Dec 29 2009HUMANS CAME FROM MONKEY MEN??????????

And it's called "Creation"? ... You know, I'm not opposed to the theory of evolution, but the way they try to rub it in religion's face makes me not want to side with people like that.

Also... first?

I feel the same way about gravity.

It's called Creation for a reason I suppose. Maybe once you see it you'll understand why. My guess is that Darwin had an internal struggle as his theory would mean possibly never seeing his beloved daughter again.

Um, lets see, how can I put this so you people understand.....the human race as we know it came to be due to evolution over millions of years. There was no old man in the sky who one day decided to make people.

Looks like an interesting movie.

Cue exploding Christian heads all over the midwest.

Um, lets see, how can I put this so you people understand..........its called a theory for a reason, i accept we all have different views and opinions and i respect that, why cant people like jimmy falwell? Either way looks like a decent flick.

Is a drab Jennifer Connelly the only 'devoted wife of a misunderstood genius' option in Hollywood?

I will agree that fundamentalists of any religion are annoying at best and pathological at worst.

But belief in the divine world, in whatever form that divinity may have, is a matter of philosophy. Greater minds than yours have contemplated the unseen world and came to some reconciliation with it. It is not something to be so easily and angrily dismissed.

I suspect that most atheists are deeply angry over the notion that there was nothing before they were born, there will be nothing after they die, and perhaps their very lives are equally insignificant and meaningless. And when other people find meaning, the atheists want to tear it down out of simple, childish resentment.

Cue absolutely boring, overdone, emotionally-charged evolution versus creation argument now.

Just because you believe in the FACT of evolution, doesn't mean you are an atheist. The THEORY of evolution is not a guess as to whether or not it occurred, but hypotheses over the REASON WHY it occurred.

Evolution is fact. The science is indisputable, just as gravity is indisputable. Yet there is still THEORIES proposed regarding the nature of gravity. That doesn't mean you can jump off a building and float, just because you call them theories.

Anyone who plays the "just a theory" card lacks a fundamental understanding of science and is caught up in a bullshit semantic game.

And newsflash: Evolution doesn't, nor does it attempt to disprove the existence of your god. Nor does science in general.

Whattheshit,

You have confused the science of gravity, which can be observed happening all day every day, with evolution, which is has many meanings, one being the ability of one animal to change into a totally different animal over time.

Evolution in that sense has never been observed, since it takes millions of years for these supposed changes to occur.

Gravity can be seen and studied in the present.

You cannot call something you are guessing at a fact simply because you can't prove it didn't happen.

"And when other people find meaning, the atheists want to tear it down out of simple, childish resentment."
Yes, that petty resentment over the millions of people killed fighting over whose meaning is right. At least if there's no meaning there's nothing to fight over. 9Or at least no one to pass the buck to ("I was following God's will!") when you make an asinine, psychotic move like killing someone because they don't believe like you.

Sorry Jeremy, but evolution HAS been observed. In fact, it's observed all day, every day when children are born with combined traits of their parents. It's observed all day, every day in genetics labs across the world. It's observed all day, every day in pharmaceutical labs that update flu vaccines for the EVOLVING virus. It's observed all day, every day when scientists examine fossil records and DNA evidence all over the world and literally trace the gradual progression, both inter-species and from species to species.

Any farmer can tell you that you can dump pesticides on a wheat field and watch 95% of the insects drop dead. Try it again on the next generation and only 80% will die. Try it again in 10 generations and all the insects will have passed on immunity to their young. That sir, is evolution.

You can try and say it's "micro-evolution," but how much does one species have to change in order for you to concede that it has evolved into a new species? We're talking billions of changes on a molecular level over the course of billions of years.

Bottom line: Practically everything we have learned about the human genome, sexuality, disease, molecular biology and other natural sciences doesn't make sense without the framework of evolution as a fact. If evolution were not a fact, the medicines and vaccines scientists design every day would simply not work.

Of course, maybe me and every reputable scientist on the planet is wrong. Maybe the whole planet came from two people in a magic garden full of talking snakes and cursed apples, one of which was magically made out of a rib. Because that sounds just as plausible.

"Um, lets see, how can I put this so you people understand..........its called a theory for a reason."

It's also called a fact for a good reason: "Theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive. A fact is a theory that has been confirmed to such a degree that it has gained wide acceptance. All facts, therefore, are theories.

"Evolution in that sense has never been observed, since it takes millions of years for these supposed changes to occur.'

