Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[scandal 951]

Two seriously good reads. Check them out!

Your Inner Fish

Why Evolution is True

[NickD 203]

In reality, man hasn't invented anything, discovered is far more appropriate, we certainly cannot take credit for inventing ourselves nor for the needs we must have to simply survived, this was all given to us. In studying science, you learn a distinct order to the universe and everything in it, and can only wonder who the inventor or creator of all this stuff is.

If this wonder is religious in nature, then in that sense, I am very religious. Does this mean I buy what is passed to us from the ancients? That is a major contradiction with literally tens of thousands of religions all claiming to be the only true one. One way to learn the nature of the creator is to study science and certainly this creator in science does not contradict him/her self if the sex of this creator even applies. I no where believe what was passed to us in the disguise of scripture than I believe the world is flat. Especially if it contradicts science. Always loved science, it's predictable, can be mathematically defined, pure, and always trustworthy, one reason why I detested politics and particularly BSers. Man, do we have a surplus of BSers in this world. Wonder what the real creator thinks about them?

Actually, we discover and invent everyday. Discovery might be the concept of the world being round and not flat as was previously assumed; invention - we have inventions all the time - some of the simplest were hybridized fruits and vegetables. Boysenberries aren't a naturally occuring fruit in this world - but, Walter Knott in his farm in California one day decided to cross a blackberry with a raspberry to see what would happen and he got a boysenberry. That's invention - not discovery.

Can't agree with that if an invention does not follow the predetermined but even unknown laws of science that is discovered, even in the course of attempting to invent something, that invention won't work.

Established science is mutually agreed upon and by all nations and peoples of the world, now show me one religion that can claim the same thing.

[SMR 368]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

Actually, gravity is repeatable. You can perform a repeatable experiment and measure gravity. Evolution, not so much. Just because we can't explain the inner "why?" of gravity does disqualify it as science.

And once again I divert your clear ignorance of evolutionary biology to your nearest journal in the field.

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

there is mathematical evidence proving the ability of an infinitesimal region containing an infite amount of energy and matter. It's called a Calabi-Yau space which compresses N-universal dimensions to fit it.

If you read M-theory, or supersimmetry theories, it proves the different forces that exist nowadays in the universe like gravity, or the universal expansion constant, were created at the moment of the big bang, and converge mathematically without leaving any weird gap

Damn!

You think evolution is experimentally repeatable. Get back to me on that.

Col. Bat Guano: Insulting my middle-school teachers is not a logical argument. Nor is stating that I think that the law of gravity isn't valid. Notice, it's the law of gravity because it has repeatable experimental proof--something that the theory of evolution lacks.

[SMR 368]

In reality, man hasn't invented anything, discovered is far more appropriate, we certainly cannot take credit for inventing ourselves nor for the needs we must have to simply survived, this was all given to us. In studying science, you learn a distinct order to the universe and everything in it, and can only wonder who the inventor or creator of all this stuff is.

If this wonder is religious in nature, then in that sense, I am very religious. Does this mean I buy what is passed to us from the ancients? That is a major contradiction with literally tens of thousands of religions all claiming to be the only true one. One way to learn the nature of the creator is to study science and certainly this creator in science does not contradict him/her self if the sex of this creator even applies. I no where believe what was passed to us in the disguise of scripture than I believe the world is flat. Especially if it contradicts science. Always loved science, it's predictable, can be mathematically defined, pure, and always trustworthy, one reason why I detested politics and particularly BSers. Man, do we have a surplus of BSers in this world. Wonder what the real creator thinks about them?

Actually, we discover and invent everyday. Discovery might be the concept of the world being round and not flat as was previously assumed; invention - we have inventions all the time - some of the simplest were hybridized fruits and vegetables. Boysenberries aren't a naturally occuring fruit in this world - but, Walter Knott in his farm in California one day decided to cross a blackberry with a raspberry to see what would happen and he got a boysenberry. That's invention - not discovery.

Can't agree with that if an invention does not follow the predetermined but even unknown laws of science that is discovered, even in the course of attempting to invent something, that invention won't work.

Established science is mutually agreed upon and by all nations and peoples of the world, now show me one religion that can claim the same thing.

I thought this thread started with the statement that only 39% of Americans believe evolution (not saying that Americans are more important than others but I don't have data for the world at large).

