Evolutionism movie

[jinx]

This preview looks good a documentary where a bunch of biologists who believe in evolutionism are interviewed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gv2xbXkAfs

[bobevenson]

a bunch of biologists who believe in evolutionism

All biologists believe in evolution since it's the basis of biology.

[jinx]

You are evo indoctrinated. If there is ONE biologist on earth who does not believe in evolutionism you are wrong. Biology was started by a creationist (Pasteur). Movie looks good, people who believe in evolutionism possibly questioning their own beliefs for the first time.

[bobevenson]

You are evo indoctrinated. If there is ONE biologist on earth who does not believe in evolutionism you are wrong. Biology was started by a creationist (Pasteur). Movie looks good, people who believe in evolutionism possibly questioning their own beliefs for the first time.

I defy you to name a single reputable biologist at any major university in the world who denies that evolution is the basis and very essence of biology itself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This is total one sided bullshit!!! Pretty convenient that we can't dig up writers of the bible, and other religious books, to ask them questions, take blood samples, psychological testing, etc, to find out the true origins of their crap. I'm sure we'd find some quite insane, delusional, liars, and fools, suffering from dementia, and other such debilitating mental handicaps. This show/movie/documentary, if it were to exist, complete, wouldn't prove much of anything, without equal scrutiny of the writers of the bible, and those scribes responsible for King James's "version." How convenient to have ones proof dead and buried. Sorry son, but to have that kind of proof, stories in a book of thousands of years old, when authenticity it lost, only to be found in the belief of an extremely fearful string of animals, that would go so far as to kill in it's name, reeks of lies and deception. Fear is a mighty strong emotion, my boy!

Wikipedia: "Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull far away from it and usually hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible. Some psychologists such as John B. Watson, Robert Plutchik, and Paul Ekman have suggested that there is only a small set of basic or innate emotions and that fear is one of them."

1 Common fears

1.1 Fear of death
1.2 Fear of the unknown
1.3 Fear of survival
1.4 Unpredictability

And that about sums man up!

And what's more fearful than to believe you have no daddy to look after you and protect you, from bumps in the night, shadows in the treeline, to create a moral argument as to why you should be allowed to not die at the hands of a stronger foe, to give you eternal life if you do die, as you spy a loved ones corpse, rotting and decaying. Fear is the key Jinx, as you scramble to find proof to the contrary, for fear of possibly being incorrect; your whole imagined world to fall, crumbling to he ground as a lie. Fear my friend, that is where religion lies! So saith my professors, and I concur. As it makes the most sense, when viewing basic, ancient man. And your participation makes you what, in the 21st century?

Your phony film is a joke, and thus anyone that buys into it.

[jinx]

You are both evo indoctrinated. Behavior like that HURTS the scientific method (start with QUESTIONS). Ps. Evolutionism is not observational science. It never has and never will exist in the natural world. You have been brainwashed.

[Kayla]

You are evo indoctrinated. If there is ONE biologist on earth who does not believe in evolutionism you are wrong. Biology was started by a creationist (Pasteur). Movie looks good, people who believe in evolutionism possibly questioning their own beliefs for the first time.

by definition a biologist is someone who knows a fair bit about biology

no one who knows much about biology would believe in 'creationism'

so there are, by definition, no biologists - at least no competent biologists - who believe in creationism

orbital mechanics and much of modern physics was created by a guy who believed in magic and astrology (isaac newton) - it does not follow that physicists must take magic or astrology seriously

[mickthinks]

Evolutionism is not observational science.

But the Theory of Evolution is "observational" science ...

One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

I think it is you, jinx, who has submitted to Creationist brainwashing on the issue of the sound scientific basis for Evolution Theory.

[jinx]

Evolutionism is the claim that all plant and all animal life descended from a single common ancestor which itself came from non living elements. Evolutionism is not observational science. Evolutionism never has and never will exist in the natural world. Evolutionism:the myth.

Reason #1 You are evo indoctrinated. You get your 'science' from talkorigins.

What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

This rate of evolutionism is called mutations that destroy function of a protein that is already present which then depending on the environment might confer a selective advantage. Man talkorigins is sick propaganda.

[edited by iMod]

[SpheresOfBalance]

Evolutionism is the claim that all plant and all animal life descended from a single common ancestor which itself came from non living elements. Evolutionism is not observational science. Evolutionism never has and never will exist in the natural world. Evolutionism:the myth.

Reason #1 You are evo indoctrinated. You get your 'science' from talkorigins.

What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

This rate of evolutionism is called mutations that destroy function of a protein that is already present which then depending on the environment might confer a selective advantage. Man talkorigins is sick propaganda.

