Could we have a Movies,documentaries and music concert thread or sticky please?

[Kev]

Well I just finished watching the 100 reasons why evolution is stupid seminar. As some might remember I've always been a strong advocate that evolution is utter bollocks anyhow and this seminar confirmed that.

It's really interesting though and well worth watching although it is 2 hours long!

What really saddened me though was that after watching the video and seeing how passionate the host Kent Hovind seemed about his work and how sincere, I googled him to see what else he has done.

To my shock I see that earlier this year he was sentenced to 10 years in jail for assault and battery, falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, and various tax-related charges!

This really upsets me to be honest. I mean a regular scientist who turns out to be a crook is no big deal but a guy like this who has such a worldy responsibility to let down his family, church, community and I guess his God is just really disheartening to me.

It just makes me feel at least like everybody on the planet is just out for them selves, selfish and greedy and that you can't trust anyone.

Got me a bit depressed to be honest.

Sounds like a credible witness to me :P

Bilbo you have to accept that evolution occured on atleast some level. If evolution was "stupid" the cold virus would've died out millions of years ago but guess what its still here because it .... wait for it.... wait for it.... EVOLVES immunity to antibiotics (and medicines that are used to treat viruses since antibiotics do not treat viruses) that WE developed. Now if evolution was completely impossible and illogical, how would these viruses and bacteria (that were here long before us) be able to adapt to stuff that we have made over the past 50 years? Is there a cult meeting once every week where all the viruses meet together and their pope tells them how to adapt to medicines?

Yes certainly I believe in adaptation or natural selection if you want to call it that but not evolution on a macro scale. I've never found a single piece of evidence that supports macro evolution I just don't see how it can happen.

The trouble is scientists have managed to convince people that natural selection and macro evolution are the same thing and that therefore proofs of natural selection are proof for evolution and this is just completely and utterly untrue.

Nobody doubts that organisms can adapt and change but ONLY according to the DNA asnd genetic information that is already present within them.

I look at it this way. If you are playing a computer game or using a piece of software there may be options within that game to alter details to your requirments, different resolutions, varying amounts of graphical details, EAX enabled sound, difficulty leves, inverted mouse option, etc. All of these options can make your version of the game run slightly different to somebody elses version of the game. Cheat codes can change things even more.

However none of these changes can possibly result in new game content that wasn't there before and your game won't become a different game. The only way for that to happen would be for new information, in the way of downloadable content from the game developers or the modding community that you could then add to the game to add new information that wasn't there before.

Genetic life is much the same. The preexisting DNA code can be manipulated by natural selection to tailor an organism specifically to its enviroment. However the only way it could ever turn into something else would be for new information to be added to its DNA.

Bilbo here's the thing that makes it difficult to understand, it takes place over an unbelievably long period of time. We share 98% of our genetic material with chimps (over millions of years a 2% difference wouldn't be hard to change) and we possess parts of reptile brains within our own.

Comparing games to animals is a close but inaccurate comparison. Dna is changeable over long periods of time while a game is not. They've found fossils of a bird that was very reptilian suggesting it was the next phase after the dinosaurs just like they've found (so i heard but cannot confirm 100% right now) fossils of an amphibian making the shift to reptiles. Not all of a species will evolve. Some monkeys have stayed monkeys while others slowly became more intelligent but less powerful. This isn't natural selection or adaption because the chimps are still alive. There's several species of chimps and other animals. While most of their dna is the same among animals of the same type (monkeys, fish, etc.) there's been slight alterations to allow the emrgency of different species. I can see how picturing an ameoba becoming a human over any course of time is hard to believe because there are many different types of animals and bacteria around today but i'm sure all forms of life started out as the same thing. The change itself took place over an unbelievablly long amount of time.

Hey punisher. Your reponse though clearly shows that you have only a rudimentary graps of the 'science' of evolution. I'm not saying that to criticise you but when you think that the Archaeopteryx (dino-bird) presents evidence for evolution it shows you havn't studied the debates.

The Archaeopteryx has long since been removed from scientific debate as a missing link between birds and reptiles. Not only was it 100% bird but it also arrives on the scene (according to the scientific estimates) 70 million years AFTER the first birds appear in the fossil record.

Since they they have discovered Archeoraptor which garnered much attention including a front cover on National Geographic magazine. This fossil was proven to be a forgery a year later amidst much embarrasment within the scientific community.

To be honest anyone who believes that the fossil record supports evolution clearly has no idea about the subject.

The evolustionists themselves are in constant debate amongst themselves to explain why the fossil record provides NO evidence for evolution just check out Wikipedia for details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

All of the 'evidences' for evolution within popular culture have all been thrown out by the scientists themselves yet we hear all the time on the television how the fossil record supports evolution etc. This is just not true. Don't take my word for it, just go and buy a book on evolution and you'll find that there is virtually no evidence whatsoever.

I'm assuming you believe 100% in intelligent design then. Here's the problem with that: Regardless of wether there's an all knowing being out there who set this thing in motion or not, you can't just introduce various species into a living environment, you have to have a gradual build up. "Giving life" to several thousand animals out of thin air would have a very negative effect towards the physics of a world already set in motion.

Not at all, I actually see it the other way around. Look at the nature of symbiosis there are millions of plants and animals that depend upon each to live and cannot even go 1 season without each other. The odds of them all 'evolving' at the exact same time are just beyond the realms of plausability.

What you are saying though makes no sense. If that were true such human designs such as gardens, exotic fish tanks and aquariums and other eco systems could not be created as they would have to gradually add organisms over time for the system to survive.

But they don't and anyone can go out buy a bunch of different plants and seeds and design a garden how they want it, or build an exotic fish aquarium and populate it instantly with all manner of different fish.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying a bunch of organisms being around at the same time can't co exist. I'm saying you can't just throw in a bunch of mass (we are made out of atoms just like everything else that has a physical existance) and have everything work out ok from a physics stand point.

Of course you can IF someone is designing it all.

No because once you set matter and the laws in motion, makng a precedent like that would make more intelligent species (i suppose that means us) capable of doing the same thing. So far we've made elements (super heavy radioactive and even antimatter) that as far as we know don't naturally exist in atleast our galaxy and quite possibly the entire universe, yet the fact remains the we potentially made something that wasn't around before but we could only do it within the binds of physical laws. Even if you're an all knowing "god" you can't just change the rules once its set into motion like that.

That's a pretty bizarre statment about what a God could or could not do. If there was an imnipotent designer who created the universe then any physical laws would have been put in motion by him and he could surely alter or change them as he saw fit.

All we can do is observe how things currently are, we can make no inferences as to how things were or how things may come to be.

Gravity works, it's always been an observable law but there is nothing to say that one day the laws oh physics and gravity may not change.

Going back to my computer simulation analogy, if a team of developers created a virtual world with fully working solar system and artifical life they could still be free to change things whenever they saw fit. Remove the sun? No problem it's gone...still have light shine upon the earth with the sun? Yep they could do that too.

If something or somebody was capable of designing and sustaining an entire universe then the certainly wouldn't need to answer to your own limitations.