Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

It has been amusing to see the scientific supporters blasted with false claims of victory page after page...lol.


Engage sgnature resposne.
YAWN bored now.

Originally posted by Stylez
You lost this one boyo just like the last one, it's part of life ya know.

Not even close on either account. In fact, quite the opposite. But go ahead and keep congratulating each other. You are the only ones who think you've 'won' this one....

Edit to add: Anytime you want to take this or any other debate to the "Members Debate Forum" and go mano y mano, just let me know. But you should be forewarned, Ad Hominems, Straw Men and Smoke and Mirrors don't cut it there. Just let me know... I'm easy to u2u...

[edit on 23-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

How does one 'win', Jaxxon? If they succeeded in educating even one person, I count that as a win. I've learned a lot from Stylez and from John Matrix, and I thank them for sharing what they have learned about the abject failure of the evolution camp to prove their theory. They educated me, and if there were something I knew as much about as they do intelligent design, then I would share it, too, to help others become enlightened. I have also learned through related research, how cult-like the devotees of evolution can be, by visiting their gathering places, such as Richard Dawkins' forum. I wouldn't have known all this without following this thread. My ignorance has been replaced with knowledge, and I am grateful.

reply to post by novacs4me


One can tell merely by reading your signature line that you were already 'won' before the debate even began. Not much of a victory...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by novacs4me

 

One can tell merely by reading your signature line that you were already 'won' before the debate even began. Not much of a victory...

I never said I didn't believe in ID. I said my education in ID had been greatly improved. I have also become aware of the dishonesty of evolutionists. I used to think they just made mistakes.

Originally posted by Welfhard
It isn't, not really random anyway. mutations are circumstantial "mistakes" in DNA replication.

Hmmmm? Is this the most recent hypothesis worming through the catacombs of evolution elitist scientists that ride the government gravy train and educate our impressionable youngsters?

Now we are products of mistakes!!
Some random goofs over a few million years and poof, humans!!

Both male and female too!

Shows to go ya that goofs swing both ways.

reply to post by Welfhard



You must argue just to argue, because you think circumstantial makes more sense does not make it so. It is irrelevent what you think we are arguing what it is, and it is called random mutation, not circumstantial no matter how you word it. people who write genetics books, call it random mutation, you call it circumstatial, ill go with random.

Did you read the definition for universe has stated by your scholarly wiki, read it again then read what you posted and ask youself if that makes sense

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by novacs4me

 

One can tell merely by reading your signature line that you were already 'won' before the debate even began. Not much of a victory...

One can merely tell by reading your signature line that you were already 'won' before the debate ever began.

Suggested reading: "how to win friends and influence people."

Anti-American bias and prejudice will get you nowhere. You might have some company. Misery loves company.

A creationist only has limited means in a creation vs. evolution debate. They either cannot or will not provide actual proof or evidence of creationism other then the bible and faith. Therefore they must resort to trying to disprove evolution or using the "god in gaps" method ( please see following post). Also creationist's will turn to the "big bang theory" , something from nothing, to de-bunk evolution. Unfortunately the big bang is cosmology and evolution is biology, but they fail to see the difference.

If a creationist can't disprove a theory, they will then try and discredit / disgrace the source. Darwin was a racist and hated women....Hitler was a big believer in Darwinism(disgrace by association)...... what about that monkey man hoax, etc. They fail to mention that Hitler also used Christianity in his dogma. Or that the catholic church has degraded women all through history even today. Where are the female priests? What about the hoaxes of the church? Flat earth, earth the center of the universe, Noah's ark. What about all the lying, greedy, molesting, homosexual ministers and priests? I don't even need list any examples, we all know them. I am not trying to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs, I'm only showing the absurdity of that line of debate. The distraction from the issue at hand.

They believe evolutionary science is a conspiracy that would need to include; every government in the world(at all levels), every university/research lab, every scientist/assistant and student. Not only in evolutionary biology, but geology, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, etc. and every source is biased in some way( they get government funding, their ego, peers of such and such, the scientist "click"). I know this is ATS, but wow...that's the mother of all conspiracies!!!!

Evolutionism is searching for answers as to how. Sorting through all the evidence and hypothesis-es. As mentioned before, most evolutionists are not necessarily atheists and would welcome any evidence creationist may present other then the bible or just disproving an aspect of the theory. But they can't. In fact I dare say, evolutionists would be very happy to know the answer regardless of how( including creationism). But they require EVIDENCE, not god in gaps. Evolutionists will change and correct their theory as new provable evidence comes to light. Creationists won't.

The biggest problem is, it is virtual impossible to change the mind of a devout creationist. Even if evolution was proven without a doubt, it wouldn't matter. For a creationist to accept evolution it would mean the bible or parts of it are false. This would put into question every aspect of their life and world....every belief. It would literally cause a mental collapse from the brain trying to protect itself. Just review this thread. Loads of information has been presented , points and counter points. It is either ignored, dismissed, ridiculed, or replied to with information that doesn't even apply. And yet they still think they've "won" something. The human mind is a powerful and curious thing.

