Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[pedroh 21]

You believe in magic as well. You believe that nothing exploded and created the universe

I said that Did I?

Going to have to disappoint you there - I have no idea how the universe came into being. I do however, have a fairly good idea as to why I don't know that (perhaps you missed it).

Physically, human beings can only comprehend an environment which assumes the existence of time and space. This is because all of our sensory equipment (eyes, ears, nerves, brain etc) operate within a dimensional environment.

Because of this, it is simply put, impossible for us to comprehend the absence of time and space.

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

NO.. it's not magic, why is it so hard to understand? our brain and perception was created to live and understand a universe with 3 dimensions plus time... BUT, we know that there are multidimensional universes, and we know the singularity of the big bang had a N number of compressed dimensions.. it's no magic, or God... being incomprenhensible doesn't mean it's divine, it just means, we haven't found a way to understand it.. using your line of reasoning, people would have never been interested in physics, in astrology or micro-biology, everybody would have assumed God put the planets, and God made you sick...

[SMR 368]

You believe in magic as well. You believe that nothing exploded and created the universe

I said that Did I?

Going to have to disappoint you there - I have no idea how the universe came into being. I do however, have a fairly good idea as to why I don't know that (perhaps you missed it).

Physically, human beings can only comprehend an environment which assumes the existence of time and space. This is because all of our sensory equipment (eyes, ears, nerves, brain etc) operate within a dimensional environment.

Because of this, it is simply put, impossible for us to comprehend the absence of time and space.

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

NO.. it's not magic, why is it so hard to understand? our brain and perception was created to live and understand a universe with 3 dimensions plus time... BUT, we know that there are multidimensional universes, and we know the singularity of the big bang had a N number of compressed dimensions.. it's no magic, or God... being incomprenhensible doesn't mean it's divine, it just means, we haven't found a way to understand it.. using your line of reasoning, people would have never been interested in physics, in astrology or micro-biology, everybody would have assumed God put the planets, and God made you sick...

Who created your brain?

But on a more serious note, the previous poster to whom I was responding stated that it was impossible to comprehend. If you believe it can be comprehended, that is different.

[HAL 9000 96]

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

All of it.

Good job not answering the question.

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't.

Pretty nonsensical to claim you hold the true definition of scientific popular jargon. Particularly with scientific illiteracy being what it is in this country and with so much ignorance of what science really consists of here on VJ.

If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

Evolution and Creationism are two separate entities. One is observed via the scientific method and its discoveries, and the other is based on religious 'explanations' of reality.

Hence, you are dribbling nonsense.

[NickD 203]

In reality, man hasn't invented anything, discovered is far more appropriate, we certainly cannot take credit for inventing ourselves nor for the needs we must have to simply survived, this was all given to us. In studying science, you learn a distinct order to the universe and everything in it, and can only wonder who the inventor or creator of all this stuff is.

If this wonder is religious in nature, then in that sense, I am very religious. Does this mean I buy what is passed to us from the ancients? That is a major contradiction with literally tens of thousands of religions all claiming to be the only true one. One way to learn the nature of the creator is to study science and certainly this creator in science does not contradict him/her self if the sex of this creator even applies. I no where believe what was passed to us in the disguise of scripture than I believe the world is flat. Especially if it contradicts science. Always loved science, it's predictable, can be mathematically defined, pure, and always trustworthy, one reason why I detested politics and particularly BSers. Man, do we have a surplus of BSers in this world. Wonder what the real creator thinks about them?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

Well there's a couple of problems with your argument here:

First you're assuming parity between evolutionary theory and creationism/intelligent design without any reference to the work of evolutionary scientists or of creationists. Lets clarify what we're talking about.

1) Evolutionary Science is a broad discipline that encompasses a whole range of different sub-disciplines from genetics, through to microbiology to anatomy to paleontology. We're talking about many thousands of scientists the world over conducting ongoing research in those fields.

2) Creationism (and Creation Science) on the other hand, seems to be a largely political phenomenon that doesn't create its own research as much as it uses gaps in the research of the Evolutionary folks as evidence for their own conclusions.

I don't know about you - but I see a pretty big difference between the two.

Secondly, you're making as assumption that science is a monolithic process of law, where only what is known definitively can be called science. The problem with that is that you are suggesting that scientific inquiry (i.e. the work of scientists) is essentially worthless - hence we'd need to throw out anything that we don't know (but suspect) in a whole range of fields - from genetics to theoretical physics.

Now if your argument is that science and philosophy aren't mutually exclusive, then I will agree with you. The rest, not so much.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Private Pike

[SMR 368]

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

All of it.

Good job not answering the question.

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't.

Pretty nonsensical to claim you hold the true definition of scientific popular jargon. Particularly with scientific illiteracy being what it is in this country and with so much ignorance of what science really consists of here on VJ.

