itself, not just in expression of different genes and requires mutations and more generations, so it deals more with the whole species.

Micro-evolution (actual genetic code changes, NOT simple one organism adaptation) is proven by lots of evidence (antibiotic resistance...).

The point is, you cant just say micro-evolution is true and macro-evolution is not, because its the same process, just macroevolution happens in longer time. Marcoevolution IS microevolution+longer time!
If you say otherwise, show me some mechanism in the cell which stops microevolution after certain amount of time/changes (reverts the species to "default" genome?).


Macro+Micro:
www.talkorigins.org...

Examples of observed speciation:
www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

And where does microevolution end and "forbidden" macroevolution begin? It cannot be speciation, because that is observed.
Is it something more? Because then it is an example of the God of the gaps! And not even good one, because we may not have eyewitness testimony, but we have plenty of other evidence.

reply to post by Maslo


I don't believe micro-evolution or macro evolution exists. The adaptive response to anti-biotics, is easily explained by DNA instructions.

Putting me on your foe list does nothing to bridge the gap in our understandings of each others views.

reply to post by John Matrix


Well, its not a foe but rather a respected adversary, thats how its written there..

"I don't believe micro-evolution or macro evolution exists. The adaptive response to anti-biotics, is easily explained by DNA instructions."

Then you are ignoring genetic evidence. The unadapted and adapted (resistant) bacteria actually have different genomes, not just genes expression.
Genome change = microevolution

evolution.berkeley.edu...

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Maslo]

Originally posted by refuse_orders


Wow... Just wow...

I really don't know what to say, this is just incredible. Is the US really that messed up?

Do you mean to say, is the US really that fantastic? People believe that Darwin is worthless for a reason. Darwinism defies logic and common sense and yet because your pseudo science brainwashing in government controlled education camps told you it's true, you became a true believer.


I mean really, the premise that the vast complexity and complementary systems that constitute life happened all by accident is a complete absurdity. It requires a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Bible. The Bible has more evidence to support it as well.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Do you mean to say, is the US really that fantastic? People believe that Darwin is worthless for a reason. Darwinism defies logic and common sense and yet because your pseudo science brainwashing in government controlled education camps told you it's true, you became a true believer.

My god, people, educate yourself a bit and dont just read the bible fairy tales. How does darwinism defy logic and common sense? (maybe it defies average religious Joes conception of world reality, but so does relativity and quantum mechanics, and they are true...)

What, brainwashing in government controlled education camps?
If there is any area of human society without conspiracies, its science, where everything can be computed and simulated and proven true or false by evidence and comparing with reality...
You are being brainwashed in churches. I will take our "government controlled education camps" over your indoctrination centers and Jesus camps anytime..

Originally posted by SevenThunders

I mean really, the premise that the vast complexity and complementary systems that constitute life happened all by accident is a complete absurdity.

Yes it is. But evolution theory does not say that. This paragraph shows that you do not really know how evolution works. I can say that all the arguments against evolution that I have heard till now come from misunderstanding of the theory.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
The Bible has more evidence to support it as well.

Show me at least one evidence that favors biblical creation model over scientific evolution...
[edit on 20-9-2009 by Maslo]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Maslo]