Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[The_Dude 1,142]

awesomeness

I nearly pissed myself. That is a great pic (trying to make it my background on my work PC now)

[pedroh 21]

awesomeness

I nearly pissed myself. That is a great pic (trying to make it my background on my work PC now)

just look for dino riders pictures lol

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again - Scientific inquiry is part of the process of Science.

Based on existing established laws, new hypotheses are made and new research is conducted.

Research isn't pseudo-science.

Creationism certainly is.

Wrong Mr Pike.

Creationism is theology. I have no problem if anyone wants to be a creationist. I do have a major problem with fundamentals thinking (many times an oxymoron) they have to impose their belief on everyone else- particularly in a nation where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, independent on how popular and/or prevalent any one variant of a religion is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It has nothing to do with proving that something doesn't exist, and everything to do with proving that something does in order to call it science.

Scientists are working to validate, refine or refute their ideas based on existing natural laws. Just because scientific research in a number of areas is an ongoing incremental process of testing and refinement does not make the process of discovery unscientific - that's just silly.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Once again - Scientific inquiry is part of the process of Science.

Based on existing established laws, new hypotheses are made and new research is conducted.

Research isn't pseudo-science.

Creationism certainly is.

Wrong Mr Pike.

Creationism is theology. I have no problem if anyone wants to be a creationist. I do have a major problem with fundamentals thinking (many times an oxymoron) they have to impose their belief on everyone else- particularly in a nation where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, independent on how popular and/or prevalent any one variant of a religion is.

My problem is when "Christian Scientists" try to present creationism as a "competing scientific theory" with the big bang theory.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Once again - Scientific inquiry is part of the process of Science.

Based on existing established laws, new hypotheses are made and new research is conducted.

Research isn't pseudo-science.

Creationism certainly is.

Wrong Mr Pike.

Creationism is theology. I have no problem if anyone wants to be a creationist. I do have a major problem with fundamentals thinking (many times an oxymoron) they have to impose their belief on everyone else- particularly in a nation where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, independent on how popular and/or prevalent any one variant of a religion is.

My problem is when "Christian Scientists" try to present creationism as a "competing scientific theory" with the big bang theory.

Why do you hate Tom Cruise?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Once again - Scientific inquiry is part of the process of Science.

Based on existing established laws, new hypotheses are made and new research is conducted.

Research isn't pseudo-science.

Creationism certainly is.

Wrong Mr Pike.

Creationism is theology. I have no problem if anyone wants to be a creationist. I do have a major problem with fundamentals thinking (many times an oxymoron) they have to impose their belief on everyone else- particularly in a nation where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, independent on how popular and/or prevalent any one variant of a religion is.

My problem is when "Christian Scientists" try to present creationism as a "competing scientific theory" with the big bang theory.

That's the same point I made earlier - Creation scientists don't do comprehensive scientific research. Their arguments nearly always involve picking over the work that others have done and looking for holes that allow them to promote creationism.

There's nothing competing about it. It is however plagiarist and propagandist.

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again - Scientific inquiry is part of the process of Science.

Based on existing established laws, new hypotheses are made and new research is conducted.

Research isn't pseudo-science.

Creationism certainly is.

Wrong Mr Pike.

Creationism is theology. I have no problem if anyone wants to be a creationist. I do have a major problem with fundamentals thinking (many times an oxymoron) they have to impose their belief on everyone else- particularly in a nation where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, independent on how popular and/or prevalent any one variant of a religion is.

My problem is when "Christian Scientists" try to present creationism as a "competing scientific theory" with the big bang theory.

Pseudoscience just like 'Intelligent' Design...

Once again - Scientific inquiry is part of the process of Science.

Based on existing established laws, new hypotheses are made and new research is conducted.

Research isn't pseudo-science.

Creationism certainly is.

Wrong Mr Pike.

Creationism is theology. I have no problem if anyone wants to be a creationist. I do have a major problem with fundamentals thinking (many times an oxymoron) they have to impose their belief on everyone else- particularly in a nation where we are supposed to have a separation of church and state, independent on how popular and/or prevalent any one variant of a religion is.

My problem is when "Christian Scientists" try to present creationism as a "competing scientific theory" with the big bang theory.

That's the same point I made earlier - Creation scientists don't do comprehensive scientific research. Their arguments nearly always involve picking over the work that others have done and looking for holes that allow them to promote creationism.

There's nothing competing about it. It is however plagiarist and propagandist.

