"Creation"

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield(any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

It does no justice to The Theory of Evolution by calling it a fact. I'm certainly not against it but there is a clear distinction between theories and facts. Or is this just a misplaced modifier?

Read the fucking thread and then put your thumb up your arse and jump right out of here.

Ignorance can be tolerated because of lack of education but when i already educated you on this matter if you cared to read it i do NOT tolerate it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield(any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

It does no justice to The Theory of Evolution by calling it a fact. I'm certainly not against it but there is a clear distinction between theories and facts. Or is this just a misplaced modifier?

There is the theory of evolution which refers to all aspects of the overarching theory of how life evolves, and then there is the fact that evolution occurs.

Similar to gravity. There is the theory of gravity which encompasses all kinds of different aspects of the phenomenon, and then there is the simple fact that gravity exists.

You're right and I sound like a skeptic when I make that distinction. I'm not. My bias probably comes from the term "fact" seems like it no longer needs to be researched. Evolution, on the other hand, continues to grow and thus in my opinion has not reached that level. My bad.

The FACT that evolution occurs is one thing, you can go to the nearest biology lab and study a cell culture of bacteria to see it happen in real life, there is no question whether evolution is a fact, it's as much of a fact as your fucking CPU.

Now, the inner workings... that is HOW this happens, that is what the SCIENTIFIC theory (which isn't just a theory) attempts to explain and it'll never be done, just like every single scientific theory it evolves with time, it can't graduate and become something else.

In short, a scientific theory is "to the best of our knowledge at any given time, today or a million years from now".

How's abut that intelligent falling, those quacks believe in gravity... such nutters, obviously it's god pushing everything down towards earth. Anyone who isn't an anti-christian communist liberal nazist understands that... right?

Does that sound ridiculous to you? Well the scientific theory of gravity is much less robust than the scientific theory of evolution, so ....

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield(any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

It does no justice to The Theory of Evolution by calling it a fact. I'm certainly not against it but there is a clear distinction between theories and facts. Or is this just a misplaced modifier?

There is the theory of evolution which refers to all aspects of the overarching theory of how life evolves, and then there is the fact that evolution occurs.

Similar to gravity. There is the theory of gravity which encompasses all kinds of different aspects of the phenomenon, and then there is the simple fact that gravity exists.

You're right and I sound like a skeptic when I make that distinction. I'm not. My bias probably comes from the term "fact" seems like it no longer needs to be researched. Evolution, on the other hand, continues to grow and thus in my opinion has not reached that level. My bad.

I agree with you, there is a clear and important distinct between the words 'theory' and 'fact', and I think precision in scientific language is important. Evolution is the theory or framework which explains the known facts that species change over time. The theory describes the changes, why and how they take place and makes predictions about changes in the future.

YES! Just when i started to lose hope too...

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield(any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

It does no justice to The Theory of Evolution by calling it a fact. I'm certainly not against it but there is a clear distinction between theories and facts. Or is this just a misplaced modifier?

Read the fucking thread and then put your thumb up your arse and jump right out of here.

Ignorance can be tolerated because of lack of education but when i already educated you on this matter if you cared to read it i do NOT tolerate it.

Totally uncalled for. I explained myself later and I still think it's a poor choice of words and apparently others agreed with me. Too many people call science fact when in fact it is theory.

In your second point. I guess you're referring to the Ape comment. Yes you are right with respect to taxonomy Ape is Hominoidea. I don't know if you schooled me but you are technically correct. Although Ape is more commonly used to refer to the Lesser Apes rather than the Greater Apes. Still I agree with you.

This is kind of the same disambiguation you applied to Universe with regards to the Known Universe or Multiverse.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield(any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

It does no justice to The Theory of Evolution by calling it a fact. I'm certainly not against it but there is a clear distinction between theories and facts. Or is this just a misplaced modifier?

Read the fucking thread and then put your thumb up your arse and jump right out of here.

Ignorance can be tolerated because of lack of education but when i already educated you on this matter if you cared to read it i do NOT tolerate it.

Totally uncalled for. I explained myself later and I still think it's a poor choice of words and apparently others agreed with me. Too many people call science fact when in fact it is theory.

In your second point. I guess you're referring to the Ape comment. Yes you are right with respect to taxonomy Ape is Hominoidea. I don't know if you schooled me but you are technically correct. Although Ape is more commonly used to refer to the Lesser Apes rather than the Greater Apes. Still I agree with you.

This is kind of the same disambiguation you applied to Universe with regards to the Known Universe or Multiverse.

It's NOT a fucking THEORY... CHRIST why are you so daft? It's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is NOT a THEORY as we use it in everyday language.

