Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

2009-09-16 05:19:43

#76

Barrakuda777: Member; +86|6752|Somewhere near a shrub or rock

Evidence. Anywhere. Of any kind of Omnipotent/Omnipresent creator (not imposed on something from a human perspective)

If I was a God, and I created a bunch of tiny insignificant little creatures, I sure as hell would not want to be forced to watch and judge them all for eternity, punishing those that dont love me enough - how pointless.

I wonder if the world would actually be a better place if people accepted there is no God, and that death = the end.

Anyway, watched a documentary on Darwin, pretty interesting gent so would probably watch it... if it was aired on TV.

2009-09-16 05:33:37

#77

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6426|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

So we're going with the bible is wrong - or not meant to be taken literally.

Pretty sure the astrophysicist didn't from instability to garden of eden in six days.
Not sure which key word is missing, but the astrophysicist's explanation involved the theory of relativity and the difference in perception of time from the point of the Big Bang and from Earth today. The math worked out to roughly 15B years = 6 days.

So, not necessarily wrong if this guy's analysis is even close to accurate.
So basically, it was only 6 days from the perspective of God, which means that the passage should be taken metaphorically from a human perspective.

Pretty much.

And Dilbert has missed the point.

The universe has been deemed to be roughly 15B years old. The difference between now and life forming (or man evolving) on Earth is rounding error in comparison. So with the ratio of 15B years = 6 days, we're still roughly in the sixth day now.

The point being that perception of time is a variable. And the math strangely matches up quite nicely.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-16 05:38:19

#78

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6426|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
IIRC Its down to compression of space time towards the singularity.
'Inside' the universe it seems to take billions of years.
'Outside' it could be over in six days.

A question is whether there is an 'outside' for god to sit in.

My point is by the time you get sufficiently decompressed for planets to form then 'inside' and 'outside' time are probably flowing at the ~ the same rate, so planet formation -> garden of eden is not going to fit the six day thing.
Singularity -> Formation of Hydrogen maybe.
If God is omnipresent, he has to experience all frames of reference by definition. This means that God will have experienced our frame of reference too, so he will know all too well exactly how long it took from that reference frame.

Even if you thought that from some reference point it could take 6 days, obviously God made stuff in the wrong order, ie. he made the Earth before the Sun and the stars which is obviously wrong as Earth is made out of the remenants of an exploded star. He also made vegetation before making the living creatures of the sea. Vegetation has to pre-date the existance of the stars which clearly makes them at least 12.8 billion years old, compaired to the age of the planet, 4.5 billion years old?

Even with the wildest attempts at using dodgy extrapolations of relativity, the creation story is clearly not even approaching a sensible scientific theory.

Missing the point.

The point being not that the Earth was created 15B years ago--I never stated that, nor did the astrophysicist who did the calculations.

Really, it's not that difficult to grasp.

The Bible (and every other religious text) was written by man. Man who could not possibly grasp the concept of time varying due to relativistic effects. I'm in no way saying the Bible is literal (see Turq's post). I've never--not once--stated or implied that. The astrophysicist's work shows that the two theories are not mutually exclusive, as most on either side of the argument seem to think.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-16 05:57:45

#79

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6121|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
The point being that perception of time is a variable. And the math strangely matches up quite nicely.

If your starting point is that the 15bn year age of the universe matches up with 6 days in the bible then the maths matches up with itself.
Otherwise physics and the universe disagree with you.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-16 06:05:05)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2009-09-16 05:59:48

#80

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6168|what

The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,

2009-09-16 06:12:59

#81

madmax: Member; +12|6277|perth, w.a.

no the earth is flat an siting on four elephants an those 4 elephants

a siting on a giant turtle floating in space

2009-09-16 14:28:26

#82

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5612|Vacationland

Macbeth wrote:
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.

The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … erica.html
Christians are pretty funny folk. In any case isn't it a bit sad in the year 2009 people still believe in a book written by sand people that said that some random jew is the son of god and totally disregard all other religions of the world as well as things like reason and science?

I'm just gonna point our that the pool referenced, which can be see here http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwi … ution.aspx, has that over 1/3 of the people pooled had no opinion and only about 25% didn't believe in evolution.

2009-09-16 15:15:28

#83

PureFodder: Member; +225|6301

FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
IIRC Its down to compression of space time towards the singularity.
'Inside' the universe it seems to take billions of years.
'Outside' it could be over in six days.

A question is whether there is an 'outside' for god to sit in.

My point is by the time you get sufficiently decompressed for planets to form then 'inside' and 'outside' time are probably flowing at the ~ the same rate, so planet formation -> garden of eden is not going to fit the six day thing.
Singularity -> Formation of Hydrogen maybe.
If God is omnipresent, he has to experience all frames of reference by definition. This means that God will have experienced our frame of reference too, so he will know all too well exactly how long it took from that reference frame.

Even if you thought that from some reference point it could take 6 days, obviously God made stuff in the wrong order, ie. he made the Earth before the Sun and the stars which is obviously wrong as Earth is made out of the remenants of an exploded star. He also made vegetation before making the living creatures of the sea. Vegetation has to pre-date the existance of the stars which clearly makes them at least 12.8 billion years old, compaired to the age of the planet, 4.5 billion years old?

Even with the wildest attempts at using dodgy extrapolations of relativity, the creation story is clearly not even approaching a sensible scientific theory.
Missing the point.

The point being not that the Earth was created 15B years ago--I never stated that, nor did the astrophysicist who did the calculations.

Really, it's not that difficult to grasp.

The Bible (and every other religious text) was written by man. Man who could not possibly grasp the concept of time varying due to relativistic effects. I'm in no way saying the Bible is literal (see Turq's post). I've never--not once--stated or implied that. The astrophysicist's work shows that the two theories are not mutually exclusive, as most on either side of the argument seem to think.

The theory requires a deity outside the Universe to be able to observe it, then to have told people about it. This deity must also suck at relativity to not have noticed that our reference frame was hugely different from theirs, therefore giving a meaningless value to the Earthly inhabitants. It also required that the Earth sits roughly in the centre of the universe, and we all know how well those types of theory have held up.

As far as a scientific theory goes it fails and fails hard. It lacks any evidence, it fails the Mediocrity principle and requires a complete leap of faith that even makes the problem far more complex (ie. it explains the creation of the universe by a being that can create a universe, now you have to explain how a being with the ability to create a universe was created). It's totally untestable and makes no predictions. The theory is therefore rightly rejected.

2009-09-16 16:27:44

#84

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6420|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
How is that even possible? The majority of the UK aren't even religious. Maybe it just means the majority of Brits are fucking stupid, and have never heard of evolution.
I think you'll find the majority are religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography … ed_Kingdom
The UK has a vast proportion of People who when asked will say that they are religious but don't regularly go to church, pray, read Holy books or do anything to indicate that they actually believe in God in any real way.
The same here, from my point of view. I know exactly three people who go to Church and read scripture regularly.

That's quite the opposite of here. Nearly everyone I know (outside of college) goes to church, and about half of them consider themselves exceptionally religious.

2009-09-16 17:24:45

#85

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6616|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
PureFodder wrote:

The UK has a vast proportion of People who when asked will say that they are religious but don't regularly go to church, pray, read Holy books or do anything to indicate that they actually believe in God in any real way.
The same here, from my point of view. I know exactly three people who go to Church and read scripture regularly.
That's quite the opposite of here. Nearly everyone I know (outside of college) goes to church, and about half of them consider themselves exceptionally religious.

Yea, I've already gathered that based on what you've already said about your hometown. Why are you still there exactly?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-16 17:26:32

#86

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6616|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,

What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-16 18:18:22

#87

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6596|the dank(super) side of Oregon

we're violent, nasty little characters in some civilization's holographic universe. we're self-aware, or we're programmed to be self-aware, doesn't matter.

2009-09-16 18:18:47

#88

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6420|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:

The same here, from my point of view. I know exactly three people who go to Church and read scripture regularly.
That's quite the opposite of here. Nearly everyone I know (outside of college) goes to church, and about half of them consider themselves exceptionally religious.
Yea, I've already gathered that based on what you've already said about your hometown. Why are you still there exactly?

Well, mostly because I have a good job. Also, I'm surprisingly able to get along well with most of the religious people I know. I don't belittle their beliefs, and they don't belittle mine.

I even roomed with a religious fundamentalist for part of my time in college, but he was one of those rare "I actually practice what I preach" types. He understood that expecting people outside of his faith to live as him is illogical. In return for his tolerance, I was accepting of our differences in belief.

The only part of religious belief that irks me is young-Earth creationism. For that reason, I steer clear of that topic when I'm around my religious peers. Thankfully, most of the religious people I know are old-Earth creationists, so their beliefs are still somewhat compatible with evolution and such.

2009-09-16 18:33:33

#89

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6168|what

Kmarion wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,
What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?

So the dinosaur era was just a trial period and warm up for the main gig?

2009-09-16 18:35:54

#90

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6596|the dank(super) side of Oregon

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,
What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?
So the dinosaur era was just a trial period and warm up for the main gig?

Dinosaurs couldn't get past trigonometry. They had to go.

2009-09-16 18:38:16

#91

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6420|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?
So the dinosaur era was just a trial period and warm up for the main gig?
Dinosaurs couldn't get past trigonometry. They had to go.

Well, except for philociraptor....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZUEL-qc6o6I/SjPiMWNuZeI/AAAAAAAAABo/FOImfVOvcek/s320/1235059431976.png

2009-09-16 18:57:04

#92

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6616|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,
What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?
So the dinosaur era was just a trial period and warm up for the main gig?

Part of the whole process. We have dinosaurs amongst us today. It's just that a huge rock rearranged the pecking order.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-16 19:11:09

#93

Bevo: Nah; +718|6536|Austin, Texas

Kmarion wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,
What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?

What if the universe doesn't actually exist and we all live on a plane created of nothing but the products of our minds?

2009-09-16 19:24:40

#94

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6616|132 and Bush

Bevo wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
The Earth is NOT the centre of the universe,
What if humans are nothing more than the product of the universe trying to explain and understand itself?
What if the universe doesn't actually exist and we all live on a plane created of nothing but the products of our minds?

Reminds me of the elegant universe. Membranes 'n stuff 'n stuff.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-16 20:15:57

#95

Bevo: Nah; +718|6536|Austin, Texas

Kmarion wrote:
Reminds me of the elegant universe. Membranes 'n stuff 'n stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHU9QuOsSQs

Indeed. I took a class called "Theory of Knowledge". We watched that video IIRC, also another one called "What the bleep do we know?". Besides terrible acting, it's pretty interesting. Basically said that things never really touch one another, but it's all magnetic fields... when you bounce a ball on the ground, it never touches the ground, but the magnetic field repels it.

Some of the stuff is a bit far out, but it really makes you question some of the things we take for granted today such as gravity, or something even as simple as time. Does time really exist?

2009-09-16 20:18:58

#96

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6512

Bevo wrote:
What if the universe doesn't actually exist and we all live on a plane created of nothing but the products of our minds?

i think the term you're looking for is "solipsism".

2009-09-16 20:22:25

#97

Bevo: Nah; +718|6536|Austin, Texas

burnzz wrote:
Bevo wrote:
What if the universe doesn't actually exist and we all live on a plane created of nothing but the products of our minds?

i think the term you're looking for is "solipsism".

No, other people's minds exist, we just all created a plane of convenience where we interact.

(what if)

2009-09-17 03:16:06

#98

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6426|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The point being that perception of time is a variable. And the math strangely matches up quite nicely.
If your starting point is that the 15bn year age of the universe matches up with 6 days in the bible then the maths matches up with itself.
Otherwise physics and the universe disagree with you.

That's not the starting point. It was the ending point based on the ratio that came out when comparing the difference in perceived time passage between the Earth and the Big Bang origin point.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-17 03:23:47

#99

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6426|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
The theory requires a deity outside the Universe to be able to observe it, then to have told people about it. This deity must also suck at relativity to not have noticed that our reference frame was hugely different from theirs, therefore giving a meaningless value to the Earthly inhabitants.

Perhaps the deity realized that, at the time, our understanding of the universe He created was not at a level where 15B was even something they could comprehend...but they could comprehend six days quite easily. Thus, the deity's understanding of relativity is pretty damn sound.

PureFodder wrote:
It also required that the Earth sits roughly in the centre of the universe, and we all know how well those types of theory have held up.

It doesn't at all require that. In fact, the assumption must be that the Big Bang origin is the center of the universe, as it leverages the effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.

PureFodder wrote:
As far as a scientific theory goes it fails and fails hard. It lacks any evidence, it fails the Mediocrity principle and requires a complete leap of faith that even makes the problem far more complex (ie. it explains the creation of the universe by a being that can create a universe, now you have to explain how a being with the ability to create a universe was created). It's totally untestable and makes no predictions. The theory is therefore rightly rejected.

It doesn't do any of those things. All it does is show, via accepted physical and mathematical principles, that the perception of 15B years from the point of origin of the universe is actually 6 days when seen from the Earth (and vice-versa).

Source for "rightly rejected" nature of the theory, please. Would be interesting if it's rejected because it's untestable...since the Big Bang theory is, in and of itself, the basis for the work that was done. Which would mean the Big Bang theory is untestable. Which would mean you would have to reject the Big Bang theory, as well.

Pretty sure you won't be doing that.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-17 04:25:07

#100

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6121|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
That's not the starting point. It was the ending point based on the ratio that came out when comparing the difference in perceived time passage between the Earth and the Big Bang origin point.

That kind of thing can be fudged any way you like it.
'Oh look, I have two pieces of elastic, oh wow they are the same length. God exists QED'
I think it was a cosmologist having a bit of fun TBH.

The big bang theory is indeed untestable, but there is a lot of evidence pointing towards it, which is more than you can say for yours.
No doubt it will be adjusted or replaced, doesn't mean there's a god though.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

BF2S Forums Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Bevo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bevo wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Bevo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer