EPTBut I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters...
Darwin: Too Controversial for America? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters... | ||
|
Ryan307 :)
United States1289 Posts
and lol @ teamliquid trying to rationlize god | ||
|
G0dly
United States450 Posts
Any person that doesn't believe that evolution is true either 1. doesn't have a good understanding of biology and hasn't learned about evolution in a factual manner or 2. is a complete idiot. Also, http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090713.gif | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:24 Ryan307  wrote:why am I not suprised lol~ and lol @ teamliquid trying to rationlize god I wish it made me lol. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory. Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies. There isn't one, so they are still stuck at the "beneficial mutations are passed down to further generations more than bad mutations" and not "mutations cause new species to form". If there was overwhelming fossil evidence, it would be an infinitely large record of weird ass creatures, none of them being the same. But that's not what fossil records show, they show a bunch of set animals in a time period, then they all die, and new animals take their place. | ||
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
Fossilisation requires a specific set of circumstances. When those occur you'll get fossils, when they don't you don't. It's no surprise that groups of fossils represent the animals in the area at the time the circumstances were right, and not those there before or after. You get a group of fossils from that time and place so yeah, they're similar. Then you get another group from a different time and place and they're all similar to each other. Unfortunately nature was not willing to provide a surviving fossil diary but instead pages scattered at random. To demand more evidence than could reasonably be expected is ridiculous. There is evidence, you can ignore it or you can attack the arguments behind it. But don't disregard it because fossilisation doesn't provide a perfect record, that's not an argument against it, simply an inherent flaw of the data. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote: the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
| ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies. There isn't one, so they are still stuck at the "beneficial mutations are passed down to further generations more than bad mutations" and not "mutations cause new species to form". If there was overwhelming fossil evidence, it would be an infinitely large record of weird ass creatures, none of them being the same. But that's not what fossil records show, they show a bunch of set animals in a time period, then they all die, and new animals take their place. Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies. There isn't one, so they are still stuck at the "beneficial mutations are passed down to further generations more than bad mutations" and not "mutations cause new species to form". If there was overwhelming fossil evidence, it would be an infinitely large record of weird ass creatures, none of them being the same. But that's not what fossil records show, they show a bunch of set animals in a time period, then they all die, and new animals take their place. I see what you're saying about the fossil record. God must have come to earth at random points throughout history and added animals. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:47 Foucault wrote: No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition. Religion is the problem here though. Not all religious people are idiots but an awful lot of the resistance to 'proven' science comes from people who reject reason and logic on the grounds of faith. Religion does hold back scientific progress, it's an unfortunate fact. That doesn't mean it's the fault of the people who keep their personal faith to their private life but it doesn't absolve religion as an institution either. | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
you ultimately want your money and time back for listening to 2 hours of nonstop stupidity | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
On September 14 2009 06:00 Caller wrote: ive learned that arguing about evolution is like watching a bad movie you ultimately want your money and time back for listening to 2 hours of nonstop stupidity yes | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 14 2009 03:18 Kwark wrote: I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here. Microevolution vs macroevolution is usually the argument. My friends ex-gf asked him the question "ask yourself this question: if evolution is real, why do monkeys still exist?" I cracked up for a longgg time. She is pretty hardcore Mormon. On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing... What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist? Actually (from what I remember from my highschool physics class, could be wrong though), gravity still hasn't been proven. Thus it still is a theory. They haven't actually been able to prove it exists, despite all the factual evidence they can derive from assuming it does exist (my highschool physics teacher was also fired that year for being a lazy asshole so I could have been fed bullshit). | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies. PDF-link. And here is every other documented instance of observed speciation, in both microbes and complex-multicellular organisms. And mind you, we've only been looking for a few hundred years, and we have seen and/or caused all of that. On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing... What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist? Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G. And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation. On September 14 2009 05:57 Kwark wrote: Religion is the problem here though. Not all religious people are idiots but an awful lot of the resistance to 'proven' science comes from people who reject reason and logic on the grounds of faith. Religion does hold back scientific progress, it's an unfortunate fact. That doesn't mean it's the fault of the people who keep their personal faith to their private life but it doesn't absolve religion as an institution either. Religion isn't the problem; dogma is. Religion didn't keep the Catholic church from endorsing evolution. Why? Because they don't have a dogmatic belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. And it is only that kind of belief that conflicts with science. Once you're able to accept that various holy books may simply be metaphor or parables intended to guide you along your faith rather than a giver of facts, then religion and science can coexist. | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote: I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution. But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters... Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system... I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother? Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time). Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist. | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
On September 14 2009 06:13 NicolBolas wrote: Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G. And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation. Yes of course, I was merely trying to point out that gravity is still 'called' a theory (newton's or Einstein), yet we all know it exists and is true. (regardless of the exact inner math involved) | ||
|
Weaponx3
Canada232 Posts
because looking at the genetic makeup everything is pretty much made up of the same things its just the arrangement, i thought evolution was something new that came into existant but again like i said are we talking about on the level of an atom or of living creatures and humans.. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On September 14 2009 06:32 Weaponx3 wrote: to be honest i want to understand evolution in it is simplest form but the idea escapes me, especially when speaking of it being observed are we talking about micro organisims?> or are we talking about living animals such as mammals, fish, birds, insects, etc.. I think a precise and well thoughtout examples would be appreciated for many of who are still yet undecided on the matter.. because looking at the genetic makeup everything is pretty much made up of the same things its just the arrangement, i thought evolution was something new that came into existant but again like i said are we talking about on the level of an atom or of living creatures and humans.. this is just like people who think that microeconomics is talking about the economics of the cell obvious trolling is obvious | ||
| ||