Misinformed and incorrect, to add.

[Danno 1,228]

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

-Who is talking about Church and state and why do you keep steering in that direction?

-who questioned whether a well reasoned person could not be a believer in general?

-Who suggested one must agree 100% with the RCC to be a true believer?

Every time I think we are done with this sub-topic you keep throwing odd stuff up.. almost like you are debating yourself as they are points I never brought up.

My simple question was "How does one associate them self with a religion they (seemingly) have little in common with (save Capital punishment).

Now you claim:

"I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith"

So let me ask ...(if you care to answer).

Do you agree with Church teaching on.....

Male only Priests?

Ban on Gay marriage?

Overall view of Homosexuality?

Abortion?

Birth control?

Pornography?

Celibate Priests?

Infallibility of the Pope?

Purgatory?

Immaculate Conception?

Virgin Birth?

Resurrection of Christ?

Assumption of Mary?

Miracles of Christ?

Do you recite the Apostles Creed... and believe it?

Actually Pedroh, I don't really ask you to answer these as it might be to personal but I would bet you would have a whole lot more "No's" (you don't agree or accept) than "yes" which if correct, does beg the question:

"What exactly is a Catholic anymore?".

[Peikko 1,575]

It has nothing to do with proving that something doesn't exist, and everything to do with proving that something does in order to call it science.

Scientists are working to validate, refine or refute their ideas based on existing natural laws. Just because scientific research in a number of areas is an ongoing incremental process of testing and refinement does not make the process of discovery unscientific - that's just silly.

Scientist don't believe that have solved all the problems inherent with explaining mathematically and physically the origins of the universe but while they can't say with conviction exactly how (although they are getting pretty close to the 'when' btw, have it down to a few billion years as I understand it ) that is no excuse to throw everything out and accept this non scientific position that 'god did it'. In fact, there is nothing gained from a 'faith' perspective from pursuing this angle at all. Whether there is, or isn't an omnipresence is moot in the search to understand the universe and it's moot in the search for spirituality.

The objective of science is to observe phenomena and attemt to understand how things work and describe how things work in mathematical formula that are beneficial to us humans because these investigations further our ability to adapt out environment in ways that are beneficial to ourselves.

Perhaps Joe, along with your creationism you would be happier if we went back to living in caves and accepting nature's bounty as it chooses to present itself, rather than applying technology to our advantage? What say you? Farming is wrong, death to those devils incarnate?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the difference between what is and is not science is pretty clear cut. However, the waters of the debate are muddied no end by people who use semantics to relativize unbiased scientific inquiry, which politically and ideologically biased ####### like creation science.

It's why ignorance on the issue is so pervasive - born out of that same idiotic idea that all opinions are equally valid. If people start moving the goal posts about how to define science then it opens the door to questionable misinformation.

For me, the smoking gun here is that Creation Scientists do not have a significant body of independent research work to validate their claims. As I said their claims are ideologically based - because they assume the conclusions at the outset and then look for evidence to justify their preconceptions.

[Gemmie 142]

Wow, this topic really got fired up.

Rather than getting involed in the debate about Creationism vs Evolution (I am a psychologist so you can guess which side of the coin I fall), I would like to say that I find it interesting that the OP brought up religious differences between the US and the UK.

None of my US family (none of which have left the US) can possibly see that the "American religious" belief systems are so corrupted or extreme; yet everyone I know in the UK will tell you that their dear friends across the pond go way over-the-top. Even my husband fails to believe that there is a difference in faith.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the difference between what is and is not science is pretty clear cut. However, the waters of the debate are muddied no end by people who use semantics to relativize unbiased scientific inquiry, which politically and ideologically biased ####### like creation science.

It's why ignorance on the issue is so pervasive - born out of that same idiotic idea that all opinions are equally valid. If people start moving the goal posts about how to define science then it opens the door to questionable misinformation.

For me, the smoking gun here is that Creation Scientists do not have a significant body of independent research work to validate their claims. As I said their claims are ideologically based - because they assume the conclusions at the outset and then look for evidence to justify their preconceptions.

Hence... they are practitioners of pseudoscience.

[Peikko 1,575]

It should never have the same platform as science, not in name or in education. In fact, I am having trouble allowing for creationism at all. It's like I am supposed to accept that people are allowed to lend credence to all sorts of ideas simply because one can pronounce some spiritual inspiration for it. Hello, that's insane!

Edited September 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo