Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Exactly. There are no scientific proofs for either side because neither evolution nor creation can be observed, or repeated in controlled experiments.

There are evidences, and there are interpretations and explanations for the evidences.

The question for the informed observer becomes, which interpretations and explanations are more reasonable and logical.

The fact that I believe that the scientific creationism model is more logical and reasonable is irrelevant, unless you are one of my fans and hang on my every word.

So what I am saying is that people should look at the creationist interpretation and explanation of the same evidence before jumping on the evolutionist band wagon and using insults aimed at God, Christians, creationists, and the bible to support their arguments.

reply to post by John Matrix

...neither evolution nor creation can be observed...

That's only half correct.

Evolutionary events in some species HAVE been observed.

An example was given earlier -- bacteria evolving to become more resistant to anti-biotics.

Now, I know some may say that's just adaptation at work, but in essence the adapting is a fundamental stage of evolution.

But, really the main ting that should shoot down the "creationism" bull pucky is simply the incredible AMOUNT of different kinds of life that currently exist. Stuff that most people have NO idea about. On ocean floors. In rain forests.

There are likely entire SPECIES that evolve, and go extinct, and Humans never even discover them.

Then, we have to continue to consider the Trillions of prior lifeforms, no longer alive or in existance.....

reply to post by Jim Scott



Jim Scott, if you don't get an applause for that post, let me just say if it were up to me, you would. The striking similarities and drop dead spot on analogy you just gave is a testament to the reasons things have got so messed up not to mention the reason they won't get any better. As clear as I can see and trace the dots back to where things go wrong and as much as I see people defending a science that is no more a science than astrology. The more I see people mock those believing in "invisible men in the sky" from old books written by men they try to prove never existed.

While in the same vain they believe their own books that change their theory whenever it is proven wrong again who were also written by men about something, some series of events and storys about something we can't prove exists even longer and longer billions of years longer ago when NO ONE was there to witness it, much less have scribes who claim they did and actually compiled scrolls .

The fact this monumental hypocrisy eludes their cognitive reasoning and that they have made critical thinking and logic the center of their uncritically peer reviewed concensus science religion using the most illogical interpretations of fossils going from a concensus of rare if ever found at all to one of automatically considered a transition like evolution is considered a fact without substantiation can ONLY be that which you have given as a reflection of mans own delusion and devolution.

I guess it's all just a coincedence to them eh?

Weed quit arguing things no one has an argument with. In other words DO NOT equivocate DME for what is clearly understood as variation and adaptation. Bacteria adapt, they do not evolve and even lenskys little bit about the citrate eating e-coli was proven supplemented with sugar and NO ONE but NOO ONE has ever seen bacteria become anything but bacteria. You keep hammering away at a pie in the sky and nothing you can do can change the FACT that the only thing man has ever observed in any form of test in science is

E-coli evolving into e-coli

Bats evolving into bats

Dogs evolving into more kinds of? DOGS!

Cats into cats, rats into rats and

MAN evolving into MAN.

DNA has proven evolution the kind you don't seem to want to address but always "re-dress" as variation within kinds, and kingdoms of animals when you talk about a-sexual creatures evolving a resistance to bacteria but can not actually tell us how they did that, it is because YOU don't know that another bacteria already having a genetic predisposition for being unaffected to an anti bacterial agent, merely injects its properties into the others and when you don't kill the army of them, they can overwhelm the enemy. That is not evolution my friend.


"The fossil record of the living great apes is poor. The orangutan is actually the only great ape that has a fossil record. No African fossil has ever been found that is related to chimpanzees or gorillas."

That was National Geographic that said that.

Of those links that purport to be a transition to man, NOT ONE has been used as an example of transitional form that didn't have over half the entire fossil rendered to fit that idea by artisans and paleontologists interpretation and by the way paleo's don't do experiments.

What science does today is looks for corroborating material, discards anything remotely looking like it was designed and calls anything that does look that way, an illusion? Yeah? I call that a delusion and one science has been quick to deny fast to accuse and has an entire community of wannabe hobby chemists and kitchen cosmetologists thinking they are on par with Dawkins as scientists themselves.