For humans. Not for organisms with shorter lifespans, like insects. Evolution has indeed been observed, in the lab, and in nature. Moreover, there are a myriad of ways to discover knowledge about past events without direct, live observation. It's how the legal system convicts criminals every day, most of whom are not put away on the basis of direct eyewitness or video tape documentation of their crimes. (Wanna throw DNA, fingerprinting, and all forensics out the window?) The idea that you can't infer conclusions about things you can't directly observe is stupid. It if were true, we'd have to get rid of all archaeology, geology, cosmology, etc.

"And when other people find meaning, the atheists want to tear it down out of simple, childish resentment."

Most atheists I've observed do no such thing. They simply do not accept that issues of fact can be concluded on the basis of faith, religious belief, dogma or holy texts.

So, IS there a Santa Claus?

So here is a question for the religious folks that are here trying in vain to argue their point (because they Have to believe in something) - if adam and eve were the first two people and they had two sons, where did the rest of the people come from?

And also, with that whole noah's ark story, where the hell did noah find a newspaper big enough for the elephants to poop on?

@16

You make a good point. Maybe Adam and Eve had sex with their children, which is probably the real reason they got kicked out of the garden.

Does that mean that Christianity promotes incest? Just a question.

"Survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin.

Wait, I'm just suppose to be accepting of this movie because it might represent a view other than my own --in other words, I'm suppose to be open-minded. But if this were actually a movie about Christianity and Creationism, I'm sure a writer on this site would scream about how narrow-minded and misguided the makers of the movie were and anybody that might agree with them was an idiot redneck. Screw you, bigots.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU CAN LEAVE IT!

Wait, I fucked that up

I told you so.

wait a trailer now?
I saw this movie yesterday, it was a ok representation of Darwin.

@13 That response was brilliant. I laughed out loud at the end.
My two cents: Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I'm a proud, practicing Catholic, and was raised to take the story of Adam and Eve as a more of a parable, and I fully believe in evolution. I credit the genius of evolution, as well as all science, to God (whom I don't believe is an "old man in the sky" as #4 put it), and have met more than a handful of priests who happen to share that sentiment.

Why the hell was this made into a film? What's the story here? Like, man discovers theory but then his life carries on as normal apart from some people get pissy and disagree with him a bit? That's not a film, that's just life. Films have explosions and shit. Films are interesting, this is just bollocks. You might as well have stretched 2 hours out of an apple falling on Newtons head, or is that the sequel?

Whoever thought this would be an interesting story to tell is a complete moron.

@7
so true.

@ people arguing.
jesus christ, just stop.
god-lovers won't be able to convince brain-users, and vice-versa.
yes, i did imply that god-lovers don't use their brains.

the FSM touched me with his noodly appendage!

@25:

"god-lovers won't be able to convince brain-users, and vice-versa.
yes, i did imply that god-lovers don't use their brains."

Yeah, I saw what you did there. Is that the latest bumper-sticker catch phrase that atheists' keepers tell them to repeat?

Lets play follow the bouncing logic ball

god created everything; god created man; god loves man; god created cancer; cancer kills man; Therefore....god hates man.

Yep. That clears it up.

@6 it is not a " theory" it is a "scientific theory" learn the difference.

Turn off the TV and read a fucking book.

Might also what to learn why Creationism was defeated as a scientific theory and why you'll never hear anyone including the Creationists refer to it as one .

"Most atheists I've observed do no such thing. They simply do not accept that issues of fact can be concluded on the basis of faith, religious belief, dogma or holy texts."

Dude - you only have to read the comments that are right before your eyes. These are typical atheists who, like children, yell cynical and spiteful things from the back of the classroom.

"Yes, that petty resentment over the millions of people killed fighting over whose meaning is right. At least if there's no meaning there's nothing to fight over."

Um, are you aware that communism is fundamentally atheist? In fact, they make a point to kill people of faith. They also kill pretty much everyone else, except those who pledge their mind, body, and souls to the State.

Ideology kills people, not religion.

Religion is a collection of ideals wrapped in ancient fairy tales. So, yes, ideology kills people. And religion is the worst purveyor of backwards, ignorant ideology.

Read some history. Communism sucks, yes, and is linked with atheism, but religion has killed more people than any other cause in human history.

"Dude - you only have to read the comments that are right before your eyes. These are typical atheists who, like children, yell cynical and spiteful things from the back of the classroom."

Facts have nothing to do with faith, no one is arguing with your opinion because it is not based in any reason or logic whosoever.(an argument of " we can't explain it the fore it must be god" has threw out history proven to be fallacious). If it ever happens a Religion Vs Science debate would be like watching a professional martial artist fight a spacial needs kid.

"Yes, that petty resentment over the millions of people killed fighting over whose meaning is right. At least if there's no meaning there's nothing to fight over."
Sorry, I must have been away when the news broke about all the atheist suicide bombers.

"Um, are you aware that communism is fundamentally atheist? In fact, they make a point to kill people of faith. They also kill pretty much everyone else, except those who pledge their mind, body, and souls to the State."

Tell that to all the people in "Communist" countries that are openly practicing there religion you know the obscure nations of Cuba and China.

Besides the fact that Communism is an ideal that can not be reached and there are no Communist countries and there have NEVER been a communist country. The countries you are thinking of are Socialist. The greatest bit of propaganda that people have been duped in to buying is that a system that favors the working class instead of the top 10% is somehow evil.

But I normal people ar not to blame. Organized religion is the strongest form of social manipulation designed to do nothing more then keep people passive while they are being taken advantage of. It makes robbery seem legitimate. At least when a criminal takes your belongings or violates you they leave your personal spirit intact unlike organized religion that pollutes, destroys, and steals your soul replacing it the values 2000 years too old to be relevant.

Actually can an Admin please delete the post above, I had way too much time on my hands today.

If they decide to start teaching "creationism" along side evolution in Science class, they should start teaching the "stork theory" in Reproductive Biology.

SKY CAKE!

I give up.

@30
no, not really. i wrote it right there and then.

@37
exactly.

@37 - just where is it that YOU think baby storks come from?

#35

Do you recall reading about Falon Gong (sp?) practicioners in China being rounded up, imprisioned, and killed? This is actually a home-grown movement and has nothing to do with any of the "big three" religions.

I'll walk it through for you - communists are only trying to replace one being to be worshipped with another. Instead of worshipping God, they want people to worship Stalin, Mao, or any other of those freaks. I've seen eastern households that have beautified portraits of gurus and yogis - where the figure is presented with a serene, illuminated face.

Tell the me the difference between those pictures, and pictures of Mao that people are forced to hang in their homes in China.

The term "angry atheist" is a false pairing of two concepts that are unrelated, but which are strung together by people with no basis for their argument who want to belittle their opponent...just like "elitist intellectual." Atheists are some of the calmest people I know. Put a bunch oh atheists and a bunch of religious people together to discuss whether God exists and see who gets angrier!

42@

Like the pictures of American presidents in American public buildings?

Public institutions all over the world have images of leaders on the walls.

I do not like Chinese politics it is filled with obvious counteractions, but they are no different then America in the respect of persecution of people with different view points. I have red about Falon Gong and it bares a striking resemblance of an era you might know well, called McCarthyism you know the period in history when American government persecuted people for peacefully assembling to express view points that the government did not like.

No maybe we need to go in to the persecution of African American civil rights leaders no, no how about the recently released files of infiltration and surveillance of American atheist groups.

Do not get me wrong America is and will always be the greatest nation in my opinion. But you can not have a double standard about what America dose and what other nations do.

My brain hurts

Lol must we always fight. When a disagreement cant come to a conclusion, must we always submit the other in to an agreement.

Either way, I believe in evolution but not the THEORY of the Origin of Species.
I've read and studied it. Sounds like a load of crap which is why I believe in creationism but you can argue my opinion as long as you want. it wont change my views.

There is more i could say about the theory of the origin of species being crap and why i believe in creationism but what's the point. everyone does their own research and there are a lot of factors that could sway one or the other on being bias due to your worldly view.

Props to whattheshit & sva1994, who explained the science behind evolution. No need to continue on that thread, they have won the argument, put down your pencils.

This means you, Rancid. Your bringing in Communism is what is known as a "straw man argument." If your point is that "Communism is bad, therefore everything Christian is good" is laughable on its surface. And if you don't like China, why don't you take it to the GOP, who have loved China for decades.

A *new* point I'd like to make is that there are different types of knowing. Epistemology is something that is lost of 99% of the people, and 100% of conservatives. There is no such thing as "believing" in evolution, because it's a fact that we can discuss. It's like saying you "believe" in the sun rising. I know this is hard for you Xtian Fundamentalists, but try to grow your brain some, okay?

Spirituality is about using non-local thought patterns. You know something, you don't why you know it, but you do. Science becomes vague at this point, because it only deals with what is provable. Once you get into the realm of "unprovable, yet true," you're in the realm of spirituality. And spirituality is very different from Religion. Religion is something that manipulates that part of human thought that is the realm of spirituality. It uses the logical part of human knowing to explain that which is not logical. Thus, it is always in direct competition w/ Science, and scientists tend to see everything spiritual as an enemy, instead of just Religion.

It is very easy & possible for humans to hold different types of knowing in their consciousness. People do it all the time. Conflict arises when people become rigid & inflexible over that knowledge, and believe that their knowledge is Special and that anyone who doesn't have it is The Enemy. Hence people like Rancid. You can join the Open Minded folks, you'll be welcome, but it's not essential to my personal identity or self-worth that you do. That's the difference between us: I'm concerned w/ my knowledge, and you're concerned w/ everyone else's.

Lessee, we got science vs. religion, communism vs. capitalism, hmm... what other beehives are there to be poked? Oooh, I know! 9/11 was an inside job! LOOK AT TEH FACTS SHEEPLE.

the 2004 tsunami was an inside job..... BY GOD!!!

Like someone else said - If this movie doesnt present his story in the racism climate for which his theory was developed in an honest fashion, then this movie is no different at any other propaganda movie.

44@ Very insightful

Just remember knowledge is ignorantly flawed true enlightenment can only come from understanding.

But true understanding is nearly impossible to obtain.

So the human condition is to split experiences in to knowledge and spirituality forever walking blind unable to reconcile the two back in to understanding.

What a joke.

No half-man half-ape skeleton. No supporting evidence. Crap theory.
Mankind was created by God not "evolved" from stupid apes.

The debate about not being able to observe if evolution occurs because it "takes too long" (i.e. millions of years) and is therefor a theory is complete utter bullshit. To put it in as simple an example as possible as to just how quickly animals can be changed from one form to another: IF HUMANS CAN TAKE A MAJESTIC WOLF AND TURN IT INTO A RUG RAT CHIHUAHUA THEN WHY CAN'T THE STRESSES OF NATURE DO THAT TO AN EVEN GREATER DEGREE? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOUR GOD IS LESS THAN CAPABLE OF SUCH AN ACCOMPLISHMENT THAN HUMANS? SUCK IT CREATIONISTS!

Oh, and it IS a theory. A theory based on observable and trackable evidence down to the mutations of DNA and up through clear physical evidence that can be observed and tested under strict conditions and rigorous checking. AND science, when practiced properly, also very much leaves the possibility of throwing out a theory if the evidence doesn't match what is hypothesized. When that happens it is considered a bad theory and left behind or modified based on new evidence.

Religions generally take the opposite approach: If the evidence doesn't agree with what you believe then you must get rid of it or bury it, or even better yet silence your opponents.

Even as a proud atheist, science geek and great admirer of Darwin, I have to say that I don't think this film looks particularly good, nor do I believe making Darwin's life into a feature length film for the world to see is really necessary.

I have to wonder about the motives for a film about Evoluion being labeled as 'Creation'. That alone is provocative. The film will of course be instanty rejected and criticised by the fundamentalist Christian churches, and knowing the ridiculous scare mongering nonsense that comes out of many preacher's mouths, the film will probably be labeled as the "Work of Satan!" that "Should not be watched by any decent God fearing Christian!".(or something equally as ridiculous).

The film will probably get a lot of free publicity too, due to it's controversial subject matter. This will almost certainly mean endless interviews and and televised debates with "leading experts" from each field.

There's already been quite a few excellent BBC produced documentaries about Charles Darwin's fascinating but troubled life, so I'm not sure a feature length for the masses is a good idea given it's going to be either loved or loathed. I also doubt it will be able to enlighten many (if any!) of the ignorant brainwashed Christians that have no understanding of the complex laws of the Universe. Ever noticed how the vast majority of Physicists, Astronomers, Geologists, Biologists and Chemists are Atheists? Given they're some of the smartest people on the planet that specialise in studing the very fabric and composition of the universe for a living, that should tell Christians something! Alas it is hard to enlighten people that have grown up believing in fairy tales.

Having said all that I hope I'm wrong and that Creation turns out to be a great film. I guess if it converts even one religious person to Atheism, then that alone made the film worth making!

Thank God (pun intended!) I live in Australia where most people are Atheists, Agnostics or non practicing Christians (they might have gone to Sunday school a couple of times at most and that's it! :-)).

The majority of Australians certainly accept evolution. Most of us also can't believe that some very ignorant fundamentalists ignore all the hard evidence, and still believe that the Universe and Earth were created in 7 days about 6000 years ago. However science shows us quite clearly that the Universe is in fact roughly 14 billion years old, and our precious Earth is about 4.5 Billion (from memory). I'm not sure I could handle living somewhere like the US where from my experience you're often looked at like you're the Devil or some kind untrustworthy disturbed person if you mention you're an Atheist!

@52 Hate to tell you friend but,

I've been to Australia a few month ago and you have a fast growing Muslim population and they are by no means Atheists.

So, give it a few years and you'll know how the rest of us feel.

Well if there is a god, why did he make me an atheist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k&feature=related

Evolution debate aside (talk about the trailer, why don't you!), this film looks like nothing more than a crumby and melodramatic love story. Watching Darwin collect beetles would be more interesting than this schlock.

#49 ~

Will, your comment shows that you -- like many, many Creationists -- don't even understand what the Theory of Evolution is. Hopefully, I can help:

There's no "half-man half ape skeleton", as you put it, because humans did not evolve from apes. Let me say that again: HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES.

The Theory of Evolution says that humans and apes evolved from the same ancestor, in the same way that you and your cousins all 'evolved' from the same great-great-great grandparents. You share the same family history, but there was never a "half-Will, half-Will's cousin".

Same goes for humans and apes. We're cousins.

No one ever suggested that man came from apes.

Make sense?

you people are silly little monkeys.

its funny how fevered the athiests get, kinda like religious zealots.

all truth is is a concensus reached by billions of perspectives trying to digest reality, making fun of people that believe in things makes you seem like an idiot and helps nothing.

GOD=CREATOR
MAN=CREATED
MAN=FINITE
GOD=INFINITE
GRAVITY=UNDEFINABLE FORCE
MONKEYS=CUTE
RABBITS=MORE CUTE
DARWIN=DEAD
MAN=DIES
GOD=ETERNAL
MAN+GOD=ETERNAL LIFE
MAN-GOD=ETERNAL DEATH
SIMPLE IS IT NOT?

CHARLES DARWIN - A "Racist"? Oh yes! Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?

We all came from a warm little pond. "Where" did the pond come from? I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith?" And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we?
Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is also taught.

How's this for sad: Like most people desiring someone to pay attention to their pointless ramblings on the internet, I come from a "step" home. Anyway, my biological father adopted my idiot sister, and she turned into a whore, did the whole married young, got knocked up, spit out kids thing by 20, and then became a born again Christian.

Last year, when I brought up the topic of this movie, she of course tried to argue that evolution is a theory, not proven, yadda yadda. I explained that I don't expect her to understand since I have a superior intellect to her, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. My father was slumming, found our mother, and the rest is history. She proceeded to explain that since my father adopted her, we now share the same DNA, so I am as stupid as she is.

A grown, 36 year old woman started SERIOUSLY explaining this to me. I was speechless.

Is this movie even gonna play in the U.S.?

One thing I don't get about creationists...they want to cram a god into the gaps, but the Christian god of the Bible clearly does not fit in those gaps. Neither do the creators from other creation myths.

He made the land and the water be in different places. Never mind gravity.

First there was light, night and day...then later there were plants...then, days later, he makes the sun as a decoration. WTF?
Also, as an afterthought, god makes billions and billions of other galaxies (of course it doesn't mention the galaxies...because they just look like stars to dumb cavemen looking at the sky), whose light took millions of light years to reach us, meaning you are seeing those galaxies millions of years ago (the center of our own Milky Way galaxy is 30,000 light years away). Galaxies containing stars whose surface area is larger than the orbit of Mars. Yeah, stars. Those tiny insignificant dots the cavemen saw in the sky, the sky which is held up by invisible pillars, and has another ocean on top of it.

What a glorious revelation, composed of observations a four-year old would make.

Yeah.

If there was a creator, it's pretty clear it's not the one in the Bible or any other creation story.

@ 60 - Did you copy/paste that shit off banana boy Ray Comforts site? What difference does it make if Darwin was a racist anyway? What if he ate his own shit?

Isaac Newton was an alchemist and suffered from mental illness. So that means everything the father of modern science said is automatically wrong then? Isn't that what you're trying to say?

Einstein didn't believe in black holes. So by your reasoning, everything else Einstein said was false, correct? Since he was wrong about one thing, does that mean he was automatically wrong about everything else too?

Religion has been responsible for more deaths than racism. Racists USE THE BIBLE to justify their racism. So by your reasoning the Bible is wrong. Racists say they are gods chosen people, and this justifies their racism. So this automatically makes god evil then, correct?

At present, evolution says everyone came from Africa. What's racist about that?

@ 61 - Creationism is MAGIC. Whatever bullshit you make up happened, cuz it's MAGIC. THERE'S NO RHYME OR REASON TO IT WHATSOEVER. Why would you bother teaching something that's based on no observable phenomenon?

Instead of making observations and drawing a conclusion as in actual science, creationists start with the answer they want, then they embrace anything that goes along with that answer, and ignore anything that doesn't go along with that answer. Welcome to fucktard-ville.
Why on earth would you teach some make-believe to children that any caveman fool could pull out of his ass? Maybe we should just hire delusional paranoid schizophrenics to run the world.

@ 34 - "If they decide to start teaching "creationism" along side evolution in Science class, they should start teaching the "stork theory" in Reproductive Biology."
That's crazy, everyone knows babies come from under cabbage leaves. They just KNOW.

@ 62 - XD I think your step sister lives near me. I seem to be surrounded by her.

Atheist are so retarded.

In the future we'll all evolve into ape-creatures. It happened to Roddy McDowall. I swear to whatever deity you like.

