“Creation”, the new film about Charles Darwin, unable to get distributor in the US

[Notters]

Definition of Creationist = someone who rejects the theory of evolution, and believes the world is approx. 6,000 years old. Thus I, and the VAST majority of Christians in this country, are NOT Creationists.

Oh dearing one typo in a very long passage is a bit OTT isn't it?

I'll personally go along with the wiki definition of Creationism:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity"

I have great respect for your faith, please don't think that I'm slating you.

 

[looney]

I'm baffled as to how the literal creationists (the folk who think the world came into existence 6000 years ago) have achieved such a dominant position in contemporary America.

I spent a lot of my youth in the company of committed Christians. I can't recall ANY of them believing that religion was incompatible with the science of Darwin. What I do remember being taught (by Irish nuns, mainly) is that faith is a mysterious thing that no-one will ever understand and that true religion is a struggle to achieve some understanding.

How did all these people suddenly become CERTAIN about creation? And everything else, for that matter? And how do they get by without the struggle to understand?

Agreed. Theres only conflict if you charicature your opponents. The idea that the world is 6k years old is based on one pronouncement by a Bishop Usher.

I find it weird as an athiest to find myself defending the religous position because most vocal athiests come across as a bunch of f***ing loonies.

Have read all darwins works and although i agree there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I actually quite like the idea of Greek Gods for various things, like Eros the God of Love, Son of Aphrodite, Godess of Love and Beauty as opposed to one god to fit all.

 

[looney]

One of the problems for Athiests is that faith itself has measurable results and benefits, maybe it is beleif in itself?


Notorious Athiest Frederick Neitzsche said that if God does not exist it would be necassary to create one. I can see that.



Maybe Athiests need to embrace the idea of faith a bit and the religous need a dose of Cynisism?

 

[Silent Bob]

Definition of Creationist = someone who rejects the theory of evolution, and believes the world is approx. 6,000 years old.

That's not the definition of creationism, that's one type of creationism. By far the worst type admittedly.

 

[beorhthelm]

Some have said that not all Christians are Creationists is surely wrong; they are by definition creationists. They "believe" that the universe was "created" by a divine "being". This is, however, quite clearly different to fundamentalism. In a way, though, I see more sense in fundamentalism that strictly follows what is written in the bible, or at least the new testament, than simply picking and choosing which bits seem "nice". Anyway, I'm not really sure what my point is, so I'll shut up now.

i suppose the difference is in the types of creationism. someone who believes in god creating the universe and then letting it go off on its own is indeed a different philosophy to those who believe in the literal story of Genesis, with a 10000 year old world, flood etc. For me the "creationist" are the later and the former group just simply relgious. unfortunatly in an attempt to derail evolution, someone came up with "intelligent design" god hand holding the process at every step. while you cant actually prove against it, it doesn't disprove the process evolution either really just invoke a deity to guide the work... and its self evident that much in nature is not intelligently designed at all (see larynx/pharynx). The distinction between creationist/religious has blurred. bit of a tangent. good point about fundelmentalists, though even then they still pick and choose to suit.

as for Dawkins, he is near fundemental: i thought the opening of God Delusion was verging on evangelical, and i use that word very knowingly. but he does deconstruct religion rather well. he should probably give up and stick to biology, he isnt going to convert the hardocre religious and possible puts off some of the agnositcs which are his target.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Its all down to the fact that humans need to think that once we die, that is not IT. We also did not understand things when religion was being formulated, like the sun coming up and going down.....so we created gods to explain it - Apollo, the God of the sun in his fiery chariot. We even now still refer to Mother nature.

we develop relationships that prove so strong, that we hope will last long after we are dead, ie in the ""other world", be it Heaven, Nirvana, hell or where ever. There is a form of comfort which can be immensely powerful on the death of a close relative, child etc that religion brings.

At the end of the day, the simple fact is no-one knows if there is an afterlife or not...people can debate it, or throw insults at each other or as we have had through the millenia, wars about "my god is better than yours", but as noone has ever come back ( or Jesus has if you so believe) to tell the tale, then to be honest p3rsonally I think there is no point getting het up about it.

If people want to believe, then let them, so long as they dont try and impose their views....the problem is that is where it all falls down.

 

[Notters]

One of the problems for Athiests is that faith itself has measurable results and benefits, maybe it is beleif in itself?

But like I said, whether there are measurable benefits or not is surely irrelevant?

 

[beorhthelm]

One of the problems for Athiests is that faith itself has measurable results and benefits, maybe it is beleif in itself?

like what? other than the bank balance of the church/sect, i dont see how any faith has tangiable benefits. rather the point of "faith".

 

[Notters]

like what? other than the bank balance of the church/sect, i dont see how any faith has tangiable benefits. rather the point of "faith".

I assume he was referring to benefits to the individual. Though I see no reason to think that these benefits cannot be achieved by other means.

 

[Nibble]

I think a fair bit of good has been done in the name of Christianity. In fact a lot of their original values are, in my opinion, quite a good guide to treating others. However, as stated by several, the Fire and Brimstone approach and oppression of others is the bad side of it all.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Just recently a church (forget location exactly) in England have started a law suit against local residents, citing an ancient law that anyone living within a certain distance of the church is liable for all repair costs to the church.

This isn't just in one area !!! The Church of England has hired a whole swarm of lawyers to see how many people they can charge for repairs all over the country. It could affect millions of homeowners. It's known as Chancel repair liability.

The Church has until October 2013 to lay claim for liability against a homeowner after which it becomes impossible for them to claim. You can get insurance for it though when you buy a new property.

What a wonderful way for a religious body to act !!!!!!!!!!!

What is Chancel Repair Liability ?

Chancel land and chancel repair liabilities can trace their roots back to medieval times, when every parish had its own priest or rector. The rector by the nature of his status, had a number of rights, including certain taxes or income from the land of the parish. The cost of repairs to the church was split between the rector and the parishioners, with the parishioners traditionally being responsible for the western end of a church (the area where they sat) and the rector was responsible for repairs to the chancel (The eastern end of a Church).

The rector being able to pay for repairs from the income of his 'Glebe' land and tithes.

Since these times, although the land may have been broken into many thousands in some cases of small parcels, the liabilty for these repairs has continued to exist and has on occassion be enforce or claimed by the Church.

Whilst the Chancel repair liabilities are normally confined to rural communities, homeowners, purchasers and their conveyances (or solicitors) should be wary of ancient settlements that have grow considerably in size, Fulham and Warwick being examples.

 

[Dave the OAP]

like what? other than the bank balance of the church/sect, i dont see how any faith has tangiable benefits. rather the point of "faith".

I think tha tangible benefit is at the time of a trauma in a life....say a death or such like. Yes ok some people may say its peddling some sort of lie to ease their pain, BUT one could use the argument that as people do believe there is something in it, then if it helps then what is the harm?

 

[Mellotron]

Oh dearing one typo in a very long passage is a bit OTT isn't it?

I'll personally go along with the wiki definition of Creationism:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity"

I have great respect for your faith, please don't think that I'm slating you.

Sorry, just thought it was ironic that you started your post with "as a scientist" - which should give you an air of authority - the typo just made it amusing.

Well in recognised debate I think Creationist is used as shorthand for a "New Earth" Christian, I could be wrong. My point is though that the vast majority of Christians (certainly that I know) do not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. As that is literally "unbelievable".

 

[Notters]

Sorry, just thought it was ironic that you started your post with "as a scientist" - which should give you an air of authority - the typo just made it amusing.

Well in recognised debate I think Creationist is used as shorthand for a "New Earth" Christian, I could be wrong. My point is though that the vast majority of Christians (certainly that I know) do not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. As that is literally "unbelievable".

No problem!

I'm not sure it should give me an air of authority, but I feel I may lack or not be able to perceive this mystical "spiritual" side to my personality which a lot of people seem to think they have.

I realise not a lot of people think that, at least in this country. I think a lot do, however, "believe" that we are all relatives of Adam and Eve and that we have not evolved from apes, despite the genetic evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mellotron]

like what? other than the bank balance of the church/sect, i dont see how any faith has tangiable benefits. rather the point of "faith".

That is literally a ridiculous thing to say. The amount of Christians involved with and spearheading charities is huge. A number of my relatives are involved with projects in India and Africa, helping the poor and needy. Not a missionary trip.

I've seen some pretty desperate people with completely broken lives transformed by being invited along to the local church and being made to feel a part of a caring community.

It is people's faith that has driven them forward to do these things. Don't get me wrong, people can do good deeds without faith, of course they can, but to say there are no benefits is fairly ignorant when you see the massive amounts of good done in the name of faith worldwide.

 

[Mellotron]

No problem!

I'm not sure it should give me an air of authority, but I feel I may lack or not be able to perceive this mystical "spiritual" side to my personality which a lot of people seem to think they have.

I realise not a lot of people think that, at least in this country. I think a lot do, however, "believe" that we are all relatives of Adam and Eve and that we have not evolved from apes, despite the genetic evidence to the contrary.

I think Evolution is...likely. But I have one confusion:

Say we evolved from Apes. Apes are still around, so surely whatever was between us and Apes (so to speak) would've been stronger and better equipped than an Ape, yet they are not around. Reasons?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I've got to say I come down fairly strongly on the non-religious side. Instinctively my brain is telling me the Creationist theory is completely illogical, as are most religious stories, with all due respect.

That said, I will also concede that there are some flaws in Darwin's theory that evolution is a continuous process:

 

[gruntage]

I've read a few books on creation/evolution and evolutuion just doesn't seem feesable (sp?). One question that immediately springs to mind is why did it stop with us, why aren't we still evolving?

we are still evolving. there is already debate as to whether a new species is evolving. We as a species are called Homo Sapien Sapien, but there is great debate amongst scholars as to whether homo sapien sapien sapien is already beginning to emerge.

the difference - no wisdom teeth. as our diets have evolved (especially in the west) we have no need for a third molar. Third molars, or wisdom teeth normally emerge in early adulthood (early-mid twenties), in the past this would of been idle, as by this time without dental care and due to the hard abrasive nature of the food, teeth would be worn out or have fallen out. so the third molars purpose was to 'replace' these teeth, allowing us to continue grinding down our food even when the other 2 molars were defunct, or gone.

however, as we no longer need this our jaws are getting smaller, hence a growing number of people needing to have wisdom teeth removed, or who never grow them in the first place.

it may sound like a small petty thing, but it is evolution. it doesnt happen over night, and it is only one small change after another but if all the small changes like this add up, then in a few thousand years time homo sapien sapien will no longer exist.

the other arguement, is that we are beginning to de-volve. evolution takes place to maximise a species rate of survival. i.e grow a longer neck to reach food for a giraffe. but due to the modern advances (which is a result of our bigger brains - therefore bigger brain power - due to evolution) we are no longer subject to nature like we used to and so our bodies are no longer evolving. evolution takes time and repeated use/need of doing some thing, i.e i climb a tree everyday, my son does the same, so does his... over time a grandson down the line (after a long time) will evolve longer fingers, or more arched feet to grip.

what was the main reason for the death of the dodo.... not over hunting but competition for food. the dodo had no competitors, as it ahd evolved to a standard needed to survive. when people landed, rats and other rodents went ashore and became competitors to the dodo. more competition for food ultimatly led to their demise. evolution is not perfect, which is why it is a perfect explanation of how we came to be. it is trial and error. the fact we stand up right is an advantage we achieved through evolution - we cannot see predators in long grass on the plains if we are down low - and we are hardly fast enough to out run one. standing upright allowed us to see danger further off, and the other advantage this allowed us over time was to free our hands to hold weapons. other species made weapons before us, so we were not original in this, but you can argue the larger brain we have evolved over time allowed us to take better advantage of these weapons.

if god made us in his image, why are there so many flaws? why does he allow us to have disabilities, disformities, etc.

i agree there comes a point (the big bang) where you have to hold your hands up and say - what caused this, but with all the evidence, all the bones etc found of previous species, clearly showing steps up the evolutionary ladder to deny it takes place, but to hold a belief in a greater being for which there is no evidence other than an old book wrote 2000 years ago, which has changed and been edited so often is comical.

my girlfriends parents are both vicars, but believe in evolution. they feel the bible is not factual, but simply messages/ advise on how to live your life, and that god made the earth, and let us evolve, as it was not simply us which is in his image, but all living things (in fact all matter). the people who believe god is a bearded white guy are nutters. also sorry to rain on your parade - Jesus was not white. if he existed he would of been Middle eastern, having been born there and only living there. so maybe he looked like a terrorist with that unkempt beard.

 

[bhaexpress]

Maybe Athiests need to embrace the idea of faith a bit and the religous need a dose of Cynisism?

There's plenty of us who had 'faith' forced on us as children. However we have since realised that it's nothing but a combination of myth and superstition backed up by massive indoctrination. It likes to throw in a healthy dose of oppression too.