If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

Evolution and Creationism are two separate entities. One is observed via the scientific method and its discoveries, and the other is based on religious 'explanations' of reality.

Hence, you are dribbling nonsense.

I didn't say scientific popular jargon, I said popular jargon, which is very different, of course.

I observe the influence of God on a daily basis. Natural selection has been observed. Evolution by natural selection on a large scale never has been.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

Not really. As I've said elsewhere, I think there is ample room for science and religion to co-exist.

[Staashi 371]

In reality, man hasn't invented anything, discovered is far more appropriate, we certainly cannot take credit for inventing ourselves nor for the needs we must have to simply survived, this was all given to us. In studying science, you learn a distinct order to the universe and everything in it, and can only wonder who the inventor or creator of all this stuff is.

If this wonder is religious in nature, then in that sense, I am very religious. Does this mean I buy what is passed to us from the ancients? That is a major contradiction with literally tens of thousands of religions all claiming to be the only true one. One way to learn the nature of the creator is to study science and certainly this creator in science does not contradict him/her self if the sex of this creator even applies. I no where believe what was passed to us in the disguise of scripture than I believe the world is flat. Especially if it contradicts science. Always loved science, it's predictable, can be mathematically defined, pure, and always trustworthy, one reason why I detested politics and particularly BSers. Man, do we have a surplus of BSers in this world. Wonder what the real creator thinks about them?

Actually, we discover and invent everyday. Discovery might be the concept of the world being round and not flat as was previously assumed; invention - we have inventions all the time - some of the simplest were hybridized fruits and vegetables. Boysenberries aren't a naturally occuring fruit in this world - but, Walter Knott in his farm in California one day decided to cross a blackberry with a raspberry to see what would happen and he got a boysenberry. That's invention - not discovery.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you know so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Joseph & Ana

[SMR 368]

A Force which you can't explain nor comprehend and which, by your admission, is incomprehensible, created the universe. Call it God, magic, or anything else you want to. Or refuse to give it a name. Does it make a difference?

Not really. As I've said elsewhere, I think there is ample room for science and religion to co-exist.

So why do you object when someone says that you believe in magic?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

I don't know much about it at all to be honest. I do know however that Quantum physics is an evolving field and that a lot of the pieces of the puzzle are still missing (string theory being one of those).

[pedroh 21]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

the thermodynamic laws applied to our universe are not the same that apply to an infinitely compressed multi-dimensional singularity.. plus the satellite that scanned the still traveling heat wave of the explosion proves that it can match current thermodynamic laws

[HAL 9000 96]

Claiming that the credibility of two theories is similar from a scientific standpoint is not that same as claiming that they are the same thing.

Which part of that was nonsense?

All of it.

Good job not answering the question.

Well, in popular jargon, saying something is science means that it is scientific law, which evolution isn't.

Pretty nonsensical to claim you hold the true definition of scientific popular jargon. Particularly with scientific illiteracy being what it is in this country and with so much ignorance of what science really consists of here on VJ.

If you want to say that science is the pursuit of knowledge, then evolution is science, but so is creationism.

Evolution and Creationism are two separate entities. One is observed via the scientific method and its discoveries, and the other is based on religious 'explanations' of reality.

Hence, you are dribbling nonsense.

I didn't say scientific popular jargon, I said popular jargon, which is very different, of course.

I observe the influence of God on a daily basis. Natural selection has been observed. Evolution by natural selection on a large scale never has been.

No duh it hasn't been 'seen.' Humans can't usually make it more than 100 +/- 20 years or so.

What has been verified over and over again is the results of natural selection via a very clear fossil record and an even clearer genetic record that is actually not too hard to categorize. If you are not willing to entertain that natural selection, via all of the different mechanisms that have resulted in testable hypotheses, then you have no business trying to define what is and isn't an observable mechanism.

If my syntax is bothering you, deal with it. You are claiming nonsensical things either way the verbiage is ordered.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

the thermodynamic laws applied to our universe are not the same that apply to an infinitely compressed multi-dimensional singularity.. plus the satellite that scanned the still traveling heat wave of the explosion proves that it can match current thermodynamic laws

I.e. Magical thing you have absolutely no evidence of.......

A heat wave proves that nothing exploded and created everything?

So you're saying that matter and energy CAN be created and destroyed? That everything tends toward ORDER?

[HAL 9000 96]

YOu know whats funny? The big bang is completely beyond your comprehension, but you know so much about it. It was compressed, and it had multi-dimensions. Sounds like you comprehend quite a bit. The problem is that it didn't happen. The big bang violates a couple laws of thermo-dynamics at least.

What alternative theory do you give more credibility to, since you know about at least a couple of laws of thermodynamics, apparently... ?