To all the Atheists, I pose;
"IF there is no God, then where did Darwin come from?"
.
Ok, then.

To 66 I post if there is a god who created him?

MONKEY FISH FROG!!!

BONGHITS FOR JESUS!

LEVEL 80 RESTO SHAMAN GOGOGO

#44

Congratulations, you win the Irony award for the day.

You accuse me of strawmen arguments, but then offer this little tidbit:

"If your point is that "Communism is bad, therefore everything Christian is good" is laughable on its surface."

Fact - I was taught Evolution by a Jesuit priest, and I believe in it, even though I can't prove it. It is not difficult, to me, to believe this earth is more than 5,000 years old.

Fact - Our history is stained by acts committed in the name of Christianity. Christ is perfect. People following him are not.

Fact - The cult of personality is alive and well, both in religions (as practiced), and in political movements, such as Communism, that you hold so near and dear to your heart

If you're still having trouble understanding - I'll try to dumb it down a little more:

I don't trust fundamentalists, but I trust nihilists/atheists even less. An atheist pretends to know the unknowable, and then thinks this nonsense somehow makes them intellectually superior to those of faith.

Ever heard of the term "Agnostic"? In case it's not getting through to you, that is what I am.

So much hate flying around communists capitalists nihilists atheists spiritualists .....

Just admit it you are all micrascpoic peaces of shit on a speck of dirt so insignificant that even if the sun went supernova the cosmose would not even flinch.

If god really did make people in his own image then he too is an insignificant peace of dirt the demise of whom would not even shake the turd from a dog's ass.

Label all you like hate all you like, any fact given an infinite plane of time becomes just random speculation based on coincidental pattern of evens and faith dose not even have that.

Where's this ark? How is there nothing left of a boat that carried every animal on?

I dont get what is the reason for the movie to feature this. Maybe once you see it you'll understand why. My guess is that Darwin had an internal struggle as his theory would mean possibly never seeing his beloved daughter again.

thats not wimblydon, thats Da Vinci Code!

I'll watch this movie.

Who the hell wrote the article supporting this? some jesus freak? lets keep our minds open to the truth people

Hi Jake - #71.

Let us assume for a moment that you were one of the last surviving humans onboard the Ark with all the other surviving animals selected for the journey. Once the Ark had landed safety upon the mountains of Ararat and the animals were disembarked. What would you do? Rebuild your society obviously.

However after the flood had cleared away, it would be cold, damp and uncomfortable, plant life would have started to regrow, but the first thing you would do is light a fire. The most obvious thing is that the Ark would be dismantled, used as firewood and as construction material. Why would you let such readily available material go to waste?

@76
the difference between science and religion is that science uses data and religion uses anecdotes like your firewood story. it's a story, just like the bible.
not saying the bible is bad, it was mad a LONG time ago to teach people how to act, not for them to accept every world as truth and refuse to learn from the world around them. if you study different religions you find that older ones are more colorful and more abstract, islam is the most recent of the abrahamic religions and it is the most specific regarding daily living, business and family. the torah is the one of the oldest books and contains some of the most "magical" stories.

read "the beak of the finch" this book clearly explains evolution in the context of a individual study and is easy for anyone to understand. and it doesn't disprove god.

what if god made living things... but gave them ability to change, adapt, learn and to think for themselves?

There is very little perfection in nature. There are systems that work, and then just barely. There are vestigial bones in whales, there are giraffe necks, there are all kinds of things, that, given the option, a master-builder would opt for a different solution. (If I were god, building a giraffe, I would put more bones in the neck than in other mammals. Instead, giraffes have seven neck bones, like dolphins, humans, cats, and beavers). We are not well designed, which is to say we are well built, but if someone were to design us from scratch, there are a lot of things that could be tweaked to make our energy use more efficient and our bodies less prone to attrition.

So it's all according to God's plan, right. I would like crhistian conservatives to push engineers and designers to undo much of their work and start building as God would build, and see how smoothly things operate.

Charles Dawrin came from his mother's womb, out of the combined DNA of the sperm of his father with that of his mother's ovum. His father did the same (a dift womb) as did his father and his father before him. Nothing unusual there. Where did the first man come from? Well, probably he stood out from his group, he probably had different abilities or mannerisms than the rest of his group, but his group weren't chimps and he was a man, they were all pretty close to him in appearance, so much so that he probably bred back with them and his kids might have been half-still-like-the-rest-of-the-group and half like their father, a little smarter, better with syntax and understanding social groups, maybe a better tool user, things that might have helped them, in turn, breed successfully, become alpha males, perpetuate their DNA...

