| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/16/2008 : 10:39:47
|
I hope this creationist film is released here. It would be nice to give a score of nought to a film that I have actually seen. 
How do creationists account for all the organic imperfections that exist? |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/16/2008 10:40:09 |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 10:51:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm intrigued by the ID "controversy" because I don't understand how Darwin's theory precludes the existence of a deity -- who could have set the whole thing in motion.
Good question- maybe it's just that it highlights flaws in the bible, which is considered 'proof' of God's word (and God wouldn't lie) by many, I thought. Then again, I know a lot of deeply religious types nowadays realise large parts of the bible are fiction, so maybe not  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 10:55:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I hope this creationist film is released here. It would be nice to give a score of nought to a film that I have actually seen.
Me too, but I doubt I'll score it zero just for the subject matter. If it piques my interest (no matter how ill-founded), then I'd still class it as a quality form of entertainment.
quote:
How do creationists account for all the organic imperfections that exist?
Indeed, but what boggles my mind is that creationists feel saying there's a higher power answers everything, when it actually just leaves you with a bigger (and thus much harder to explain away) question: if this deity is so all powerful and amazing, just what exactly could have created that? (And so on)
And are we all actually praying to the deputy-manager?  |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 15:05:50
|
Something I read in high school has profoundly altered my whole take on this:
quote:
�The Babel fish,� said The Hitch Hiker�s Guide to the Galaxy quietly, �is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
�Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
�The argument goes something like this: �I refuse to prove that I exist,� says God, �for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.�
��But,� says Man, �The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn�t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don�t. QED.�
��Oh dear,� says God, �I hadn�t thought of that,� and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
��Oh, that was easy,� says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
�Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo�s kidneys, but that didn�t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
�Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloddier wars than anything else in the history of creation.�
 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 15:50:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm intrigued by the ID "controversy" because I don't understand how Darwin's theory precludes the existence of a deity -- who could have set the whole thing in motion. Cheerful enough. But to teach kids that the earth is 8,000 years old, or was created in six 24-hour periods? In science class? I'd be suing somebody too.
These people are not only interested in the God of Creation. What difference does it really make to anyone whether the universe was created by God or not if he has since retired or lost interest in the project? And how can we ever know whether a force wholly external to our universe exists, let alone what that force would be like, and whether it constitutes a God or not?
The God they are really interested in is the living God of Intercession, the one who watches over us and has a sense of Justice and offers we mortals a better Afterlife. This God is always ready to intervene, often in "mysterious ways" so you'd better watch out, and do what the priest tells you! He lets little babies die? Well, we said he was mysterious, didn't we? It's all for the best anyhow. Have Faith.
It just so happens that its hard to imagine a God of Intercession who didn't create the universe too.
What Darwinism does, and it frightened Darwin too, is not to deny the possibility of a God, but rather to say that he is not making these life and death decisions on a case-by-case basis, but rather by a steel-cold set of rules which really have no moral basis. Survival is everything. He is not listening and he doesn't mind wiping out whole groups of animals. Or worse, maybe he makes mistakes and has to correct them? To live in the universe of a less than omnipotent God is not a very comfortable idea.
Whatever way you look at it, it's hard to see a loving God in the Darwinist model. And he certainly won't be coming down your chimney on Christmas Eve!
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 17:52:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm intrigued by the ID "controversy" because I don't understand how Darwin's theory precludes the existence of a deity
I can't answer that question either...what are they afraid of? Then again, I can't understand why anti-environmentalism is considered a "traditional, family-oriented conservative value." |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 18:02:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by silly
True story:
A co-workers son (fourth grade), in class they were asked "what keeps the planets in orbit around the sun." Public school, btw.
The boy was the only one to say gravity. Five kids said they had no idea. The rest (fifteen or so) said "God."
And you know they all went home to tell their parents about the evil child that was talking about gravity at school...
Just for the record, Isaac Newton (the man who "invented" gravity) was a deeply religious man. It can be controversial to call him an orthodox Christian because he secretly disagreed with Church doctrine on certain issues (most notably the Trinity, as he felt with three different incarnations of a Supreme Being, none of them are in fact truly supreme), but he certainly felt he was a Christian and he viewed science as a means of understanding the wonders of God's creation, not disproving it. |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 18:48:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by 17-0
he certainly felt he was a Christian and he viewed science as a means of understanding the wonders of God's creation, not disproving it.
That's an interesting point. My church seems to have a problem with anyone who questions their teachings, which has caused me plenty of problems. They see even teaching evolution as questioning their religion ("It says RIGHT HERE that god created Adam in his image, he certainly didn't come from an APE." etc. etc.) Look at the uproar brought about by the Da Vinci Code, for example.
I would hope that God would enjoy and encourage our curious nature, after all, that's what she created, right? |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 22:38:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm intrigued by the ID "controversy" because I don't understand how Darwin's theory precludes the existence of a deity -- who could have set the whole thing in motion. Cheerful enough. But to teach kids that the earth is 8,000 years old, or was created in six 24-hour periods? In science class? I'd be suing somebody too.
Whatever way you look at it, it's hard to see a loving God in the Darwinist model. And he certainly won't be coming down your chimney on Christmas Eve!
Holy guacamole, that guy was God? [He certainly was on past Christmas Eves! ] |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 22:58:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm intrigued by the ID "controversy" because I don't understand how Darwin's theory precludes the existence of a deity -- who could have set the whole thing in motion.
There is a wonderful book written by Natan Eviezer, a respected physicist at Bar-Ilan University in Israel called In the Beginning. The book details all of the similarities between the current scientific understanding of the creation of the universe and the evolution of life on Earth and the account in the first couple of chapters of Genesis. Eviezer is an orthodox Jew, but that doesn't get in his way when it comes to critical thinking and he is clearly scientifically literate. His book does not directly make the claim that the God of Abraham created the universe and molded Adam out of earth. In fact, he explicitly denies the literal truth of the Genesis story. He just finds himself in awe of how close the Genesis story follows the timeline of events modern science has come to. I'm sure Eviezer himself would admit that correlation does not equal causation and that his faith in the God of Abraham is independent of his scientific and critical understanding of the universe, but it is an interesting perspective from an expert in the field. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 23:28:10
|
| You know what else I'm looking forward to? "Speed Racer." |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 23:30:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
You know what else I'm looking forward to? "Speed Racer."
Good call- this thread has gone a smidgeon off topic |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 23:35:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
You know what else I'm looking forward to? "Speed Racer."
Good call- this thread has gone a smidgeon off topic
 |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 05:05:16
|
| I'm hoping for a cool Trixie, myself. Speed was always such a hot-head, always pushing his buttons. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 07:57:46
|
| I heard that thefoxboy's eagerly looking forward to Swiss Gang Bang 3. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Films for 2008
