MovieChat Forums > DarthRoger > Replies
DarthRoger's Replies
Denigrating my source material isn't the same thing as debunking.
You're fine though, believe what you wish, based on what you know. I shall believe what I wish, based on what I know.
No they have not.
I don't disagree. I was mainly commenting on how Romans viewed their neighbors. From a purely Roman perspective, these neighbors were barbarians. We know that Vikings and Northern Germanic tribes had culture, they just weren't where the Romans where in a lot of categories.
Oh and I think this season that focuses on Caesar and the Gaul campaign, is much more intriguing than the season about Commodious.
Yet keep in mind that compared to the Romans, the rest of the world were savages.
Rome was the most advanced state. All other "nations" were nothing more than patchwork confederations of tribes who often warred against each other. Rome had administration, coinage, superbly engineered roads, aqueducts, public baths, advanced education and arts, law, organized government (Senate), plus a highly trained military. To them, people living inside thatched huts or in fields did appear less equal. To a Roman, all the world outside Rome was barbaric, backwards.
Whatever...
I enjoyed the movie and I'm seeing it for the second time this weekend. A very fun chapter in the MCU!
Your mantra of "you don't understand science" is the play on words to try and dismiss your opponent, because you equate acceptance of your arguments as understanding of science. It's not. You're using a semantic ploy. It doesn't make your point. I've given you examples that you either ignore or denigrate because you don't like the source of those examples (Kent Hovind) or because they chip away at your argument. Macro Evolution does not use the Scientific Method. There is no observation and conclusion of observation because the Macro Evolutionist explains away everything by claiming "these processes take millions and millions of year," which renders observation (a key component of the Scientific Method) moot. You can claim something to be "science" all you want, yet unless it is proven to be science, it's only scientific speculation based on what little we know and NOT scientific fact. Oh and there are plenty of people who assert the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, names like Richard Dawkins and Phil Plait come to mind. Most of the JPL scientist I've watched online make the same assertion. The source of these assertions is due to Radiometric Dating of rocks they've found on the Earth. Okay, let's say they are right and 4.5 billion in the right number. They then go and say the age of the Universe is 4.5 billion (Plait actually claims it's around 12 billion) because of the rocks we found on Earth. That's known as Circular Logic or Circular Reasoning. One thing doesn't prove the other, so even IF the Earth were 4.5 billion years old, making claims that the Universe is the same age is quite a stretch. That's an example where science drifts into the wishful thinking realm.
I love science. It was my second favorite course study in school, after history. It's a self-correcting field, yet science doesn't have all the answers. Christianity is a faith. It aspires to answer deeper issues about the moral and spiritual world.
Thank you for the debate. God bless!
Poor man! I sympathize with your plight. I once got dragged to watch "Twilight" at the movie theater and kept thinking to myself about how we had REAL vampires movies in my day, like "Lost Boys" and "Fright Night."
I think what would make me truly want to swallow my own tongue, is being forced to listen to the screeching, strained lyrics of badly delivered ABBA songs for 2 whole hours. That thought is horrific!
You keep making the same argument - that I don't understand science - while making minor adjustments to your definition of science. Real "science" is proven, using the Scientific Method. All else is theory and speculation, based off what we can't prove, or hope is right. Theory does not equate fact.
For the record, I've listened to some of Dr. Hovind's lectures and he makes a good case. He takes some scientist to task for claiming that "they know" the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, when they know no such thing. The accepted timeline they once advocated (when I was in 3rd grade), was that the Earth was several millions of years old. Then as decades went by, it got revised up to hundreds of millions, 1 billion years old, 2-3 billion years old and now sits at the latest figure of 4.5 billion. And all these timeline upgrades come from the science clique that mocks religious people for believing the Earth is only hundreds of thousands of years old. At least the religious people are consistent.
As to the cause of Christianity, it's a religion about redemption from sin and the consequences of having sin in your life. Free will is still an aspect of Christianity. You can follow it's teachings or not. Again, it's a matter of what you believe in. I think Christianity is attacked unfairly, as every major religion believes in some sort of creation event.
And how is the fossil record not complete? Is it because the fossil record doesn't prove whole species evolution, from one specific form to another specific form? If transitional creatures existed, we should find abundant fossil evidence of them. They simply aren't there. Interestingly, in the same strata of ground where they dig up Cretaceous dinosaur bones, they also find the bones of modern day crocodiles and turtles. Why is that so? Shouldn't everything have been evolving, not just dinosaurs?
