Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It wasn't obvious at first but I realised you were kidding. Lol. It was subtle. I even had this lengthy post written up before I realised.

Life couldn't have spontaneously popped into existence, something had to have created it.

Those aren't the only to options. Just like with species, they don't spontaneously generate, they evolve. There are 8 Properties something has to have to qualify as life. Movement, Respiration, Sensation, Growth, Reproduction/replication, Excretion and Nutrition, commonly shortened to 'MRS GREN'.

Viruses do not have all these properties and as such are considered only partially alive. The first things that could truly be called life would have evolved long after the first, barely alive, proto-life cell. A microscopic thing consisting of only some replicating genetic material and a shell.

There is no need for a creator here.

The Earth couldn't have spontaneously popped into existence, something had to have created it.

Again, just because the first point is true doesn't make the second immediately true.

We've known that matter coalesces due to it's mutual pulling on everything else in the universe for what feels like an eternity now. Stars are born like this, and indeed your avatar even features a star nursery. When there isn't enough matter collapsing into one body for fusion of hydrogen into helium, then you are left with a gas giant. The heavier elements created in Supernovae become like dust and debris and ice that also coalesces into solid earthy structures - except for in special cases where gravity tides prevent collapse as in the case of Saturn's Rings which contain enough dirt and ice to form a sizeable moon.

Again, No creator needed here.

The Universe couldn't have spontaneously popped into existence, something had to have created it.

Well that's a bit of a moot point really. It's common thought that the boundaries of the universe calculated to be about 78 billion lightyears across. That's all we can observe but there is no reason to think that that is all there is.

There are in a sense physical boundaries to the universe however. If it stopped expanding and an individual began to travel, eventually because of the curvature of the universe that individuals will run out of new spaces to occupy. It is theorised that beyond the curves, there is a kind of "higher" form of space where our curved universe sits on. In such a space whatever caused the bigband or the thing that the big bang has generated from would have generated more universes elsewhere. These aren't parallel universes though, they don't have any links to our own, but would likely been unique, having differing natural laws, and not all of these multitudes of universes would as such be able to produce life or potentially even solids bodies because of these alternate laws.

However adding a higher field doesn't solve the problem of infinite regression ("Where did that come from?"). Perhaps a creator is needed here, but then again the same problem applies to anything that exists, even a creator.

Who knows?

And since this thread is about Darwin, note that HE initially believed in God

He did... and then he didn't. So how can that matter? It's not like his theory says a god cannot exist.

So if Darwin believed in God at one time, why shouldn't all the people who believe his theory of evolution also believe in God?

Most do. According to the Gallup Poles, most Christians are Evolutionists and most Evolutionists are Christian.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It wasn't obvious at first but I realised you were kidding.

I wasn't actually kidding. I was trying to portray the parallels between my life, Darwin's life, and the lives of others who are indoctrinated with such beliefs at an early age. So rather than kidding, I was honestly stating the beliefs I was really taught.

But yes you figured out that I, like Darwin started questioning if all the things we had been indoctrinated to believe were really true or not. However, after asking those questions, my religious beliefs are closer to those of Albert Einstein than Darwin.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear enough and I made you write that rebuttal for nothing, but it probably wasn't a waste because I'm sure some people will read it who still haven't questioned if what they were taught to believe is really true or not, and maybe they can benefit from your explanations.

Regards

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Sorry if my post wasn't clear enough and I made you write that rebuttal for nothing, but it probably wasn't a waste because I'm sure some people will read it who still haven't questioned if what they were taught to believe is really true or not, and maybe they can benefit from your explanations.

Well I actually decided to post it anyway because I figured there is still a chance I was wrong and you were being perfectly serious, in which case it would have been best to post it. I looked at your profile to try and ascertain if you were a creationist or IDer type but you're friends with Astynax (or however it's spelt) so I was reasonably confident you were cleverer than that. ^_^

Still after writing all that it would be a shame to simply close the tab.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by John Matrix


Please resist the urge toward personal attacks.

reply to post by John Matrix

You will never understand Spiritual knowledge and wisdom, while believing you evolved from slime or a nuckle dragging chimp.

If you actually knew anything about the science other than what the ill-informed creationist websites told you, then you'd know that Evolutionary Theory doesn't suggest that we came from Chimps, or Monkeys, or Gorillas, or even Neanderthals.

And remind me... Don't you believe man was made from dirt? How silly.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]

NOTICE


If there personal attacks do not stop, this thread will be closed.

If you do some research on some of the first Civilizations ever discovered which of course included the oldest known forms of humans. The way they saw Gods for the most part, was them entering from the sky or appearing in the sky. Not to mention there amazing fascination with the night sky, and the amazing effort in to understanding the night sky. The languages also are in a class of their own. I don't believe in a God, but I do believe in a superior race far advanced beyond comprehension somewhere in our universe. Maybe those are our creators? Taxi drivers to say the least to see how we would do on a habitable planet? It's a far better explanation than modern religions. And I also believe this is the route cause as to how most religions were started. Just throughout the years it's merely dumb downed to fit the society's of their time. And unfortunately most religions of our time are really put in to the comprehension of a 1st grade level. Almost like if you tell someone a story to pass along and certain things were changed, kicked out, or can be totally different when it gets back around to you. Eh, my first post had to put this somewhere.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by OpenYourHead]

Originally posted by OpenYourHead
I don't believe in a God, but I do believe in a superior race far advanced beyond comprehension somewhere in our universe. Maybe those are our creators?