Now, I don't believe that truth is something that can be voted on. But you brought up the argument of majority rules in science. Even if a majority of people, believed in evolution, that wouldn't be scientifically admissible evidence. And since there isn't a majority, your argument looks kind of silly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

Actually, gravity is repeatable. You can perform a repeatable experiment and measure gravity. Evolution, not so much. Just because we can't explain the inner "why?" of gravity does disqualify it as science.

And once again I divert your clear ignorance of evolutionary biology to your nearest journal in the field.

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

there is mathematical evidence proving the ability of an infinitesimal region containing an infite amount of energy and matter. It's called a Calabi-Yau space which compresses N-universal dimensions to fit it.

If you read M-theory, or supersimmetry theories, it proves the different forces that exist nowadays in the universe like gravity, or the universal expansion constant, were created at the moment of the big bang, and converge mathematically without leaving any weird gap

Damn!

You think evolution is experimentally repeatable. Get back to me on that.

Col. Bat Guano: Insulting my middle-school teachers is not a logical argument. Nor is stating that I think that the law of gravity isn't valid. Notice, it's the law of gravity because it has repeatable experimental proof--something that the theory of evolution lacks.

You don't even realize the difference between Law of Gravity and the Theory of Gravity.

Seriously, did you take any science courses in High School? College?

[HAL 9000 96]

So, according the SMR, the theory of gravity is not science.

Where did he get his education? Someone needs to go back there and slap his teacher.

Actually, gravity is repeatable. You can perform a repeatable experiment and measure gravity. Evolution, not so much. Just because we can't explain the inner "why?" of gravity does disqualify it as science.

And once again I divert your clear ignorance of evolutionary biology to your nearest journal in the field.

How do you compress all matter into an infinitesimal region? What evidence shows that? Did the big bang create time space and matter?

there is mathematical evidence proving the ability of an infinitesimal region containing an infite amount of energy and matter. It's called a Calabi-Yau space which compresses N-universal dimensions to fit it.

If you read M-theory, or supersimmetry theories, it proves the different forces that exist nowadays in the universe like gravity, or the universal expansion constant, were created at the moment of the big bang, and converge mathematically without leaving any weird gap

Damn!

You think evolution is experimentally repeatable. Get back to me on that.

Col. Bat Guano: Insulting my middle-school teachers is not a logical argument. Nor is stating that I think that the law of gravity isn't valid. Notice, it's the law of gravity because it has repeatable experimental proof--something that the theory of evolution lacks.

It is. I've already repeated two ways in which evolution is not only qualitatively observable, but quantitatively as well. Three times prior to this I believe. In this same thread. Please read responsibly.

[NickD 203]

Theory is theory until it's proven, then it's science, science involves finding relics of our ancesstors and attempting to the best of their ability to determined how we were formed. Evolution has practically an infinite set of variables associated with it, and thus is far more complex.

The only way science can succeed is with freedom of thought and wonder. Most religions go against that philosophy and prefer to have a bunch of dumb stupid sheep that are very trustworthy creatures that are led to slaughter. We can be very thankful today for our medical and other advances to just a very small handful of men that had the courage to break away from these traditions.

Those that condemn evolution should equally condemn the advances of medicine, both are science, and if they get ill, can cut them so they bleed to death when actually believe they are releasing evil spirits from their bodies.

[HAL 9000 96]

Theory is theory until it's proven, then it's science, science involves finding relics of our ancesstors and attempting to the best of their ability to determined how we were formed. Evolution has practically an infinite set of variables associated with it, and thus is far more complex.

The only way science can succeed is with freedom of thought and wonder. Most religions go against that philosophy and prefer to have a bunch of dumb stupid sheep that are very trustworthy creatures that are led to slaughter. We can be very thankful today for our medical and other advances to just a very small handful of men that had the courage to break away from these traditions.

Those that condemn evolution should equally condemn the advances of medicine, both are science, and if they get ill, can cut them so they bleed to death when actually believe they are releasing evil spirits from their bodies.

Science encompasses the entire construction of knowledge, Nick. Hence we have the scientific method.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Pooky 3,930]

Theory is theory until it's proven, then it's science, science involves finding relics of our ancesstors and attempting to the best of their ability to determined how we were formed. Evolution has practically an infinite set of variables associated with it, and thus is far more complex.

The only way science can succeed is with freedom of thought and wonder. Most religions go against that philosophy and prefer to have a bunch of dumb stupid sheep that are very trustworthy creatures that are led to slaughter. We can be very thankful today for our medical and other advances to just a very small handful of men that had the courage to break away from these traditions.

Those that condemn evolution should equally condemn the advances of medicine, both are science, and if they get ill, can cut them so they bleed to death when actually believe they are releasing evil spirits from their bodies.

Science encompasses the entire construction of knowledge, Nick. Hence we have the scientific method.

Science is the framework within which theories are investigated and laws are proven.

Evolution is a theory, which, due to its nature, is continually evolving and best fits the facts currently known. But evolution cannot disprove the existence of God. Creationism relies on the word of man that God exists, argues that evolution is bunk and spits in the face of the evidence available. Intelligent Design is where Creationists go when the weight of evidence proves overwhelming, yet they can't let go of the notion that someone has to have thought this all up and made it happen.

The Bible is not the first Holy Book written, nor will it be the last. But it was written by man. So was On the Origin of Species. One is a work of faith that man passed on the word of God. One was the work of a scientist observing his surroundings. I know which one I would rely on in a test of science. Just as I know which one I would rely on in a test of Faith.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Who's the odd one out?

[pedroh 21]

I've always been curious of why America is one of the few, if not the only of advanced countries who still can't accept evolution as science and leave it out books and it's questioned.. I guess fundamentalism is quite strong, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Even in countries with a high homogeneous religion, i.e. any Catholic country, don't have any problem with combining religion and evolution. Is it really just american protestantism?

[HAL 9000 96]

Theory is theory until it's proven, then it's science, science involves finding relics of our ancesstors and attempting to the best of their ability to determined how we were formed. Evolution has practically an infinite set of variables associated with it, and thus is far more complex.

The only way science can succeed is with freedom of thought and wonder. Most religions go against that philosophy and prefer to have a bunch of dumb stupid sheep that are very trustworthy creatures that are led to slaughter. We can be very thankful today for our medical and other advances to just a very small handful of men that had the courage to break away from these traditions.

Those that condemn evolution should equally condemn the advances of medicine, both are science, and if they get ill, can cut them so they bleed to death when actually believe they are releasing evil spirits from their bodies.

Science encompasses the entire construction of knowledge, Nick. Hence we have the scientific method.

Science is the framework within which theories are investigated and laws are proven.

Evolution is a theory, which, due to its nature, is continually evolving and best fits the facts currently known. But evolution cannot disprove the existence of God. Creationism relies on the word of man that God exists, argues that evolution is bunk and spits in the face of the evidence available. Intelligent Design is where Creationists go when the weight of evidence proves overwhelming, yet they can't let go of the notion that someone has to have thought this all up and made it happen.

The Bible is not the first Holy Book written, nor will it be the last. But it was written by man. So was On the Origin of Species. One is a work of faith that man passed on the word of God. One was the work of a scientist observing his surroundings. I know which one I would rely on in a test of science. Just as I know which one I would rely on in a test of Faith.

Exactly. Theology is theology and science is science.

[HAL 9000 96]

I've always been curious of why America is one of the few, if not the only of advanced countries who still can't accept evolution as science and leave it out books and it's questioned.. I guess fundamentalism is quite strong, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Even in countries with a high homogeneous religion, i.e. any Catholic country, don't have any problem with combining religion and evolution. Is it really just american protestantism?

I am not willing to blame any one organized religion. To me this is a social stupidity issue that ranks right up there with the things we allow out government to do to us in the name of certain cliched concepts of freedom and the apparent danger of critical thought as opposite to these same things.

[pedroh 21]

I've always been curious of why America is one of the few, if not the only of advanced countries who still can't accept evolution as science and leave it out books and it's questioned.. I guess fundamentalism is quite strong, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Even in countries with a high homogeneous religion, i.e. any Catholic country, don't have any problem with combining religion and evolution. Is it really just american protestantism?

I am not willing to blame any one organized religion. To me this is a social stupidity issue that ranks right up there with the things we allow out government to do to us in the name of certain cliched concepts of freedom and the apparent danger of critical thought as opposite to these same things.

yea I guess you're right, maybe after all leaving education to each state's jurisdiction is not a good Idea, without comparing it to international standards, it's dangerous to leave it to some numbnut that thinks that Fred Flintstone chilled with the Dinosaurs, and Evolution is fake since it doesn't go along with his beliefs