Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[The_Dude 1,142]

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.

You really should go back to school to learn all this as it is mostly undergraduate level material. However, I do think that even with the facts sitting right in front of you, you'd still believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that we have not evolved throughout history. Which leads to my next question. Why would someone bother to track down all this information and validation when you clearly wouldn't read it or would discard it out of hand because it doesn't fit in with your set in stone belief system? Do your own homework and read up on it. The information is out there. Here is a link to start out with HERE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I can't show you Joe - perhaps you missed the part where I said that these discussions are pointless because noone here is in a position to accurately represent or refute the science in question. The fact that noone here has (or can) answer your questions doesn't mean that the work of the scientists is invalid. All it means is that people here don't have the information to make the best case for it.

There's no obligation on me to prove what I believe, just as there is no obligation for you to do likewise. Its my personal belief that the work of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists is not politically motivated, you seem to believe the opposite and have advanced no more proof of that than I have in its favor.

The real problem I have with this creationism stuff is that so much of it seems to rely on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and I think to do so exposes a distinct lack of imagination on the part of its proponents.

Quite simply, if you constrain your concept of God to the literal interpretation of a religious text - it doesn't allow for the possibility that a supreme being might actually be larger in scale and of an entirely different order of intelligence that you might have conceived. To me, all Evolution and Big Bang Theory does is make the scope and detail of creation that much more profound. If you can accept that possibility, then there's no reason why science and religion can't co-exist.

There is plenty room in philosophical thought for God to exist that science doesn't infringe on, but because of this slavish adherence to literal interpretation of the Bible you're essentially shackling yourself to a simplistic and quite flawed idea.

In that sense arguing about the work of scientists is really missing the point.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[pedroh 21]

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.

You really should go back to school to learn all this as it is mostly undergraduate level material. However, I do think that even with the facts sitting right in front of you, you'd still believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago and that we have not evolved throughout history. Which leads to my next question. Why would someone bother to track down all this information and validation when you clearly wouldn't read it or would discard it out of hand because it doesn't fit in with your set in stone belief system? Do your own homework and read up on it. The information is out there. Here is a link to start out with HERE

well, I can't answer the biologic questions since it's not my topic. but the Universe expansion proves it came from a single point. all the planets and stars follow a path of expansion with a defined inflationary constant, which if reversed, it shows that all the galactic matter originated at a single point in space. Maybe it didn't make a "bang!".. but according to the heat mapping of the satellites, there was a huge explosion in that single point which temperature was so high that allowed for the fusion of certain elements.

Now for the star being born, tough luck on that one, star light traves from quite far, so a star we see today it might have been formed centuries ago, and having a star nearby us to see how it's born, wouldn't be such a good idea for our planet...

btw if u wanna see an example of a singularity with an infinitesimal area and an inifite density and energy, look at a black hole.. that's certainly no magic

[Heracles 417]

Realistically speaking why would the bible discuss the actual theory of creationism. The first section of it was written thousands of years ago. As such, there is no way people would have comprehended it in those days. As it stands, we have acquired a good portion of our knowledge in the past century.

I think it's the biggest mistake people make confusing religion for science and vice versa. The two are not interchangeable. The mistake many of my fellow Christians make is that they try to explain one using the other; it's just not possible or logical to do so. The mistake many scientist make is trying to use science to discredit the sands of time.

[Peikko 1,575]

and now, for some more exciting science!

AP – This image provided by the European Southern Observatory Wednesday Sept. 16, 2009 shows an artist rendition …

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – 45 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Astronomers have finally found a place outside our solar system where there's a firm place to stand — if only it weren't so broiling hot.

As scientists search the skies for life elsewhere, they have found more than 300 planets outside our solar system. But they all have been gas balls or can't be proven to be solid. Now a team of European astronomers has confirmed the first rocky extrasolar planet.

Scientists have long figured that if life begins on a planet, it needs a solid surface to rest on, so finding one elsewhere is a big deal.

"We basically live on a rock ourselves," said co-discoverer Artie Hatzes, director of the Thuringer observatory in Germany. "It's as close to something like the Earth that we've found so far. It's just a little too close to its sun."

So close that its surface temperature is more than 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit, too toasty to sustain life. It circles its star in just 20 hours, zipping around at 466,000 mph. By comparison, Mercury, the planet nearest our sun, completes its solar orbit in 88 days.

"It's hot, they're calling it the lava planet," Hatzes said.

This is a major discovery in the field of trying to find life elsewhere in the universe, said outside expert Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution. It was the buzz of a conference on finding an Earth-like planet outside our solar system, held in Barcelona, Spain, where the discovery was presented Wednesday morning. The find is also being published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

The planet is called Corot-7b. It was first discovered earlier this year. European scientists then watched it dozens of times to measure its density to prove that it is rocky like Earth. It's in our general neighborhood, circling a star in the winter sky about 500 light-years away. Each light-year is about 6 trillion miles.