It's not a poor choice of words for people who finished high school, everyone should know the difference or do you have some law against that in the US? It fucking seems like you do.

A scientific theory is an explanation of known facts, i explained it in no less than three posts before yours.

And no, nutter, there was no second point, all of it was interlinked in that one post, i described the difference between theory and scientific theory, how it works and why it works, how theory cannot become anything or be upgraded into anything else in the scientific world.

If you had taken the time to read it, this discussion wouldn't be neccessary.

And the disambiguation is only in your brain, try reading the fucking thread before you start posting and you'll do much better.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

My previous post for your convenience:

I did not expect you not to know the difference between a theory as it's used in everyday conversation and a scientific theory.

You start with a hypotheis and if it stands the testing it eventually becomes a scientific theory, then you try to falsify it forever, it never upgrades to a law, it will never become anything but a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it's not a fact, just like gravity is a fact, so is evolution, the scientific theories merely try to explain how.

So how come we don't hear anything about "intelligent falling" even though the scientific theory of evolution is way more robust than the scientific theory of gravity? Simple, religious ideas get in the way of proper education of the scientific theory of evolution simply because it contradics Genesis as it's literally written, well that and denial or unwillingness to even hear about it because of the above.

You don't "believe" in a scientific theory, you either know it or you don't.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It's NOT a fucking THEORY... CHRIST why are you so daft? It's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is NOT a THEORY as we use it in everyday language.

It's not a poor choice of words for people who finished high school, everyone should know the difference or do you have some law against that in the US? It fucking seems like you do.

A scientific theory is an explanation of known facts, i explained it in no less than three posts before yours.

And no, nutter, there was no second point, all of it was interlinked in that one post, i described the difference between theory and scientific theory, how it works and why it works, how theory cannot become anything or be upgraded into anything else in the scientific world.

If you had taken the time to read it, this discussion wouldn't be neccessary.

And the disambiguation is only in your brain, try reading the fucking thread before you start posting and you'll do much better.

Why are you calling me a nutter? There are many that reserve the word fact for discrete observations to support the scientific method. The wording

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You start with a hypotheis and if it stands the testing it eventually becomes a scientific theory, then you try to falsify it forever, it never upgrades to a law, it will never become anything but a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it's not a fact, just like gravity is a fact, so is evolution, the scientific theories merely try to explain how.

is better context for the word fact. The context I was objecting to was the

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact

I just disagree without all the name calling.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It's NOT a fucking THEORY... CHRIST why are you so daft? It's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is NOT a THEORY as we use it in everyday language.

It's not a poor choice of words for people who finished high school, everyone should know the difference or do you have some law against that in the US? It fucking seems like you do.

A scientific theory is an explanation of known facts, i explained it in no less than three posts before yours.

And no, nutter, there was no second point, all of it was interlinked in that one post, i described the difference between theory and scientific theory, how it works and why it works, how theory cannot become anything or be upgraded into anything else in the scientific world.

If you had taken the time to read it, this discussion wouldn't be neccessary.

And the disambiguation is only in your brain, try reading the fucking thread before you start posting and you'll do much better.

Why are you calling me a nutter? There are many that reserve the word fact for discrete observations to support the scientific method. The wording

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You start with a hypotheis and if it stands the testing it eventually becomes a scientific theory, then you try to falsify it forever, it never upgrades to a law, it will never become anything but a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it's not a fact, just like gravity is a fact, so is evolution, the scientific theories merely try to explain how.

is better context for the word fact. The context I was objecting to was the

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact

I just disagree without all the name calling.

But it's not a THEORY, READ, COMPREHEND, IT'S A FACT, it's just HOW it works that is the SCIENTIFIC theory (which isn't a theory but a SCIENTIFIC theory. I explained it several times, how can you STILL not get it?

You're right, you're not a nutter, you're a fucking imbecile.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield(any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

It does no justice to The Theory of Evolution by calling it a fact. I'm certainly not against it but there is a clear distinction between theories and facts. Or is this just a misplaced modifier?

No, there really isn't a difference. In science a theory is a collection of facts.

Do you know what music theory is? The fact that the relative minor of C is Am, and the fact that the Mixolydian mode features the same tonal series as the major scale taking the 5th as root, are both facts in music theory. That doesn't mean that someday we'll find out the rest of the secrets of music and it will "graduate" to music fact.

It's the same with evolution. Biological organisms share common ancestry, and species diversify thru mutation and natural selection. These are facts of evolutionary theory.