I think the point is that the religious won't accept the science, and the scientists won't accept the religion... as dogma. I'm an atheist (although reason tells me to be an agnostic) and I can consider religion. I can see its function, I can see how it's useful to label bad instincts Satan and to have an unquestionable reason not to pursue them. Atheists sometimes just have to convince themselves, which sucks. But religion, mind you, is also a product of evolution, religious groups have performed on the whole better than non-religious groups, especially the most repressed groups, like Jews and Calvinists and other descendants of a puritan tradition, where the contract with God is not just in deed, but in thought. There is a reason for the effectiveness of the suppression of pride, for example, and maybe some day someone (taking up Freud) will consider it further.

The problem with this discussion is that religious conviction and scientific certainty are not operating on the same platform, and to pit them against one another would be like pitting the wind against an mp3 file, no one wins, because there can be no real competition between them.

If science erodes faith, the burden is on the faithful to maintain their faith, and they should be able to do that without attacking science. Science doesn't need to destroy religion to survive, it does it simply because it likes to asks questions, and takes nothing for granted, other than the limits of human observaton.

This is the worst party ever.

Sorry this is a bit long. I decided to answer both of your main points from #77 and #78.

#77 – I have seen the beak of the finch mentioned before. I’ve noticed unfortunately that the author of this particular book refers to natural selection a lot. I do not doubt the obviousness that natural selection pressures can cause changes in a population and even to produce new species. However demonstrating natural selection does not in itself demonstrate evolution. Evolution is the production of large amounts of genetic information, through which natural selection works. Natural selection is not a force in itself, but is a means of culling unwanted and harmful mutations from the gene pool of a population. The vague undefined term of evolution has lately been used to throw any change in a species appearance or behaviour underneath the ‘evolution blanket’ which limits true scientific discussion as to what is actually going on. This means that the vague term known as evolution needs to be defined. I have seen the term being used for a single example of natural selection as ‘evolution’ and this somehow proves the bigger picture of evolution concerning fungus-man over billions of years, which supposedly covers the increase of vast amounts of genetic information. However many of the aspects of supposed evolution in action are explained without any problem by the creationist model.

In regards to any example of natural selection, (Such as mankind using bug spray and killing 95% of a particular insects population, allowing the remaining 5% with an immunity to that particular brand of bug spray to recover the insects original population numbers, the same bug spray used again later will be less effective, and so this continues until the bug spray is entirely useless) this example is hailed as major proof of evolution. However any alternative theory is simply ignored or loudly attacked.

Bioinfomatics can be used to explain what is happening with the bug spray.
A single mutation in the DNA of a single insect can allow that particular insect to become immune to a specific type of bug spray chemical, usually by preventing the insect from absorbing as much of the bug spray as the rest of its species. But this only means that this is a rare beneficial mutation in some part of an already existing gene in the insect. It does not explain the production of new genes or new genetic information. Rather, the gene pool of this insect species is now poorer, other insects would have possessed mutations that allowed them to be immune to a different type of bug spray. This information is now lost. The new insect is immune to the new bug spray, but potentially still vulnerable to an older bug spray.

Rather than producing evidence for evolution directly, the bug spray and the insects is an important part of the creationist model. That God created living things, and inserted into their DNA enough genetic potential to allow natural selection to work efficiently and to express different parts of the specific animals DNA for adaptation, this does not explain the origin of the DNA or the origin of the genetic information in the first place. However mutations can be demonstrated to be causing errors in the DNA, turning on or off various features. Natural selection then plays a part, allowing the death of animals which are missing features they need for survival. But the origin of these features from mutations only is something that evolution is unable to explain. We are expecting beneficial mutations to increase genetic information content, something which has never been witnessed experimentally. And in the case of putting wings on dinosaurs, these mutations would have to occur in sync, in perfect succession. Providing the exact genes in the exact order they are needed for the information for wing coding to function.

For #78 – This is where evolution can be demonstrated as causing a problem for science. Once a structure is classified as vestigial, it limits the amount of scientific research that can be applied to the structure. For example, the human appendix was long classed as a vestigial organ. Recent advances in biology can confirm that the human appendix has a use. So when something is classed as vestigial, it simply affirms that we do not know what use it has, not that it has no use.
In the case of whale hip bones, unfortunately these are not vestigial. The hip bones are used to strengthen and anchor the reproductive organs. Ignorance of a function does not make a structure vestigial; it simply means we have not discovered the function yet. However vestigial structures, such as wings on flightless birds are not in themselves proof against creation. What evolutionists should be looking for are nascent organs. The appearance and use of new developing organs that weren’t present before.

