Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Personally I believe that the universe and everything in it IS God.

Well there's something you can build on at least. My problem is with people who claim to know that there is no God and try to explain that using science. Also calling their fantasy beginning to the universe the "big bang" which has no evidence what-so-ever.

[Peikko 1,575]

Excellent, we have at least one promoter of creatinism, the false god of ignorance, in our midst. How delightful.

And we have at least one person who never addresses anything but attacks poster after poster. DELIGHTFUL!

You shouldn't use broad generalisations to label this group or that. Because i'm asking questions that doesn't mean i'm a creationist. How do you know every issue that I agree or disagree with? hmmm? How do you know i'm not an old earth creationist? Hmmm?

Maybe you should address the issue at hand rather than slapping labels and grouping people together as "creationists" and "evolutionists". There are so many middle areas you aren't addressing here.

Sound familiar?

I can't say why you felt yourself to be the target of my post, only you can do that.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

yea agree.. this really poses a problem with the ideal of 'freedom' that this country is so proud of giving to its individuals, is freedom so worth it even in if promotes ignorance?

What would Kanye say?

Ooh, I was disappointed that other thread got shut down, because I wanted to ask if anyone had seen the smackdown Jay Leno gave him....

Jay Leno is racist for asking those questions.

Excellent, we have at least one promoter of creatinism, the false god of ignorance, in our midst. How delightful.

And we have at least one person who never addresses anything but attacks poster after poster. DELIGHTFUL!

You shouldn't use broad generalisations to label this group or that. Because i'm asking questions that doesn't mean i'm a creationist. How do you know every issue that I agree or disagree with? hmmm? How do you know i'm not an old earth creationist? Hmmm?

Maybe you should address the issue at hand rather than slapping labels and grouping people together as "creationists" and "evolutionists". There are so many middle areas you aren't addressing here.

Sound familiar?

I can't say why you felt yourself to be the target of my post, only you can do that.

Lets see here. Your post fell directly after mine, and you didn't quote anyone. So either you were referring to me or just trying to bait someone into responding. Your call.

[tmma 467]

Why can't anyone agree to disagree about this?

Serious question.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

OK it wasn't directly after, but we both know you weren't talking to Pike.

[Peikko 1,575]

Try again, it was directly after PP. NM. It wasn't directed at anyone just a general observation. If you feel you want to respond in defence of the false god of ignorance, what can I say?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Try again, it was directly after PP. Try again.

oo you're so clever.

[Peikko 1,575]

Thanks for the vote of confidence although I don't need it. The promotion of creatinism is the promotion of ignorance. There is no defence for doing that in my opinion.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Try again, it was directly after PP. NM. It wasn't directed at anyone just a general observation. If you feel you want to respond in defence of the false god of ignorance, what can I say?

Ok good, i'm glad you addressed the substance of the discussion.

[Peikko 1,575]

Certainly there is no defence in christianity for promoting ignorance, in fact I would go so far as to say that within that schema, that could be considered conspiring with the devil.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Certainly there is no defence in christianity for promoting ignorance, in fact I would go so far as to say that within that schema, that could be considered conspiring with the devil.

Ok good, now we're getting to the real meat and potatoes of a scientific discussion. Thanks for all the info.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am always happy to be of service clarifying these little points of contention.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally I believe that the universe and everything in it IS God.

Well there's something you can build on at least. My problem is with people who claim to know that there is no God and try to explain that using science. Also calling their fantasy beginning to the universe the "big bang" which has no evidence what-so-ever.

To be fair Joe, there is both observational evidence in both astronomy and astrophysics - it isn't a theory that someone arbitrarily pulled out of their #######, which is what you seem to be implying.

There are some gaps in the knowledge - namely the existence of hypothetical existence of dark energy and dark matter, not to mention new branches of physics such as string theory.

The thing is, I honestly don't see the work of theoretical physicists as being politically motivated - and the whole line of argument that you (and others) seem to be promoting is that somehow the people who accept the work of these scientists at face value should be the emphasis of your criticism and not the work of the scientists themselves.

Essentially its the ignorant arguing with the ignorant, as noone here (myself included) is that clued up on theoretical physics (or evolutionary theory) to make the best case for either Big Bang Theory or Evolutionary Biology; just as you aren't in possession of the knowledge to adequately refute it.

I do however think its perfectly reasonable to point out that while there is disagreement within the scientific community over the exact nature of certain theories, the broad thrust of work in that direction is carried out by reputable scientists and scientific institutions.

The folks promoting creationism and the like do not have a similar pedigree of research to back up their claims - that's why they spend all of their time making semantic pseudo philosophic arguments about gaps in knowledge or the deficiencies of research carried out by others.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why can't anyone agree to disagree about this?

Serious question.

Serious answer. I think on the whole most people do in the sense that they recognise that it is extremely difficult to get people to shift positions, particularly from such polarized positions as creationism and evolution. That the two can even be viewed of opposite sides of the same coin I find extremely spurious but such is the way of the world.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

And yet no one answered my questions. You want to call certain things science yet you can't answer fundamental questions.

You want to say, "it comes from reputable scientists" Why are they reputable? If they can't answer a simple question. Ok, I'll make statements instead, and someone show where its ever been done.

Demonstrate where an explosion has ever created order. Demonstrate where one creature has ever transformed into another creature. Demonstrate how life came from non-living matter without the use of intelligence. Demonstrate where a star has ever been observed being born (and i don't mean, "oo look a bright spot i didn't see before").

Show me those, and i'll be a believer.