Please read the following article....






[edit on 23-9-2009 by Connector]

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Connector]

Evidence of Creationism - Is There Evidence for Creationism?
Creationism is Not Supported by Any Direct or Inferential Evidence

By Austin Cline




Is there evidence that supports the "theory" of (fundamentalist) creationism? Because creation theory in general does not have specified boundaries, just about anything could be considered "evidence" for or against it. A legitimate scientific theory must make specific, testable predictions and be falsifiable in specific, predictable ways. Evolution fulfills both of these conditions and many more, but creationists are unable or unwilling to make their theory fulfill them.


God of the Gaps "Evidence" for Creationism

Most of the creationists' evidence is of the god-of-the-gaps nature, meaning that creationists try to poke holes in science and then stuff their God into them. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: "Since we don't know how this happened, it must mean God did it." There are and probably always will be gaps in our knowledge in every scientific field, including of course biology and evolutionary theory. So there are plenty of gaps for creationists use for their arguments — but this is in no way a legitimate scientific objection.

Ignorance is never an argument and cannot be considered evidence in any meaningful sense. The mere fact that we do cannot explain something is not a valid justification to rely upon something else, even more mysterious, as an "explanation." Such a tactic is also risky here because, as science progresses the "gaps" in scientific explanation grow smaller. The theist who uses this to rationalize their beliefs may find that, at some point, there simply isn't enough room for their god anymore.

This "god of the gaps" is sometimes also called deus ex machina ("god out of the machine"), a term used in classical drama and theater. In a play when the plot reaches some important point where the author cannot find a natural resolution, a mechanistic apparatus will lower a god down onto the stage for a supernatural resolution. This is seen as a cheat or contrivance of the author who is stuck due to his own lack of imagination or foresight.


Complexity & Design as Evidence for Creationism

There are also some positive forms of evidence/arguments cited by creationists. Two currently popular ones are "Intelligent Design" and "Irreducible Complexity." Both focus on the apparent complexity of aspects of nature, insisting that such complexity could only arise through supernatural action. Both also amount to little more than a restatement of the God of the Gaps argument.

Irreducible complexity is the claim that some basic biological structure or system is so complex that it's not possible for it to have developed through natural processes; therefore, it must be the product of some sort of "special creation." This position is flawed in numerous ways, not the least of which is that proponents cannot prove that some structure or system could not have arisen naturally — and proving the something is impossible is more difficult than proving that it is possible. Advocates of irreducible complexity are essentially making an argument from ignorance: "I can't understand how these things could arise from natural processes, therefore they must not have."

Intelligent Design is usually based in part on arguments from irreducible complexity but also other arguments, all of which similarly flawed: the claim is made that some system could not possibly have arisen naturally (not just biological, but also physical — like perhaps the basic structure of the universe itself) and, therefore, it must have been designed by some Designer.

In general, these arguments aren't particularly meaningful here since none of them exclusively support fundamentalist creationism. Even if you accepted both of these concepts, you could still argue that the deity of your choice was guiding evolution such that the characteristics we see came to be. So, even if their flaws are ignored these arguments can at best be considered evidence for a general creationism as opposed to biblical creationism, and therefore do nothing to alleviate the tension between the latter and evolution.


Ridiculous Evidence for Creationism

As bad as the above "evidence" may be, it represents the best that creationists have been able to offer. There are in fact far worse sorts of evidence which we sometimes see creationists offer — evidence that is either so preposterous as to be almost unmentionable or demonstrably false. These include claims such as that Noah's ark has been found, flood geology, invalid dating techniques, or human bones or tracks found with dinosaur bones or tracks.

All these claims are unsupported and/or have been debunked many times, yet they persist despite the best attempts of reason and evidence to stamp them out. Few serious, intelligent creationists put forward these types of arguments. Most creationist "evidence" consists of an effort to refute evolution as if doing so would render their "theory" somehow more believable, a false dichotomy at best.


Disproving Evolution as Evidence for Creationism

Rather than finding independent, scientific evidence that points to the truth of creationism, most creationists are concerned primarily with trying to disprove evolution. What they don't recognize is that even if they could demonstrate that evolutionary theory were 100% wrong as an explanation for the data we have, "god did it" and creationism would not therefore be automatically more valid, reasonable, or scientific. Saying "god did it" wouldn't be treated as more likely true than "fairies did it."

Creationism will not and cannot be treated as a legitimate alternative unless and until creationists demonstrate the their proposed mechanism — god — actually exists. Because creationists tend to treat the existence of their god as obvious, they are likely to also assume that creationism would automatically take evolution's place if they could just "dethrone" it. This, however, merely demonstrates how little they really understand about science and the scientific method. What they find reasonable or obvious doesn't matter in science; all that matters is what one can prove or support through the evidence.

