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 ...
Well, that does seem to be what you assume in light of your use of "creatards". And I will note that the apparently the set "creation science" includes all skeptics of Darwinism.
Well, then, does that mean it has no place in science and can't be used in it?
Alrighty then, better remove all math from science. We can't have any of that non-science math stuff mucking science all up, now can we?
Funny how math is so relevant to science when scientists want to demonstrate how reasonable and likely something is to happen, but when it's used to demonstrate who unreasonable and unlikely something (like evolution) is to happen, all of a sudden, it's not relevant at all.
Why is that, I wonder?
Perhaps you can explain that incongruity.
creatards = sptiwads = you lose.
“creatards = sptiwads = you lose.”
My, you like to call names, but don’t like to be called names.
“And I will note that the apparently the set “creation science” includes all skeptics of Darwinism.”
No, “creation science” includes the set of folks for whom fictitious research is a cottage industry to “prove” the old testament.
It does not include folks who have fundamentalist beliefs as a matter of faith. See, you “creation science” types like to lump people together. You group those that don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis with the “going to hell” set. You also erroneously group folks of faith into your “creation science” set, which is an equal folly.
I guess it makes you feel better, but you are still wrong to invent pseudo-scientific conclusion to your supposed faith. If you had faith you wouldn’t need fake science.
“What a non-sequitur of a response. That was so lame.”
But it is not a non-sequitur. It was directly related to your criticism that “evos” completely avoid questions of the origins of life. I posited a point that you, as a “creatard” (sorry, you started with “evo” so you get to be called names too) you mask your true belief, which is more than likely that folks that believe in evolution are going to hell.
You won’t say it, like most creation science types, because even you realize that it just makes you look ridiculous.
No I don't. Show me where I have stated any such thing. However, the very statement you made which I have just quoted shows that you lumped me into your fictitious set. I am a creationist in that I believe that this is a literal statement.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Other than that, I make it a point not to give someone a red herring candidate when I show weaknesses in a suspect theory.
“Other than that, I make it a point not to give someone a red herring candidate when I show weaknesses in a suspect theory.”
I don’t defend what you term a “suspect theory”, as ALL theories are “suspect”. It is the nature of scientific discovery. I am amused with the vitriol that folks attack Darwin - when most folks that believe in evolution don’t care too much about the folks that originated this theory, as much as they care about the information that is our present understanding of it. Darwin was a great scientist of his day, to be sure - but the fact that “creation science” types still attack him by name is a source of amusement to me. It shows that they all miss their own point.
I think you’d be surprised that I agree with the the first line in Genesis. So you’ve been chasing a red herring or two yourself.
“No I don’t. Show me where I have stated any such thing.”
Oh, and since you aren’t a “creation science” type, as you indicated, then no, you would not have said such a thing. Sorry for saying so. Still, the “if you don’t agree with me you are going to hell” is the unspoken conclusion of virtually all “creation science” argument. After all, if you want to go literal on Genesis, then you must believe that everyone who disagrees (even on minor points) on Genesis with “creation science” is going to hell.
They won’t ever say it though. It makes you wonder if they really believe what’s in Genesis.
Predictably, you chose to begin with Paine and The Age of Reason. I thought you might have a more definitive atheistic candidate among the Founders than Paine, but apparently none exist to your knowledge.
Paine’s “distaste” for Christianity doesn’t appear to be as categorical as you would have us believe. As a Founder, during the time of our nation’s founding, Paine expressed entirely different sentiments:
“For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called their Christian names.”
. . . . . Thomas Paine, Of the Present Ability of America, with some miscellaneous Reflections, Common Sense, 1776
And, his writings were full of Biblical references illustrating his points, and demonstrating his extensive Christian knowledge. It might be objected that the founding was almost twenty years earlier than The Age of Reason and that it no longer reflected Paine’s thinking. But I think it more likely that Paine’s objections were directed against laws establishing one favored denomination over the others, rather than against Christianity itself:
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity. In America, a catholic priest is a good citizen, a good character, and a good neighbour; an Episcopalian minister is of the same description: and this proceeds independently of the men, from there being no law-establishment in America.”
. . . . . Thomas Paine, Rights of Man Part The First, 1792, Being An Answer To Mr. Burke's Attack On The French Revolution
Among the Founding Fathers, I’ve always believed Paine to be perhaps the most problematic in his belief in Christianity. Nonetheless, he seemed to agree to society’s need for what Jefferson and Adams termed ‘moral instruction,’ and that Christianity filled the bill more than the existing alternatives.
Evolvement within species is a fact, yes.
the Theory of Evolution provides the a mechanism to explain that fact.
That doesn't make it the only, or true, answer to the question of evolution. Now, if they could just find the 'intermediate' form between apes/monkeys and man. But they haven't, have they?
P.S. Earlier in this thread someone stated that the branch off was not ‘from’ apes, but that apes/monkeys/man were all the results of branching off from an earlier creature.
I asked what that creature was. I got no answer. Perhaps you know?
Genesis Account-
Darwin wrote an entire book on his theories, and they are still hotly contested, even with a wealth of information, and many, many other scientists input and discussion.
The account in Genesis is about two paragraphs. To expect to have the same level of detail, is preposterous. When the account was originally written, there were very few who could fathom it were it to contain any such details.
Here, for the sake of argument, I propose a modification to the time scale.
Since ‘time’ is a concept based on a solar system and the speed of the rotation of a planet, then there were no ‘days’ prior to God creating the heavens and the Earth.
Had Genesis stated that God created Man on the Sixth Second, rather than the Sixth Day, wouldn’t that be more of a literary question, than a scientific one?
Exactly how MANY species of life forms are there on the Earth?
Who wrote the book of Genesis, and when?
For starters you should not be using talk.origins "FAQ"s as a basis for any sort of argument amongst educated people.
I guess you missed (or simply chose to ignore) the part where I wrote that my personal experience in closely following the PE controversy was fully consonate with the description in the FAQ.
And thank you for your suggestion, but I will continue to base my use of sources on my independent evaluation of their objective merit. By this standard that FAQ was quite good and accurate. I have generally found this to be true of others at the Talk Origins site, but I'll certainly refrain from using any that don't measure up.
Anyway, I remain puzzled. Why all the quibbling about "puncutuated equilibrium" when, in effect, it only addresses phenomena that would, on the creationist perspective, fall fully into the allowed, even insisted upon, category of "evolution within 'created kinds'?"
What would that form look like--how would we know when we found it? Because there are a bunch of skulls that creationists insist are either ape or human (because, of course, there can be no intermediates) but can't decide among themselves which is which (which suggests to me that they "intermediate" might be a good term for them). So I wonder what you think we should look for.
Nobody knows.
Something close to 2 million species have been named and described by science.
The total number, including unnamed species, probably has to be more than twice that, say around 5 million. (This is suggested when you do studies collecting a bunch of fish from South American rivers, or insects from forest trees, etc, and look at the percentage that are unknown species.)
That's pretty much a lower bound. The real total could be as high as 20, 30, 50 or even 100 million.
If you want a single number you could use 10 million as an estimate. It's probably good within an order of magnitude!
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.