Even Dawkins has said he "believes but can not prove" natural selection and mutation brought about all the diverse creatures we see.

But even he has a problem telling us what the common ancestor is, and even he uses words suggesting wild speculation he has not begun to corroborate and is most likely the reason he was stumped here.

This goes into a little more than the being stumped part though, this exploits his inability to answer the original question AND when he does give an answer he has had time to rehearse, even THAT is full of contradictions. The stuff we believe about Darwin is what cartoons are made for. Our Imagination in animated format.






[edit on 14-9-2009 by Stylez]

Guys, these are all good arguments.

However, I am slightly amazed by the narrow focus here. I am not calling anybody stupid, since I am not a scientist.

But why are we EXCLUDING the very probable and very scientific possibility that we were created by "GODS" who were genetic scientists.

Originally posted by supermuble
Guys, these are all good arguments.

However, I am slightly amazed by the narrow focus here. I am not calling anybody stupid, since I am not a scientist.

But why are we EXCLUDING the very probable and very scientific possibility that we were created by "GODS" who were genetic scientists.

Ill tell you why, because most of these people are as Mr Scott observed, have an axe to grind with religion. They fear the religious implcations that God, (if there is such a thing) had a religion and that religion isn't allowed in science because, well justr because religion isn't allowed that's why! I mean they use science to find out how things work in every field of endeavor from thoughts we have to mechanics, I mean you can study anything using science EXCEPT RELIGION. Their are no such things as creation scientists. Why Not?

Well because it isn't science?

Yeah we know that but finding evidence their is a designer somewhere out there isn't a religion except to those who have more motive to call it that than those who don't. That would be Darwinists and is why other sciences have no problem with Christians or religions .

People who may be dealing with sinful vices religion talks about or fear if their is a God, it must be the one that I hated, talked about in the bible and Whoooa that is just OUT of the QUESTION!

Well guess what, if it is out of the question, the answer will always be out of reach and that is why Science has had very few answers about this.

They have no questions, they have their consensus based collective minds made up and would still rather be using Haekels tweaked fraudulent embryos to teach science, rather than tell those kids the truth, that none of pictures depict an accurate account of anything.

This is why most people really don't know much about eveolution because what they teach is a load of crap

reply to post by John Matrix

So you think the only peer review that is legitimate is peer reviews by evolutionist scientists?

No the only legitimate review is an unbiased review.

Nature or Science weren’t set up to prove evolution; they have no inherent bias towards any particular theory. The “International Journal for Creation Research” however has a pretty clear agenda.

To most people saying that something is peer reviewed means that it has been published in an unbiased journal.

So let’s be clear, no paper that supports creationism has survived the peer review process in another other than a creationist publication.

Correct?

Remember, the majority of scientists believe evolution in order to get on the money train

Prove it.

Originally posted by refuse_orders
..............Does science mean nothing to these Christian nutjobs? .....

My young hyper, friend....

I dare you to first slow down, take a deep breath....

And spend a day in real balanced research....

like: www.eadshome.com...

or: www.tektonics.org...

or: www.godandscience.org...

You must realize, we owe more to Christians, who were scientists/who discovered most foundational truths, then you seem to know.

Sure there are whackjobs out there, but if you want to believe, time chance, goo, etc etc made you, please go ahead....

OT

PS: Your hyperbole in the OP about 39%!!!! means you need balance .... sorry

[edit on 14-9-2009 by OldThinker]

reply to post by Mike_A



Do you believe time and chance created you/me?

If yes, than your avatar is a oxymoron, right?



OT

Originally posted by John Matrix
.....So what I am saying is that people should look at the creationist interpretation and explanation of the same evidence before jumping on the evolutionist band wagon and using insults aimed at God, Christians, creationists, and the bible to support their arguments.

Oh John, blindness won't allow most deniers to see your clear truth above, bummer

Skeptics, how bout the scientist that made over 300 "peer reviewed"
discoveries, what does the ole guy have to add here.....

George Washington Carver emerges as one of history's most remarkable men! How?

"The Lord has guided me," Carver was heard often to say. "He has shown me the way, just as He will show everyone who turns to Him." Carver declared, "Without my Savior, I am nothing." With his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, George Washington Carver was greatly used by God to discover countless numbers of scientific wonders and to lead a life which has inspired millions.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


WW, Basic question.....