I have also noticed a lot of philosophical issues with bad design and ‘God wouldn’t do it that way, so evolution must have done it’ sadly this isn’t proof of evolution, nor disproof of creation, it is an assumption that something is badly designed. The bad design argument does not disprove creation, it only proves ignorance. Take for example the following;
“The pharynx serves as a common passageway for air and water. Think of the number of lives that have been lost by food or water getting into or obstructing the air passageway. It certainly would be required very little intelligence for the Creator to have designed a more efficient and less dangerous arrangement…”
However this argument is flawed. The author of this particular argument (a noted zoologist) believes that it is safer to breathe and eat at the same time if you had two pharynx passageways. But he fails to realise that attaching the lungs and the stomach through the same passageway allow for more efficiency, and other improvements that his design of multiple pharynx passageways would fail to provide. Such as, having them connected as they are allows you to clear the throat and nose from pathogens and infection using sneezing and coughing, it allows you to swallow mucus build up in the lung without needing to cough it up completely. It allows for you to have only one mouth because you use your teeth, cheeks and tongue to eat and to affect your voice patterns for communication.

Rather examples of vestigial organs and bad design are failed attempts to prove evolution because they only prove ignorance. For your example of the giraffe neck, I would agree with you that it seems a bit unintelligent to only have the same amount of neck bones as other mammals. But this only means we need further investigation into the reason for this. Perhaps you can answer this question. When I was growing up, we were taught that as the trees around giraffes grew taller, the giraffe had to compensate by growing a longer neck and leg to be able to eat the leaves. My question is, if the giraffe could not feed by eating any ferns or bushes or shorter plants, what do the baby giraffes eat? We do not see them having any problems, we also do not see giraffes having to feed their young because the young cannot reach any food.

GUYS:

RELIGION IS BASED ON FAITH. SO EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN IT, OR NOT.

SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACT. SO EITHER YOU BELIEVE IT, OR YOU'RE AN INGORANT IMBECILE. there is NO point for comparison, because science and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.

ask your primary school science teacher, (s)he'll explain (unless s/he's a mormon or a republican, clearly).

now shut up, deal with it and go back to church.

GUYS:

RELIGION IS BASED ON FAITH. SO EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN IT, OR NOT.

SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACT. SO EITHER YOU BELIEVE IT, OR YOU'RE AN INGORANT IMBECILE. there is NO point for comparison, because science and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.

ask your primary school science teacher, (s)he'll explain (unless s/he's a mormon or a republican, clearly).

now shut up, deal with it and go back to church.

GUYS:

RELIGION IS BASED ON FAITH. SO EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN IT, OR NOT.

SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACT. SO EITHER YOU BELIEVE IT, OR YOU'RE AN INGORANT IMBECILE. there is NO point for comparison, because science and religion have NOTHING to do with each other.

ask your primary school science teacher, (s)he'll explain (unless s/he's a mormon or a republican, clearly).

now shut up, deal with it and go back to church.

oh, whoopsies. well, at least my point got across.

You're absolutely right. I forget sometimes how evolutionists have such outstanding FAITH to believe in the fallacy that is evolution despite the scientific FACTS that can be amounted against it. When you put it that way, Evolution is a religion. How else can you explain your awesome faith in the theory despite the fact that you failed to answer me purely on a scientific basis.

everyone that believes in creation is living in a fairy tale land because evolution is based on the facts, so get up and read a book for once

Unfortunately, you're wrong again.
Evolution is based on an interpretation of the facts. It is not FACT that rocks are millions of years old, the age is an interpretation based on decaying rates of elements contained within the rock. But it has been documented that the interpretations can be wrong. See (Rangitoto Potassium-Argon dating, where conflicting dating methods are clearly demonstrated to prove Potassium-Argon dating to be wrong on a huge scale) . We cannot trust dating methods, just like we cannot trust supposed evidences for Evolution.
I also recall reading an article published by American Scientist in regards to the number of fossil species, they discovered that approximately half of their fossil species they uncovered were already discovered many years earlier. The fossil record of thousands of distinct species has now been cut in half to a little over 500. According to Darwins prediction of Evolution, there should be thousands of transitional fossils for each species that exists on Earth today. Therefore, there should be billions of dead extinct species throughout Earth's history, even giving a 1% fossilisation rate for these extinct animals, that still gives us well over a million species that should have been fossilised.
There are not. There are barely a thousand.

In regards to your comment about me not reading enough, clearly you're forced to resort to a personal attack instead of an actual scientific argument supporting your case. Obviously you're mistaken about my reading habits.

I really like this type of XX too, can pendulum you help me look at which one has higher price point?

Leisure is more and more important in the life. Here I know a lot of leisure that is good at me. Adjust our life interest, bring us the enthusiasm of exercise. The post is very well. By the way I know some websites is very well such as http://www.all-carefully.net Disscount fashionable item is hotting on sale!