Four planets in our solar system are rocky: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

In addition, the planet is about as close to Earth in size as any other planet found outside our solar system. Its radius is only one-and-a-half times bigger than Earth's and it has a mass about five times the Earth's.

Now that another rocky planet has been found so close to its own star, it gives scientists more confidence that they'll find more Earth-like planets farther away, where the conditions could be more favorable to life, Boss said.

"The evidence is becoming overwhelming that we live in a crowded universe," Boss said.

Link

Talk about neat!

However, it's "European", so it probably doesn't count

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think purely from an observational point of view - it pays to look at how many scientists and scientific institutions there are out there in countries around the world doing this kind of work.

Then you look at the institutions promoting Creationism - and find that not only can you count them on the fingers of one hand, but that they are all (every one of them) attached in some ways to organized religion.

[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.

I can't show you Joe - perhaps you missed the part where I said that these discussions are pointless because noone here is in a position to accurately represent or refute the science in question. The fact that noone here has (or can) answer your questions doesn't mean that the work of the scientists is invalid. All it means is that people here don't have the information to make the best case for it.

There's no obligation on me to prove what I believe, just as there is no obligation for you to do likewise. Its my personal belief that the work of evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists is not politically motivated, you seem to believe the opposite and have advanced no more proof of that than I have in its favor.

The real problem I have with this creationism stuff is that so much of it seems to rely on a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and I think to do so exposes a distinct lack of imagination on the part of its proponents.

Quite simply, if you constrain your concept of God to the literal interpretation of a religious text - it doesn't allow for the possibility that a supreme being might actually be larger in scale and of an entirely different order of intelligence that you might have conceived. To me, all Evolution and Big Bang Theory does is make the scope and detail of creation that much more profound. If you can accept that possibility, then there's no reason why science and religion can't co-exist.

There is plenty room in philosophical thought for God to exist that science doesn't infringe on, but because of this slavish adherence to literal interpretation of the Bible you're essentially shackling yourself to a simplistic and quite flawed idea.

In that sense arguing about the work of scientists is really missing the point.

Pike I like your responses the best. Not that you need my validation, but you are being the most rational and not lashing out.

I don't necessarily think its politically motivated, I think its that some people are so against the alternative that they are willing to accept whatever Godless item they can grasp at. Like my friend here who keeps using items such as dark matter, and black holes - 1 of which is only an idea, and the second, everyone knows squat about it other than a huge gravitational area that even has hold over light itself. If black holes are the best evidence of a big bang, then excuse me if i continue to be skeptical and scoff.

Common sense tells you that all matter could not fit into this "." area. What is the driving force behind the infinitesimal region forming to begin with. If the big bang created time-space-matter what was before it? You can ask the same thing of God, but the answer is God. He is eternal. Like a line, going backward forever, and forward forever.

Can someone please answer this. Are matter and energy eternal or not?

[pedroh 21]

well.. I am not atheist, I'm Catholic, catholics agree with evolution, so is not that a scientific concept as the big bang is godless, and can't get along with the Bible..

it's mainly the american protestantism that has a beef with evolution

[Peikko 1,575]

Realistically speaking why would the bible discuss the actual theory of creationism. The first section of it was written thousands of years ago. As such, there is no way people would have comprehended it in those days. As it stands, we have acquired a good portion of our knowledge in the past century.

I think it's the biggest mistake people make confusing religion for science and vice versa. The two are not interchangeable. The mistake many of my fellow Christians make is that they try to explain one using the other; it's just not possible or logical to do so. The mistake many scientist make is trying to use science to discredit the sands of time.

By that I presume you mean discredit the existence of god? It is not my understanding that any scientist has the theory of god existence up for discussion. Understanding the how of the universe is not an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of omnipotence, whatever one chooses to call it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I think purely from an observational point of view - it pays to look at how many scientists and scientific institutions there are out there in countries around the world doing this kind of work.

Then you look at the institutions promoting Creationism - and find that not only can you count them on the fingers of one hand, but that they are all (every one of them) attached in some ways to organized religion.

Pike come on.. You know that majority opinion doesn't make something true or correct. You say observational, but then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from it, which it looks like you are.

Majority of scientists believed the world was flat at one time. Majority thought larger objects fell faster. If you were ill, you had bad blood and needed it to come out (George Washington).

Why can't we just discuss it?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

well.. I am not atheist, I'm Catholic, catholics agree with evolution, so is not that a scientific concept as the big bang is godless, and can't get along with the Bible..

it's mainly the american protestantism that has a beef with evolution

Pedro I said "SOME" people.

There goes that pesky grouping and labeling again that everyone has a problem with unless they agree with it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Where did the matter come from in the big bang? Was it created or is it eternal? No other choice.