WHY do you believe your came from apes? Simple question...WHY?

Not how?
Not what?
Not when?

WHY????????????

I awaitin UTC!

reply to post by OldThinker




Not directed at me my friend, but I'll take a shot at it anyway.

We don't come from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.

This is a common misconception.


The old "If we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around" thing....



Modern apes did evolve too.... they are different from the apes of old and evolved over pretty much the same time period we did.
Different geographical locations and environments meant that the species' differed somewhat.

Modern humans and modern apes all had a common ancestor from which the two populations diverged, we didn't linearly evolve directly from modern apes.


As to the why...

Because it makes the most sense.





[edit on 14/9/09 by blupblup]

reply to post by OldThinker

With his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, George Washington Carver was greatly used by God...

Irrelevant. If George Washington Carver (or an equivalent) had lived 3,000 years ago, and was equally devout for whatever popular flavour of 'god' at the time (pick one), then "he" would have simply used THAT 'god' as being 'behind' him.

GWC (as an ancient Greek scientist): "I was greatly used by Thor. HE hast shown me, and directed my discovery and understanding of the nature of lightning."
_______________________________________________________

Oh, and blupblup has adequately answered the inherent mistake in your question, the monkey fallacy.

Thanks blup

The "WHY"?? How can anyone know the answer to that? I don't really think it's important as a question, anyway.

IF I may be bold and guess at the reason for your question, it seems you are inclined to believe that there is some greater purpose involved in the fact that Humans happen to be self-aware and more intelligent than other animals?

Ahhhh...there's the rub. BUT FOR a catastrophic global event that resulted in the devastation of the planet's ecosystem quite a while ago, we would not be here discussing this.

Had the event that caused the extinction of the majority of dinosaurs not happened, then it's highly probable that by now there would be some other intelligent, tool-using species dominating this planet.

Why not ask WHY they were not allowed to have the same "gift" as the hominids??

Luck of the draw, methinks.



[edit on 14 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Oh, and blupblup has successfully answered for me, I have nothing to add.

Thanks blup

[edit on 14 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Hey mate, didn't mean to answer for ya
I just thought I'd have a bash at the question you know.




But you're most welcome anyway.

reply to post by blupblup


LOL! I edited, because I did think of something to add, after all!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by blupblup

 

LOL! I edited, because I did think of something to add, after all!!!

Good on ya.
And yes, It's a very good point.

Isn't the evolutionary process a remarkable and wonderfully diverse thing?

reply to post by blupblup


Weed, Bull your both right...
And yes what an amazing thing it really is.

Please note, this reply is directed at Stylez, who chose to post a cartoon about evolution. Therefore I am recommending that Stylez watch this but nobody else.

Originally posted by Stylez
The stuff we believe about Darwin is what cartoons are made for. Our Imagination in animated format.

Stylez, unlike your cartoon, at least some cartoons consider both the Darwin and the creation views:
Please note: This does not represent my personal point of view, it is a response to the cartoon posted by Stylez only.


However they are just cartoons, I don't take any cartoons seriously. I do think the cartoon you posted would be a little more watchable if they avoided the repetitive edits of the same words over and over again.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix

 

...neither evolution nor creation can be observed...

That's only half correct.

Evolutionary events in some species HAVE been observed.

An example was given earlier -- bacteria evolving to become more resistant to anti-biotics.

Having survival mechanisms encoded into DNA by way of intelligent design from the creator is a reasonable conclusion. In other words, survival and adaptation is encoded into DNA, which is why we build up immunities and why bodybuilders develop large muscles and can lift heavier things.....it's why Eskimos get used to zub zero weather. But they are still humans and that will never change because survival mechanisms have their limitations and they don't produce mutations that are beneficial to us.

reply to post by OldThinker


Man/Woman are just another branch of ape. See for yourself - visit other primates in their wild habitats, or a zoo at least, and keep an open mind about the issue at least.

I wish people would think more scientifically, that doesn't mean they have to all learn science, but it would be great if everyone used reason and logic more often!


[edit on 14-9-2009 by john124]