[edited by iMod]

Your understanding is tainted, Do you know of chemistry? Have you ever taken a chemistry course? Do you know that the only difference between all matter, elements, of which, humans are comprised, is the number of electrons, protons and neutrons? Yes just the numbers spells out the differentiation. Are you starting to get the big picture, ask anyone that works with microscopes, or other such devices, so as to see the micro, if the macro seems too far away for you to fathom.

Yes, the odds are, we, (mankind), shall be superseded by beings made of some new combination of elements, as yet to exist, or be combined. And how could one say then, that the creator didn't arrange for that to be the case. You seem to be shortsighted so as to only seek your council, eliminating all other sources, and would seemingly prefer to hang on to something not provable. Do you have a King Jinx 'version' of the bible in mind? I look to all sources, not to merely blind myself through exclusion.

My meaning is all about the questions that arise, not necessarily the words that beg them. Though no one has seemed to have really gotten me yet. Though it's for everyone that I speak. I largely speak in metaphor/analogy.

[Kayla]

You are evo indoctrinated. You get your 'science' from talkorigins.

i will ask the same question i ask rabid atheists

what does the statement that someone is indoctrinated, brainwashed, etc. add to the conversation?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are evo indoctrinated. You get your 'science' from talkorigins.

i will ask the same question i ask rabid atheists

what does the statement that someone is indoctrinated, brainwashed, etc. add to the conversation?

He's right to bring up the issue of bias, as it relates to ones indoctrination to life, during ones childhood. But he fails to see that the exact same thing can be said of his indoctrination, his bias. Such that we are all subject to this bias, whatever it's specifics. He has not illuminated anything that necessarily isolated either of our positions as either true or false. What he cannot know, because I have not told him, is on what side of the fence I was, during my indoctrination. For all he knows, I was indoctrinated as a christian, that has found other things that have convinced me otherwise. He has projected his belief, that I have been evolution indoctrinated, merely because my argument is contradictory to his, INSUFFICIENT!

In truth I have always leaned toward the possibility of creation of purposeful intellect, as opposed to that of creation by chance. My argument: "Are we not here, does our intellect not grow, do we not create, can it only happen once...?" Which proves nothing, it just opens the door to possibility.

One that actually seeks truth, challenges each side equally, by the same criteria, else they attempt to stack the deck, in a particular favor. He does seem to be a nutter, maybe just young, maybe just scared, but aren't we all, to some degree or another, though some keep themselves hidden, not wanting to be vulnerable, due to other troubles with their specific indoctrination, not necessarily dealing with religion.

I'm agnostic as I know that no man knows for sure, why or how we have come to be here, because no man knows all the secrets of this universe and beyond, which is not to say that we shouldn't be tolerant of one another during the quest of understanding the truth of it all. And it shall always be false for anyone to say that they know of such things, without proof, come on, how convenient.

I see that evolution does not disprove intelligent purposeful creation, just the specifics surrounding such an event, as it pertains to what some have written. To me that's not too big of a deal, for such a monumental quest. That all old documents should embrace revision, as long as equality and truth are of paramount concern in those revisions, such is supposed to be the main concern of scientific exploration, and I believe it to be the case.

[Kayla]

He's right to bring up the issue of bias,

but then he would explain what he thinks the bias is and why - simply saying 'you are biased' is worthless.

In truth I have always leaned toward the possibility of creation of purposeful intellect, as opposed to that of creation by chance.

i favor the kantian view that god created the physical order itself - so if you are looking at the physical order of things you will never find god in the causal chain

god has no place in natural sciences

in natural science 'god did it' is a non-explanation

I'm agnostic as I know that no man knows for sure,

every thinking person is agnostic to at least a degree - knowing that at least, remotely, theoretically - it is possible that one is wrong about some very big things

[MMasz]

You are evo indoctrinated. If there is ONE biologist on earth who does not believe in evolutionism you are wrong. Biology was started by a creationist (Pasteur). Movie looks good, people who believe in evolutionism possibly questioning their own beliefs for the first time.

I defy you to name a single reputable biologist at any major university in the world who denies that evolution is the basis and very essence of biology itself.

Dean Kenyon, BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University

William Dembski, U of IL, Chicago, B.A., M.S., Ph.D, mathematics; Univ of Chicago- M.S., Ph.D. - physics; M.I.T.- post doctorate mathematics

Michael Behe. UPenn, Ph.D. biochemistry; post doctorate genetics at the NIH

OK?

[thedoc]

In truth I have always leaned toward the possibility of creation of purposeful intellect, as opposed to that of creation by chance.

Darwinian evolution does not claim 'Creation by Chance', there is a purpose to evolution and that is survival of the fittest. Evolution by 'random chance' is a 'red herring' thrown up and disproved by creationists that adds nothing to the debate. Creationists have no valid argument against evolution.