EDIT: I see now that I mistook your post for a contestation of the idea that evolution is factually based. I'll leave my original post in place, however, simply as a useful explanation of the relationship between facts and theories in science.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is okay with me if some people want to believe that the Head Bunny created the world and everything by waving it's paws and that bunnies are the center of the universe. But is not going to change the fact that the evidence does not support this.

I'm pretty sure that there's no "evidence" of *how* the universe was created. If there were, there would be evidence of *time* starting (the fourth dimension can't exist without the other three) - last time I checked, the popular scientific explanation is that time is infinite.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity.

Yet there's a *law* of gravity, no? Obviously evolution isn't *that* well established.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Being unsure is simply being questioning, or admitting that maybe someone doesn't have enough information to make a valid determination.

People weren't asked if they were "sure." They were asked ,

Do you, personally, believe in the theory of evolution, do you not believe in evolution, or don't you have an opinion either way?

Yet if asked in these same terms if they believe in God, at least 90% would say they do.

Was that asked in the survey, too?

 

[Amused]

I had a problem with that 39% number and found this USA Today article about a recent poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...evolution-debate_N.htm

Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? Majorities of Americans in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say evolution and creationism are both likely explanations for life on Earth ? underscoring the complexities of an issue that has put Republican presidential candidates on the spot in recent weeks.

Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.

More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true.


POLL RESULTS: Public views on the origin of life on earth

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...ion-poll-results_n.htm

Geoffrey Layman, a politics and religion expert at the University of Maryland, says people are trying to reconcile science and religion. "They might believe the science, or they might see the science as hard to dismiss, and they don't necessarily take Genesis to be literal," he says. "But they do think that God played some role in directing this evolutionary process."

At a May 3 debate of GOP candidates, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee indicated they did not believe in evolution. The subject has arisen repeatedly since then.

Brownback wrote last week in The New York Times that "man was not an accident" and that he accepts parts of evolution consistent with that belief. Huckabee told reporters Wednesday that "for me it's as simple as 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.' "

Nearly three in 10 in the new poll said they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who rejects evolution; 15% said they'd be more likely, and 53% said it would make no difference. Huckabee says the issue is not relevant to a White House race and seven in 10 in the poll agreed with him.

Lawrence Krauss, a physicist and astronomer at Case Western Reserve University, said evolution is an important campaign issue. "Evolution happened whether or not a candidate believes in it," he said, and presidents shouldn't let "religious or ideological beliefs trump reality."

------------------------------------------------

So, as the poll shows it is NOT as simplistic as the OP's post makes it seem to be.

53% of Americans believe in the presnt theory of evolution, but a large portion of those believe it was guided by a god/s.

Yet 66% also believe Humans were created by god in their present form, which is confusing, and shows people ARE mixing their science with their religious beliefs but not tossing either aside completely.

A rather complicated result, if you ask me.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

When it comes down to it, like "i want to work" and he doesn't want her to, he brings it up, so she's basically his slave, that is how it works. Doesn't seem like much on the outside but if they disagree, he decides, normally she'll follow whatever he wants though as the slave she is.

It is INDEED the way Christian households work. In fact, i have never seen a Christian household that works in any other way.

Women are still slaves under every major form of religion, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.

You need to get out more. Maybe meet some of those people that you quite obviously loathe so much.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
It's NOT a fucking THEORY... CHRIST why are you so daft? It's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which is NOT a THEORY as we use it in everyday language.

It's not a poor choice of words for people who finished high school, everyone should know the difference or do you have some law against that in the US? It fucking seems like you do.

A scientific theory is an explanation of known facts, i explained it in no less than three posts before yours.

And no, nutter, there was no second point, all of it was interlinked in that one post, i described the difference between theory and scientific theory, how it works and why it works, how theory cannot become anything or be upgraded into anything else in the scientific world.

If you had taken the time to read it, this discussion wouldn't be neccessary.

And the disambiguation is only in your brain, try reading the fucking thread before you start posting and you'll do much better.

Why are you calling me a nutter? There are many that reserve the word fact for discrete observations to support the scientific method. The wording

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You start with a hypotheis and if it stands the testing it eventually becomes a scientific theory, then you try to falsify it forever, it never upgrades to a law, it will never become anything but a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it's not a fact, just like gravity is a fact, so is evolution, the scientific theories merely try to explain how.

is better context for the word fact. The context I was objecting to was the

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact

I just disagree without all the name calling.

But it's not a THEORY, READ, COMPREHEND, IT'S A FACT, it's just HOW it works that is the SCIENTIFIC theory (which isn't a theory but a SCIENTIFIC theory. I explained it several times, how can you STILL not get it?

You're right, you're not a nutter, you're a fucking imbecile.

My apologies, this was completely my fault and i shouldn't have said that, i won't edit my post because what i said has been read and people might miss this apology, besides, it would be dishonest to do so considering i wrote what i wrote.

I have no excuse for my misinterpretation and misunderstanding and offer you only my apology for it.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: shira

Religion was created - by men - to, in part, justify this behavior.

Wasn't science created by man, as well?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

When it comes down to it, like "i want to work" and he doesn't want her to, he brings it up, so she's basically his slave, that is how it works. Doesn't seem like much on the outside but if they disagree, he decides, normally she'll follow whatever he wants though as the slave she is.

It is INDEED the way Christian households work. In fact, i have never seen a Christian household that works in any other way.

Women are still slaves under every major form of religion, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.

You need to get out more. Maybe meet some of those people that you quite obviously loathe so much.

Not really, traditional marriage is shaped in that way, Christian values makes the wife do whatever she does because of her religion, it doesn't make it any less opressive than women wearing Burqas of their own free will because their religion requires it.

Remember that i said that it was religion that was the opressive force, not the men.

I think it's fucked up and very sad for women of today to have to live with whatever their husbands decides "after a discussion" they have.

It's like my men coming to me to ask me for something, i am their superior, they may lay their arguments forth, but in the end, i'm the only one who has any say and in most cases, the discussion isn't even neccessary.

Imagine having a marriage like that, imagine MEN having a marriage like that, well, some do, i guess....

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

When it comes down to it, like "i want to work" and he doesn't want her to, he brings it up, so she's basically his slave, that is how it works. Doesn't seem like much on the outside but if they disagree, he decides, normally she'll follow whatever he wants though as the slave she is.

It is INDEED the way Christian households work. In fact, i have never seen a Christian household that works in any other way.

Women are still slaves under every major form of religion, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.

You need to get out more. Maybe meet some of those people that you quite obviously loathe so much.

Not really, traditional marriage is shaped in that way, Christian values makes the wife do whatever she does because of her religion, it doesn't make it any less opressive than women wearing Burqas of their own free will because their religion requires it.

Remember that i said that it was religion that was the opressive force, not the men.

I think it's fucked up and very sad for women of today to have to live with whatever their husbands decides "after a discussion" they have.

It's like my men coming to me to ask me for something, i am their superior, they may lay their arguments forth, but in the end, i'm the only one who has any say and in most cases, the discussion isn't even neccessary.

Imagine having a marriage like that, imagine MEN having a marriage like that, well, some do, i guess....

Our household is a Christian household. I have many friends that are in Christian households. None of them are like that.

Like I said, you need to get out more. That's not a theory - it's a fact.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

My apologies, this was completely my fault and i shouldn't have said that, i won't edit my post because what i said has been read and people might miss this apology, besides, it would be dishonest to do so considering i wrote what i wrote.

I have no excuse for my misinterpretation and misunderstanding and offer you only my apology for it.

I accept your apology. The irony is I probably believe 99.9% of what you believe. I just classify the semantics a bit differently and put more weight on methodology.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

When it comes down to it, like "i want to work" and he doesn't want her to, he brings it up, so she's basically his slave, that is how it works. Doesn't seem like much on the outside but if they disagree, he decides, normally she'll follow whatever he wants though as the slave she is.

It is INDEED the way Christian households work. In fact, i have never seen a Christian household that works in any other way.

Women are still slaves under every major form of religion, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.

You need to get out more. Maybe meet some of those people that you quite obviously loathe so much.

Not really, traditional marriage is shaped in that way, Christian values makes the wife do whatever she does because of her religion, it doesn't make it any less opressive than women wearing Burqas of their own free will because their religion requires it.

Remember that i said that it was religion that was the opressive force, not the men.

I think it's fucked up and very sad for women of today to have to live with whatever their husbands decides "after a discussion" they have.

It's like my men coming to me to ask me for something, i am their superior, they may lay their arguments forth, but in the end, i'm the only one who has any say and in most cases, the discussion isn't even neccessary.

Imagine having a marriage like that, imagine MEN having a marriage like that, well, some do, i guess....

Our household is a Christian household. I have many friends that are in Christian households. None of them are like that.

Like I said, you need to get out more. That's not a theory - it's a fact.

So if your wife wants to do something, she doesn't have to come running to you like a child asking for permission i presume?

I suppose you'll not have a discussion which ends with that what you decide goes for her, right?

Be honest.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

My apologies, this was completely my fault and i shouldn't have said that, i won't edit my post because what i said has been read and people might miss this apology, besides, it would be dishonest to do so considering i wrote what i wrote.

