Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[tmma 467]

Are they published? I may have some of their work-I follow new publications and innovative scientists avidly. genuine question.

Yes. One of my cousin's research in stem cell is renowned and she is at church every week. Nicest person you will ever met.

Cool. I was hoping for fellow earth scientists or something like that....lol...I'm wanting to pick brains and find unique and not so hum-ha citations for the conclusion of my college program ( selfish me).

Stem cell research is something I know nothing about other than it may hold the answer to alot of people's hopes for cure of various diseases. More power to her.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We also know this for a fact, if two idiots get married and have kids, their kids will be dumber than either parent.

I don't believe in evolution, but sure believe in devolution. Have enough idiots running around as proof of that.

Well it's interesting that people have no qualms with talking about the genes of certain people that lead to better athletic and entertainment based abilities, however, absolutely refuse to connect (or accept) a possible innate negative associated with genes. Nope cannot be that. Must be history; must be oppression; must be... must be...

Oh dear

That was a given. Either you accept the reality of genes, of evolution, or you do not.

I don't think the "reality" has a great deal to do with what you posted there.

Are these the same relatives with the World Class martial arts skills?

I have two contrasting types of family members.

Well we have a (deceased) mafia hitman on my wife's side (no joke).

[tmma 467]

Well we have a (deceased) mafia hitman on my wife's side (no joke).

I'll see your deceased Mafia family member and raise you a familial relationship to the Duke of Northumberland.....(wrong side of blankets 200+ years ago).....

Edited September 15, 2009 by tmma

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well you can't beat Christopher Lee who not only met one of Rasputin's assassins, but actually is a direct descendant of Charlemagne.

There's also an olympic gymnast who is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

[HAL 9000 96]

I might recognized the names, depending on what kind of stem cell research they do. I've done some dabbling in that field recently.

[tmma 467]

Well you can't beat Christopher Lee who not only met one of Rasputin's assassins, but actually is a direct descendant of Charlemagne.

There's also an olympic gymnast who is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

Your wife is related to christopher lee? That's cool.

I like the Genghis khan angle. There's a mixture....

My Mum in NE England traced her father's family back to the Vikings...Hagar the Horrible is one of my relatives! BEAT THAT!

[HAL 9000 96]

And I have ancestry to Washington's crossing of the Hudson, the Mayflower, and some Duque de I don't know where in Spain. I'm sure if I went back to 1588 I'd find two cousins firing upon each other on different ships in the English Channel.

[SMR 368]

Its always been quite simple (in the modern age)-

theology is theology, science is science.

You don't need to be a follower of either to have sufficient logic intact to tell both apart.

I think you are oversimplifying the situation, particularly when you bring evolution into the mix. The problem is, evolution by natural selection isn't science in the classic sense of the word. While you can do an experiment to demonstrate that natural selection occurs, which is what Darwin did, evolution by natural selection has not been experimentally proven.

Gathering evidence and then creating a theory that could explain the evidence is not science. Science requires you to go a step farther and design an experiment and then collect data to support your theory (hypothesis). So far, no experiment has been conducted and observed to support evolutionary change of complex organisms on a fundamental scale (such that a different species results or similar). There are inherent timing issues that make such an experiment impossible in a short time-frame.

Moreover, no one has been able to experimentally recreate the conditions that cause life to come into being. That is, if people came from apes, where did the apes come from and down on the line. Most theories involve a lightning strike into an amino acid pool or something like that. Why can't anyone make that happen?

Thus, what you have is two groups of people collecting evidence and making a theory that humanity was created by a process that has never been observed. Which is theology and which is science and why?

Edited September 15, 2009 by SMR

[HAL 9000 96]

Its always been quite simple (in the modern age)-

theology is theology, science is science.

You don't need to be a follower of either to have sufficient logic intact to tell both apart.

I think you are oversimplifying the situation, particularly when you bring evolution into the mix. The problem is, evolution by natural selection isn't science in the classic sense of the word. While you can do an experiment to demonstrate that natural selection occurs, which is what Darwin did, evolution by natural selection has not been experimentally proven.