Our Universe is 15 billion years old, give or take a day or two. This planet is 5 billion years old, so it is perfectly feasible that other intelligent life evolved elsewhere prior or in parallel to our own. However, it is to my mind, highly unlikely that any such life form would be our creator given that time line, unless, it evolved outside of this Universe and entered it well after it's creation, or unless that creator got mashed in the process of starting 'creation' and merely provided the material from which we all came. Anything, aliens or otherwise that has evolved within the confines of this universe is subject to the same principles of evolution as we are, any 'help' or 'tweaking' that may or may not have taken place to lead us to the beings that we are now, would still be 'natural' and part of the course of evolution, we have evolved to be technological and inventive, it is therefore natural. While you can speed things up, and fabricate 'adaptations' and 'mutations' to a certain extent you are still left with something that is the same fundamentally at the root (or genetic)level.

I would say that with only a fraction of a doubt, any lifeform that existed and evolved, within this universe would have the same four genetic markers found on all life on this planet. It stands to reason. It is also likely that they would look relatively similar, two eyes, two legs, two arms etc, to us too. We do know that we didn't appear overnight, we know that life evolved over time through adaptation and mutation, we don't know what started it all, but we do know that all life shares these common origins or building blocks. Our, humanities/earths, origins are barely in question anymore, what we do not know is where the universe of which we are a very small part came from.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by shamhat]

Originally posted by shamhat
I would say that with only a fraction of a doubt, any lifeform that existed and evolved, within this universe would have the same four genetic markers found on all life on this planet. It stands to reason. It is also likely that they would look relatively similar, two eyes, two legs, two arms etc, to us too.

A agree that other lifeforms in the universe would be likely to evolve in a Darwinian fashion similar to the evolution on Earth.

But some of your assumptions seem unfounded, like the assumption that aliens would evolve to look like us. Just look at the evidence of evolution on Earth. For most of the Earth's history, there were no creatures like us, and the dominant lifeforms had more than 2 legs. That's true whether you measure dominance by size (dinosaurs) or numbers (insects) or intelligence. So the bipedal life form hasn't even been predominant on Earth (only for the blink of an eye in the earth's long history) so it seems unrealistic to expect it to be predominant elsewhere.

Also the genetic development on an alien planet could be entirely different. Unless there was some panspermia (such as could be possible between Mars and Earth), there is no reason to expect the transfer of genetic materials between worlds, especially of they are in different star systems.

Another factor to consider is that most planets will be smaller or larger than Earth, so things like differing gravity and atmosphere will have evolutionary pressures on the most successful lifeforms. For example tall skinny animals like Giraffes may not be physically capable of supporting themselves on a larger planet with higher gravity, or perhaps bipedal lifeforms may be less practical on those planets and creatures with 4 or 6 legs may be better able to support their greater weight with more legs.


[edit on 25-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Hi,

I am not surprised by this article. In fact I would have been surprised if the US were the one's promoting this film like they do with other blockbusters.

For all of you American's that have common sense I really pity and feel sorry for you being amongst really stupid biased people.

I have no hope for your country recovering from the fake religious groups, economy. propaganda and censorship you see and listen too everyday.

I am from the UK and I noticed the same happening too, so I left 5 months ago and I am more happier living in South-east Asia with less stress in my life. If you have the chance I would urge you all to do the same.

Regards,
E.T

reply to post by Welfhard


I don't want to be made from dirt! Dogs pee on it!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But some of your assumptions seem unfounded, like the assumption that aliens would evolve to look like us. Just look at the evidence of evolution on Earth. For most of the Earth's history, there were no creatures like us, and the dominant lifeforms had more than 2 legs. That's true whether you measure dominance by size (dinosaurs) or numbers (insects) or intelligence. So the bipedal life form hasn't even been predominant on Earth (only for the blink of an eye in the earth's long history) so it seems unrealistic to expect it to be predominant elsewhere.

I was really thinking of lifeforms with intelligence comparable our greater than or own. I would expect some environmental adaptations or differences, but I would still be very surprised if they were not bipedal. But yes you are right I am making assumptions. Perhaps if I say four limbs rather that two arms and two legs, but since our bipedalism is related to our development of sapience then I feel it is a safe assumption that other intelligent life would need to have suffered similar constraints and difficulties which led to the adoption (and forming the basis of sexual selection) of bipedalism, as we have in order to have evolved a similar level of intelligence.

Also the genetic development on an alien planet could be entirely different. Unless there was some panspermia (such as could be possible between Mars and Earth), there is no reason to expect the transfer of genetic materials between worlds, especially of they are in different star systems.

I admit to favouring a panspermia model or given NASAs findings earlier this year of Amino Acids present in comets, that it is feasible to consider our planet as an egg, fertilised by material floating around in space.

Another factor to consider is that most planets will be smaller or larger than Earth, so things like differing gravity and atmosphere will have evolutionary pressures on the most successful lifeforms. For example tall skinny animals like Giraffes may not be physically capable of supporting themselves on a larger planet with higher gravity, or perhaps bipedal lifeforms may be less practical on those planets and creatures with 4 or 6 legs may be better able to support their greater weight with more legs.

Have you read Larry Niven's The Integral Trees? He has some great ideas of how gravity would effect evolution. However, I personally feel that while it is possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe, I am of the opinion that the conditions required for life to prosper, as it has here on earth and to develop to the point where evolution can commence, that any planet would have to be very similar to our own. But that is only my opinion and as such it is open to change.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by shamhat]

Well. "theories" are only that. Remember always that "Flogiston" was once proven scientific fact ,as was the fact that the sun rotated around the earth(although, a lot of nasty dissenters still fight this notion:lol

It's all relative, as in "relative to the time that these theorems exist" . For now, Evolution is an accepted falsifiable scientific given(Within the frame of todays knowledge. Mebbe we discover sometime in the future hat we actually were the test-tube experiment from an alien civilization, but for now, that is still conjecture, and Evolution through "lucky mutations" is fairly easy to test/witness and is one of the more useful theories for now, but not neccesarily THE best...). Religion does not deal with repeatable tests and "facts" but with " ideas", "Philosophies", life-rules/advises. A whole different ballgame. A different mindset, even a different universe for some...

The moment We,Humans learn how to manipulate DNA on a grand scale, "Evolution or Religion/Creationism" becomes completely moot. Do not have the false hope that it will be stopped now. The momentum has become too strong.

On racism; YES,Darwin was a racist, as was the whole colonial European establishment..not very shocking that he was, despite being a thinker, a man of his time.
"Scientists" were still trying to prove the inferiority of "The coloured Man" by measuring skulls....

Originally posted by diakrite
On racism; YES,Darwin was a racist,

Have you read this?

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist


reply to post by shamhat

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm sure you realize your views come off as a bit anthropocentric but that is just a characteristic of human nature that we all share so that is not at all surprising.

I'm not sure how convincing it is, but just to get a 3rd parties view in the mix on how an alien life form may evolve:


(This video describes the reasons why evolution on other planets is NOT likely to result in life forms that resemble humans).

I agree there's good evidence for the possibility of panspermia within a solar system, but the likelihood seems to decline dramatically when you start talking about neighboring star systems. We have pieces of Mars impacting the earth, and perhaps other bodies in our solar system. But look at how immense the distances are to the nearest star systems. The speeds at which such debris travels would involve huge amounts of time just to travel to the nearest star system, not to mention more distant neighbors. But the likelihood of such Mars debris heading in the right direction to intersect with another star system is extremely low.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Creation and evolution are not at odds. It was created aged, with the appearance that it evolved. Works for me.

I would say a belief in God and Evolution are not at odds.

However a belief in young Earth Creationism with the appearance of evolution has some problems, as portrayed in this video:

I am not a young earth creationist. But what both creationists and atheists forget is that modern physics depicts time as a strictly local phenomenon. If you had a reference frame that started in the enormous gravity well of the singularity that existed at the beginning of time. From the start of the universe until now, only about 7 24 hour periods have passed. General relativity says that time slows down in the presence of a gravitational field.

Interestingly the Bible itself says that we have been in the seventh day of creation for essentially all of recorded history. Thus a day of creation may be very long indeed.

reply to post by SevenThunders

Interestingly the Bible itself says that we have been in the seventh day of creation for essentially all of recorded history. Thus a day of creation may be very long indeed.

But the bible doesn't say that creation was made in 7 2-billion-year-long 24 hour periods. It says 7 days. Why should we presume that it wasn't talking explicitly about 7 actual days. I mean, why would an eternal and all powerful being bother to work by a calendar?

And besides, in relativity you can make a day any length you want simply by picking and choosing what to make that day relative to.


There are a lot of unnecessary assumptions here.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Welfhard]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14f528e27535.jpg[/atsimg]

It's a shame that they did not show the film in USA - there would be more than 37 pages of replies. This program was not just about Charles Darwin - who interestingly wanted to become a Pastor and hence makes interest in its own right but was presented by God's Rottweiller - Richard Dawkins.

www.channel4.com...

As a Geneticist, he makes it clear that evolution is fact, although we cannit see it - we have tons of proof (from fossils to genetic codes).

I am trying to stay neutral because even as a fundamentalist agnostic, Richard Dawkins can be a little overpowering.

reply to post by templar knight

You folks are lucky you get to see it!

Maybe we'll get to see it in the USA eventually. I'll be watching it if we do.

I guess Darwin didn't have that fight with Jesus when he was studying the ministry, that must have been later...and why didn't Jesus turn the other cheek?

Yes Dawkins comes on a little too strong for me in his views on religion, but he makes a good case for evolution, especially since I think he disbelieved evolution at one time himself until the evidence convinced him.