Posted on 07/18/2009 7:39:00 AM PDT by Gordon Greene
Trailer: ‘Creation’ — ‘You’ve Killed God, Sir’
Watching the trailer it looks as if they are trying to give a human face to Darwin that seems a bit hard to imagine. The characters are glorified to the point of sticky-sweet perfection which, of course is Hollywood.
Judging strictly from the trailer, the message seems to be that Darwin's "science" was perfect knowledge and religion is finally unmasked as the true heresy... more of the same but with a pretty bow on top.
The foregone conclusion follows mainstream education in America: that Evolution is science fact and not science theory. All that remains is the nail in God's coffin to make it official.
'Course, you Evo's can start your hollerin' that this is only the trailer and if we misled Christians would just watch it we would understand Chucky D the way you do... We don't already know what the Hollywood spin is??? Strange we would make assumptions about Hollywood based on everything we've seen for the past few decades, but I rekon I will. Umm-Hmmm.
(Excerpt) Read more at bighollywood.breitbart.com ...
Not at all. Why are you so terrified of responding?
No, sorry..., I’m more an admirer of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, rather than any human being, actually... :-)
Wiliam Bell Riley (fl. early 20th century): garden variety Fundamentalist Baptist, views on most subjects indistinguisable from those of the Ku Klux Klan.
I do. So where are they? Where's the first example of a multi-cellular organism in the fossil record?
Where's the first 'pre-eye' in the fossil record?
Well, I can’t tell you if William Bell Riley was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or not. You apparently seem to know, and I would be glad to see the documentation on that one.
But what I can tell you that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the intelligence behind the creation of mankind... :-)
Keep going, ColdWater. It's very intriguing, seeing your little bag of tricks, old though they may be.
Hmmm ... I don't fit your preconceived notions, so therefore I must be afraid of something.
Now, where have I heard such manipulation before?
But why did you post TJ as the source of your information?
Perhaps I am NOT trying to have preconceptions of your views but rather get them from you directly. Now, please respond to the question.
Some people declare that the eye had to be created instead of evolving and that therefore a creator exists. If it is shown (and it has been) that their is an evolutionary path for the development of the eye, does that deny that a creator exist? Not in my world. But yours? Is that why you are so worried?
You asked — But why did you post TJ as the source of your information?
Who is TJ?
The first time I ever heard that name (W. B. Riley) was in Post #32... :-)
Jawohl, Herr Kommandant!< /sarc >
I'll answer questions from you after you rejoin our earlier discussion of just why you cannot understand general relativity, and lied, claiming to have found a context in Einstein's The Evolution Of Physics that shows him to have been speaking to special relativity when he wrote:
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.
Explain yourself, your cluelessness while projecting that I was mistaken, and that I didn't understand.
You ran away from that like a scared little girl.
Explain yourself, then we can talk.
You posted the Declaration of Independence as the source for your beliefs. I only assumed you were aware that Thomas Jefferson drafted it. My bad.
I remember now. You were the geocentrist that said we couldn't prove that the earth went around the sun?
You said — You posted the Declaration of Independence as the source for your beliefs. I only assumed you were aware that Thomas Jefferson drafted it. My bad.
—
All I know is that there is a bunch of names at the bottom of the document and that means that those names used our Creator God as the highest authority for our rights — which no human authority can take away.
Those names at the bottom mean that they recognized that it was from the Creator God of the universe, and all that is in it (and, of course, that one being the one who made mankind) that the rights came from. And that’s a pretty strong argument that they used, in that the one who made mankind, being the one who gave mankind those rights — which no human authority can take away.
Now, if there is no Creator God who made mankind, then the argument that no human authority can take them away, falls flat on its face and thus is a false argument. I would not want to be in a position of arguing that the basis for our rights was based on a false belief in a Creator God that does not exist and/or did not create mankind.
Perhaps you like that kind of argument, but I don’t for the basis of our rights... :-)
Please explain why YEC'ers are predipositioned to geocentrist theories?
To summarize, we only need to keep our belief in God because without that belief we have no rights? Strange.
And at least one had a strong distaste for Christianity and all religious leaders.
Either those rights as we read in the Declaration of Independence are granted by our Creator God or by governments..., I guess you can pick the one you like the best... :-)
You said — And at least one had a strong distaste for Christianity and all religious leaders.
—
Well, at least he joined with the others and believed in the existence of a Creator God that made everything and mankind... :-)
[... or else he created a lousy argument...]
But, according to TJ, the author, it is not the same God you believe in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.