I have no excuse for my misinterpretation and misunderstanding and offer you only my apology for it.

I accept your apology. The irony is I probably believe 99.9% of what you believe. I just classify the semantics a bit differently and put more weight on methodology.

Yeah, i know, when i re-read your post i realised that, first time around i just got hung up around the word "theory" in bold and that's probably because i had just explained it umpteen times, not an excuse but probably an explanation for it.

I get tired after a while of explaining the same shit over and over and over and then in the end some TWAT comes in to say "well it's just a theory you know"...

It gets tiring after a while, i'm sure you are not unfamiliar with that feeling either.

Cheers.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Amused
I had a problem with that 39% number and found this USA Today article about a recent poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...evolution-debate_N.htm

Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? Majorities of Americans in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say evolution and creationism are both likely explanations for life on Earth ? underscoring the complexities of an issue that has put Republican presidential candidates on the spot in recent weeks.

Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.

More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true.


POLL RESULTS: Public views on the origin of life on earth

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...ion-poll-results_n.htm

Geoffrey Layman, a politics and religion expert at the University of Maryland, says people are trying to reconcile science and religion. "They might believe the science, or they might see the science as hard to dismiss, and they don't necessarily take Genesis to be literal," he says. "But they do think that God played some role in directing this evolutionary process."

At a May 3 debate of GOP candidates, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee indicated they did not believe in evolution. The subject has arisen repeatedly since then.

Brownback wrote last week in The New York Times that "man was not an accident" and that he accepts parts of evolution consistent with that belief. Huckabee told reporters Wednesday that "for me it's as simple as 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.' "

Nearly three in 10 in the new poll said they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who rejects evolution; 15% said they'd be more likely, and 53% said it would make no difference. Huckabee says the issue is not relevant to a White House race and seven in 10 in the poll agreed with him.

Lawrence Krauss, a physicist and astronomer at Case Western Reserve University, said evolution is an important campaign issue. "Evolution happened whether or not a candidate believes in it," he said, and presidents shouldn't let "religious or ideological beliefs trump reality."

------------------------------------------------

So, as the poll shows it is NOT as simplistic as the OP's post makes it seem to be.

53% of Americans believe in the presnt theory of evolution, but a large portion of those believe it was guided by a god/s.

Yet 66% also believe Humans were created by god in their present form, which is confusing, and shows people ARE mixing their science with their religious beliefs but not tossing either aside completely.

A rather complicated result, if you ask me.

Yeah well, the bottom line is there are different people with different beliefs in the US. Can we all live along happily? It's stupid to not distriubte a film because it doesn't meet SOME people's view. Should we stop Christians from distributing movies about Jesus because some of the American don't believe in Jesus?

It's cool you have your own belief and do whatever you want with your belief, like not go and watch movies you don't agree with. But it sucks when you try to prevent other people from watching/reading things YOU don't agree with and enforce your belief upon other people.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: rchiu


Yeah well, the bottom line is there are different people with different beliefs in the US. Can we all live along happily? It's stupid to not distriubte a film because it doesn't meet SOME people's view. Should we stop Christians from distributing movies about Jesus because some of the American don't believe in Jesus?

It's cool you have your own belief and do whatever you want with your belief, like not go and watch movies you don't agree with. But it sucks when you try to prevent other people from watching/reading things YOU don't agree with and enforce your belief upon other people.

Oh I agree with that.

But it sounds like distributers are making the choice to pass on the film willfully. Just rather avoid the controversy, I guess.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rchiu


Yeah well, the bottom line is there are different people with different beliefs in the US. Can we all live along happily? It's stupid to not distriubte a film because it doesn't meet SOME people's view. Should we stop Christians from distributing movies about Jesus because some of the American don't believe in Jesus?

It's cool you have your own belief and do whatever you want with your belief, like not go and watch movies you don't agree with. But it sucks when you try to prevent other people from watching/reading things YOU don't agree with and enforce your belief upon other people.

Oh I agree with that.

But it sounds like distributers are making the choice to pass on the film willfully. Just rather avoid the controversy, I guess.

Yeah, what they should do is keep it to themselves and people who know nothing of it will come looking to show it...

It's a meek film about Darwin and his personal struggle with religion, if that is to be censored from the US cinemas then there is something that is definently wrong with the US cinemas.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity.

Yet there's a *law* of gravity, no? Obviously evolution isn't *that* well established.

Evolution can't be boiled down to a single, overarching mathematical equation like Newton's Law of Gravitation. Ironically while evolution is incredibly well established, the law of gravity you cite has been proven wrong.