Gathering evidence and then creating a theory that could explain the evidence is not science. Science requires you to go a step farther and design an experiment and then collect data to support your theory (hypothesis). So far, no experiment has been conducted and observed to support evolutionary change of complex organisms on a fundamental scale (such that a different species results or similar). There are inherent timing issues that make such an experiment impossible in a short time-frame.

Moreover, no one has been able to experimentally recreate the conditions that cause life to come into being. That is, if people cam from apes, where did the apes come from and down on the line. Most theories involve a lightning strike into an amino acid pool or something like that. Why can't anyone make that happen?

Thus, what you have is two groups of people collecting evidence and making a theory that humanity was created by a process that has never been observed. Which is theology and which is science and why?

No experiment to show what?

I recommend you read a little more into how molecular evolution is theorized to work along the evolutionary timescale. I recommend this as a scientist myself.

[Heracles 417]

There are so many variables to life it's not even funny. If we had not had a moon alone, this planet would have been uninhabitable for humans. Talk about everything being in the right place at the right time. Mere coincidence, personally I think not.

[tmma 467]

And I have ancestry to Washington's crossing of the Hudson, the Mayflower, and some Duque de I don't know where in Spain. I'm sure if I went back to 1588 I'd find two cousins firing upon each other on different ships in the English Channel.

Some of my family on sep sides of the Atlantic are still firing at eachother ( verbally, of course)....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well you can't beat Christopher Lee who not only met one of Rasputin's assassins, but actually is a direct descendant of Charlemagne.

There's also an olympic gymnast who is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

Your wife is related to christopher lee? That's cool.

I like the Genghis khan angle. There's a mixture....

My Mum in NE England traced her father's family back to the Vikings...Hagar the Horrible is one of my relatives! BEAT THAT!

No we're not related to Lee - but always thought his ancestry was kinda cool.

My grandmother did at one point go out with Peter Cushing. That's really the only claim to fame in our family

[HAL 9000 96]

There are so many variables to life it's not even funny. If we had not had a moon alone, this planet would have been uninhabitable for humans. Talk about everything being in the right place at the right time. Mere coincidence, personally I think not.

Agreed. Some people confuse the mechanisms that have been studied thus far with the 'motivating circumstances' that may have brought those mechanisms into existence. Science is science and theology is theology.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its always been quite simple (in the modern age)-

theology is theology, science is science.

You don't need to be a follower of either to have sufficient logic intact to tell both apart.

I think you are oversimplifying the situation, particularly when you bring evolution into the mix. The problem is, evolution by natural selection isn't science in the classic sense of the word. While you can do an experiment to demonstrate that natural selection occurs, which is what Darwin did, evolution by natural selection has not been experimentally proven.

Gathering evidence and then creating a theory that could explain the evidence is not science. Science requires you to go a step farther and design an experiment and then collect data to support your theory (hypothesis). So far, no experiment has been conducted and observed to support evolutionary change of complex organisms on a fundamental scale (such that a different species results or similar). There are inherent timing issues that make such an experiment impossible in a short time-frame.

Moreover, no one has been able to experimentally recreate the conditions that cause life to come into being. That is, if people cam from apes, where did the apes come from and down on the line. Most theories involve a lightning strike into an amino acid pool or something like that. Why can't anyone make that happen?

Thus, what you have is two groups of people collecting evidence and making a theory that humanity was created by a process that has never been observed. Which is theology and which is science and why?

No experiment to show what?

I recommend you read a little more into how molecular evolution is theorized to work along the evolutionary timescale. I recommend this as a scientist myself.

I believe scientists have created artificial animo acids (or the components of them) in lab conditions.

[tmma 467]

Well you can't beat Christopher Lee who not only met one of Rasputin's assassins, but actually is a direct descendant of Charlemagne.

There's also an olympic gymnast who is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

Your wife is related to christopher lee? That's cool.

I like the Genghis khan angle. There's a mixture....

My Mum in NE England traced her father's family back to the Vikings...Hagar the Horrible is one of my relatives! BEAT THAT!

No we're not related to Lee - but always thought his ancestry was kinda cool.

My grandmother did at one point go out with Peter Cushing. That's really the only claim to fame in our family

I was hit on by the lead singer of Asia years ago at a concert of theirs ( when Asia was 'in')....

edit-almost forgot...Bryan Adams too---boy, is he pock marked---wow.

Edited September 15, 2009 by tmma