Can you give an example of when something ever explodes and creates order? Why did it explode?

How does life form from non-living material? They may have gotten some amino acids and tar when they tried to zap life into existence, but thats not life. And if they did create life, it only proves that intelligence is needed to create life.

You claim you've proven macro-evolution - I'm not seeing it. Saying, "read so and so journal" is a cop-out. Just post here proof that one creature had different creatures later on down its line. Or do you believe in Ontogeny (sp?)Recapitulates Phylogeny?

World is already getting too complicated, I definitely need more RAM in my brain and recall is getting bad, took me two days to recall a house address I knew very well 25 years ago. Learn a computer language, it's obsolete in a couple of years, way to many different kinds of medications to remember, can't even memorized the 1,525 different government agencies we now have nor the eleven thousand pages of IRS rules and regulations. If I call someone, have to memorize 2-4 numbers instead of one. Just getting way to complicated, has to be an easier way.

I would say more disorder than complex.

Its really too lame to just tell you to quit... but your problem is the same as the other poster that had to have evolutionary biology reminded him more than twice.

You claim you've proven macro-evolution - I'm not seeing it. Saying, "read so and so journal" is a cop-out. Just post here proof that one creature had different creatures later on down its line. Or do you believe in Ontogeny (sp?)Recapitulates Phylogeny?

Has it been claimed that its proven? Once again ignorance of the scientific method is evident here. Why is it so hard to read these days for some folks?

But I'll entertain it so that perhaps, from a genetic perspective, you can understand one little snippet of a gene that has been conserved down the evolutionary line:

Gene for random sodium channel on the surface of a cell that conduces ions (net effect: electrical current- think neurons in the animal kingdom). Within the animal kingdom, this generic sodium channel has 4 subunits encoded for by 4 different genes. Lets focus on gene 1.

In humans, the genetic makeup of gene 1 has a certain sequence of nitrogenated bases in the pore region of the channel- right where sodium passes through the channel.

ATGCTGAGATACCAT

In chimps, this sequence is exactly identical. When we look at New World Monkeys, though (separated from Old World Monkeys and modern primate evolution- read, humans by several million years of geographic remodeling of the Earth's crust), the sequence is

AGTCTGTGATACCAT

There are two bases in there that are different from the upper sequence. The channel functions the 'same.'

Then low and behold, we look at a sea slug species- a nudibranch. To our dismay, we find a similar sodium channel in this animal's large neurons with the same homologous sequence snippet as:

ATGTTGTGATAACAC

That's three bases different from our own. Same function.

Then Dr. Joseph writes a grant and gets funded by a special society to study these channels in even simpler organisms- nematode worms. TO his extreme shock, he finds a snippet with 6 base pair differences from the human sequence.

This is how molecular biology works a lot of times in evolutionary biology.

Enter the fossil record of early hominid species. Enter homeodomain genes encoding for bone growth in humans (classified already- check out the Human Genome Project). Bones from ** habilis and ** sapiens are nearly identical except for some ape-like qualities. Same deal... slight variations in similar genes make the proteins encoded for by these genes change.

This is evidence for evolution by looking at both present-day species and longitudinally related species.

Its about embracing things with an open mind where critical thinking is permitted, not suppressed in favor of ignorance of what constitutes scientific evidence. So... go read. That's how many people learn.

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

Could be. I am in no position to refute the divine of everything.

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....

I missed it but lat night I was in stitches with Pedro's Kanye images.

[Peikko 1,575]

well.. I am not atheist, I'm Catholic, catholics agree with evolution, so is not that a scientific concept as the big bang is godless, and can't get along with the Bible..

it's mainly the american protestantism that has a beef with evolution

Pedro I said "SOME" people.

There goes that pesky grouping and labeling again that everyone has a problem with unless they agree with it.

You made this asserting directly to pedroh 'my friend who keeps referring to black holes blah blah blah'. Who are you trying to kid?

[pedroh 21]

well.. I am not atheist, I'm Catholic, catholics agree with evolution, so is not that a scientific concept as the big bang is godless, and can't get along with the Bible..

it's mainly the american protestantism that has a beef with evolution

Pedro I said "SOME" people.

There goes that pesky grouping and labeling again that everyone has a problem with unless they agree with it.

it's not pesky...catholics in the USA are a small number compared to all the protestant branches. I'm not saying that Catholics are better than protestants, but somehow some protestant communities are having a beef with evolution, even states banned (I don't know if they're still banned) evolution from being taught... other protestant religions around the world don't have an issue either, or not as much as in the USA

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Well you seem to have problems with people that know far more about these things than you do. I'd take their science over your ignorance of their science any day.

If they're atheists, that's their problem, and I disagree with their God-less universe. Making ridiculous claims about how the universe began is really silly when time and time again you prove that you can't even engage a simple scientific argument.