Source

reply to post by Connector


Evolutionists have no proof either.
Evolutionists won't leave their delusion when they are shown to be believing in lies, conspiracy theory, and fraud.

Creation just makes more sense.

It's more logical and resonable, than evolution, and respects the law of cause and effect.

The mathematical odds against evolution, make the ever morphing theory, at it's very core, absurd.

reply to post by John Matrix


Thank you for providing more credence to my post

Originally posted by Connector
Or that the church has degraded women all through history even today. Where are the female priests?

Well, you are off-topic here, but this is an area that I can speak to, so will add a bit. I was a staunch feminist and atheist before I became a Christian. The Lord takes you 'as you are', and through the conversations with people YOU trust, can change your mind about many of the viewpoints you once held dear. I've known many women preachers, church leaders, and missionaries, who are not degraded but are advancing the cause of Christ on earth. There are many strong women in the Bible, and women such as Corrie Ten Boom, who like me do not submit to authoritative men who want to lord it over others, but like Mary the sister of Martha, are called to be students enrolled in Jesus' class. I see you use the word 'priests', which would not be used in any church that I would attend.
One of the areas that I held onto for at least 15 years after becoming a Christian was evolution. But now I see that it is more like a religious cult than science, and I have NO use for cults!

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Connector

 

Evolutionists have no proof either.
Evolutionists won't leave their delusion when they are shown to be believing in lies, conspiracy theory, and fraud.

Creation just makes more sense.

It's more logical and resonable, than evolution, and respects the law of cause and effect.

The mathematical odds against evolution, make the ever morphing theory, at it's very core, absurd.

Why are you openly lying to us again? Your mathematical proof does NOT deal with evolution, just abiogenesis probability, i thought you know the difference... And even that is already proven wrong on talkorigins.org . You presented absolutely none evidence against evolution, only pseudoscience which was refuted long ago. When i get to my home computer again, i will show that all your arguments are wrong.
Till then, look up his claims on talkorigins people, dont just swallow every fallacy he writes. I thought we were supposed to deny ignorance...

reply to post by John Matrix


WOW! An Ad Hominem and a Straw Man all rolled into one! BTW, this applies to you as well:

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Anytime you want to take this or any other debate to the "Members Debate Forum" and go mano y mano, just let me know. But you should be forewarned, Ad Hominems, Straw Men and Smoke and Mirrors don't cut it there. Just let me know... I'm easy to u2u...

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Connector

 

Evolutionists have no proof either.
Evolutionists won't leave their delusion when they are shown to be believing in lies, conspiracy theory, and fraud.

Creation just makes more sense.

It's more logical and reasonable, than evolution, and respects the law of cause and effect.

The mathematical odds against evolution, make the ever morphing theory, at it's very core, absurd.

Why are you openly lying to us again? Your mathematical proof does NOT deal with evolution, just abiogenesis probability, i thought you know the difference... And even that is already proven wrong on talkorigins.org . You presented absolutely none evidence against evolution, only pseudoscience which was refuted long ago. When i get to my home computer again, i will show that all your arguments are wrong.
Till then, look up his claims on talkorigins people, dont just swallow every fallacy he writes. I thought we were supposed to deny ignorance...

I'm entitled to my belief. Don't go around thinking you can threaten me and intimidate me into silence.

Abiogenesis is as much a part of evolution as you are. Semantics...... semantics. Pretend they are not related.....I could care less.

Let's go right back to the beginning of the Universe and look at the Law of Cause and Effect:

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.

Source: www.existence-of-god.com...

What say ye evolutionists?
Who or what created the Universe? Was it a black hole becoming the size of this dot (.) causing a Big Bang? Is that it?

Who created the dot/black hole?

What makes the black hole/dot/big bang theory any more plausible or reasonable than an eternal being existing outside of the physical laws of space matter and time creating it?

If we are going to talk evolution, let's talk about the evolution of the Universe, planets, and life, beginning with the Universe.

Let's take the axe to the root of your theory for beginnings.

Originally posted by John Matrix
If we are going to talk evolution, let's talk about the evolution of the Universe, planets, and life, beginning with the Universe.

Let's take the axe to the root of your theory for beginnings.

What created god(s)? Let me guess: since he's outside of space and time, the normal laws of physics don't apply to him and he or it never had a beginning. In other words, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

What do astrophysics and cosmology have to do with evolution?

Originally posted by John Matrix
Who or what created the Universe?

For this we must go to M theory in Physics:

reply to post by John Matrix

Abiogenesis is as much a part of evolution as you are.

WRONG!

Abiogenesis is entirely different. From evolution.

It's astonishing, the level of denial that exists in creationists' minds.

They want everything to be wrapped up neatly in the "GodDidIt" package, only as it applies to our little planet we've named 'Earth', but ignore the immensity of the project, and the entirety of the Universe.

Oh, the hubris!!!!!