Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[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.

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

And analog bases that can substitute natural ones in DNA.

[jundp 191]

I am a person of faith who also accepts the theory of evolution.

But "religion" and "spiritual faith" are two different matters. I have no problems being a Christian who also defends science. I have a problem with people who claim religion as a defense for ignorance. I also have a problem with scientists who bash religion because it's faith-based.

Does that make sense?

America was, and remains, the lone voice of good in the Western world.

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).....

Oooh. I'll see your Mafia man and royal connections and raise you a (unfortunately I am NOT joking) KKK leader and, in the same family line, a civil rights lawyer!

[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).....

Oooh. I'll see your Mafia man and royal connections and raise you a (unfortunately I am NOT joking) KKK leader and, in the same family line, a civil rights lawyer!

THAT is a combination!

I'm folding. ....

[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 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.

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

I realize that you can read much about the theory. You can also read a lot about religion if you want to. By evolutionary timescale, I assume you mean many lifecycles which for complex organisms means, at a minimum, tens of thousands of years. Point is, both are theories about which you can read a lot. Neither has been observed, which is the basis for science.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I do find it funny that the lefts' hero Charles Darwin really was a Racist and a Eugenics proponent.

The actual title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

All this talk of magic and miracles.... How did space, time and matter come into being? All are either eternal, (matter is eternal?), or they all must have come into existence at the exact same point in time. Because if you have matter and no space; where will you put it? If you have Space and matter, but no time; WHEN would you put it? Most astronomers I've read point to a definite beginning point for the universe as it is expanding, and can be extrapolated to a beginning. (ok big bang) What exploded and when? An infinitesimal region? Really stop and think about it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

True there are some that would like to use one reason and say its false. But, most people I know just use those reasons to stop it from being called science and therefore allow it to be taught along with some form of intelligent design; sort of as the strength of evidence for both seems to have the same holes.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[SMR 368]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

It may be true that technology lags behind, but you still haven't said why evolution should be believed without experimentally repeatable evidence but the lack of experimentally repeatable evidence for creation disproves it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I do find it funny that the lefts' hero Charles Darwin really was a Racist and a Eugenics proponent.

The actual title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Careful Joe, you're getting carried away again. Darwin isn't a hero of "the left". He is (for all his faults) a seminal founding figure in subsequent developments in the life sciences. His politics regarding race were fairly typical of the prevailing public attitudes of that time (attitudes which existed well into the 1930's), but the idea that his contribution to the sciences can only be accepted if we agree with his politics is equally ridiculous.

All this talk of magic and miracles.... How did space, time and matter come into being? All are either eternal, (matter is eternal?), or they all must have come into existence at the exact same point in time. Because if you have matter and no space; where will you put it? If you have Space and matter, but no time; WHEN would you put it? Most astronomers I've read point to a definite beginning point for the universe as it is expanding, and can be extrapolated to a beginning. (ok big bang) What exploded and when? An infinitesimal region? Really stop and think about it.

Noone knows. Of course given that our existence is contingent on the existence of space and time its surely physically impossible for a 4 dimensional being to comprehend a non-dimensional (or indeed a pan-dimensional) universe.

[SMR 368]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

True there are some that would like to use one reason and say its false. But, most people I know just use those reasons to stop it from being called science and therefore allow it to be taught along with some form of intelligent design; sort of as the strength of evidence for both seems to have the same holes.

Exactly, the hole doesn't disprove evolution. It only means you can't prove it.

[HAL 9000 96]

I am a person of faith who also accepts the theory of evolution.

But "religion" and "spiritual faith" are two different matters. I have no problems being a Christian who also defends science. I have a problem with people who claim religion as a defense for ignorance. I also have a problem with scientists who bash religion because it's faith-based.

Does that make sense?

America was, and remains, the lone voice of good in the Western world.

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).....

Oooh. I'll see your Mafia man and royal connections and raise you a (unfortunately I am NOT joking) KKK leader and, in the same family line, a civil rights lawyer!

It makes perfect sense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

The fact that technology frequently lags behind the theory, doesn't invalidate the theory.

There are a lot of disingenuous arguments like that in Creationist theory - using gaps in current knowledge as proof that the entirety of it is bogus.

It may be true that technology lags behind, but you still haven't said why evolution should be believed without experimentally repeatable evidence but the lack of experimentally repeatable evidence for creation disproves it.

Well that's circular reasoning

Simply put, its the best explanation we have that fits the available evidence.

And as pointed out - there is some experimental evidence to the effect that fundamental building blocks of life can be synthesised from naturally occuring chemical reactions.

[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.

An experiment to show that a transition from non-living organic matter to living organic matter could occur without intelligent design. Or an experiment to show that one complex species could become another complex species.

I realize that you can read much about the theory. You can also read a lot about religion if you want to. By evolutionary timescale, I assume you mean many lifecycles which for complex organisms means, at a minimum, tens of thousands of years. Point is, both are theories about which you can read a lot. Neither has been observed, which is the basis for science.

Creation is not the same as evolution.

And ditto on the evolutionary timescale- which varies on the complexity of each and every set or organisms that has undergone evolutionary mechanisms.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I do find it funny that the lefts' hero Charles Darwin really was a Racist and a Eugenics proponent.

The actual title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Careful Joe, you're getting carried away again. Darwin isn't a hero of "the left". He is (for all his faults) a seminal founding figure in subsequent developments in the life sciences. His politics regarding race were fairly typical of the prevailing public attitudes of that time (attitudes which existed well into the 1930's), but the idea that his contribution to the sciences can only be accepted if we agree with his politics is equally ridiculous.

All this talk of magic and miracles.... How did space, time and matter come into being? All are either eternal, (matter is eternal?), or they all must have come into existence at the exact same point in time. Because if you have matter and no space; where will you put it? If you have Space and matter, but no time; WHEN would you put it? Most astronomers I've read point to a definite beginning point for the universe as it is expanding, and can be extrapolated to a beginning. (ok big bang) What exploded and when? An infinitesimal region? Really stop and think about it.

Noone knows. Of course given that our existence is contingent on the existence of space and time its surely physically impossible for a 4 dimensional being to comprehend a non-dimensional (or indeed a pan-dimensional) universe.

And yet, big bang, star birth, and several other items cannot be proven but they're taught as science. Why is the universe taught as science? (Universe = (UNI - Single) (VERSE - SPOKEN SENTENCE) Universe = Single Spoken Sentence)

[HAL 9000 96]

I do find it funny that the lefts' hero Charles Darwin really was a Racist and a Eugenics proponent.

The actual title of his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

All this talk of magic and miracles.... How did space, time and matter come into being? All are either eternal, (matter is eternal?), or they all must have come into existence at the exact same point in time. Because if you have matter and no space; where will you put it? If you have Space and matter, but no time; WHEN would you put it? Most astronomers I've read point to a definite beginning point for the universe as it is expanding, and can be extrapolated to a beginning. (ok big bang) What exploded and when? An infinitesimal region? Really stop and think about it.

Oh dear. Could you seriously let the adults have an intelligent conversation without whining over politics and your lack of reading comprehension here?

If you want the full title, its:

'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

It might behoove you to realize that race in the natural sense is defined as something beyond social constructs of human beings.

Lets add Bio 101 to that list of classes for you.