Not trying to flame, only pointing out some gaping holes in the logic of Macro Evolution. With what we have now [in terms of actual evidence], Macro Evolution did not happen.
I grasp science just fine but it's not the only school of study that's been happening for "years and years (maybe decades)" as you put it. Religion and Philosophy have been addressing the same questions nearly as long, perhaps longer. You can't prove/disprove something came from nothing (i.e.-Religion) anymore than you can prove/disprove everything came from slime on a rock billions upon billions of years ago (i.e.-Macro Evolution).
Let's look at it this way. Since all life on planet Earth has a certain percentage of genetic material in common, that gives us 1 definitive conclusion with 2 possible answers.
Conclusion: Every form of life came from the same source.
Answers: That source was either accidental or deliberate.
Now you're free to believe whichever answer you wish, it doesn't make one answer any less valid than the other answer. It doesn't make one side's points more true than the other.
Science uses theory to fill in gaps where proof doesn't exist. Religion uses faith to fill in those gaps.
A Christian viewpoint about the nature and state of existence is just as valid as an evolutionary viewpoint. There is no more "evidence" that supports evolution over creation. That's fact. I can point out moments when evolutionary theories have been proven wrong by the actual Scientific Method. Take Doctor Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus of Avian Evolution and Paleontology at the University of North Carolina. He conducted laboratory studies on the embryonic development of modern birds (chickens, ostriches) and compared them to fossilized Theropod dino eggs in various states of growth. His research was pretty telling. The way the digits on the hands of bird embryos and Theropod dino embryos developed is not the same. Doctor Feduccia concluded that this means birds are not the ancestors of Theropod dinos, although he did reiterate that he believes they have a common ancestor. Having a common ancestor is an example of Micro Evolution, not Macro Evolution. Yet for whatever reason, certain schools of thought have ignored his actual proof and keep pushing the myth of birds having evolved from Theropod dinos. Didn't happen, based on his work.
We can debate back and forth about what is "science" but I respect your viewpoint. We can likely agree on some things but disagree on others. I personally don't believe (and the data results from NASA missions to Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn) in a 4.5 billion year old universe and solar system. There's no way Mercury has a magnetic field, Titan still has it's atmosphere or Enceladus is warm enough to shoot jets of water into space if any of those substantially smaller worlds are 4.5 billion years old. Oh, people will try to explain the data away or make it fit into the 4.5 billion year timeline but it's not accurate given what we know now, nor is it honest.
I don't recall that being his reasoning but even if (for argument's sake) it IS true, that still doesn't explain hiring Bennie and Claire to work at SHIELD. It also doesn't justify Coulson's rationale, especially since Skye/Daisy is still a lose cannon.
The theory that you're referring to as "Crocoduck" was advocated by evolutionists under the name "Punctuated Equilibrium" and yes, it states that species remain stable over a long course of time and that sudden changes in that species allow for the "gaps" in the fossil record. It's basically fantasy with no scientific basis, so he's not off the mark entirely with his belief. Just because a biologist somewhere makes a statement, that doesn't make their statement a "fact" of science. The normal go-to approach is the "Scientific Method", which is impossible to use to prove/disprove Darwinian Evolution (Macro Evolution). Most Christians/Catholics/Protestants/Mormons believe Micro Evolution, which are minor changes to species over time, not wholesale changes from one species to another. Example - a species of shark from the Miocene gets smaller over time as climate, ocean stocks, currents and geological events change the environment. That's Micro Evolution and it's easily seen in the fossil record. A shark from the Miocene changing to a completely different aquatic animal or land-based animal over the same period, would be an example of Macro Evolution and such an example is NO WHERE in the fossil record.
Bottom line, it's entirely your choice to believe in a God or not, just like it's Kirk Cameron's choice to believe in a God and in the intelligent design of the world. He's no more uneducated in professing that God created the world, as is an atheistic scientist who claims that random events shaped everything, including every species on the planet. Each viewpoint is no more "fantastic" in it's claims than the other. Just saying.
I thought the 2014 movie was the best Godzilla movie since the original 1956 "Americanized" movie with Raymond Burr. It was a good story, without being campy or silly. The CGI was really good and the Mutos were better antagonists for Godzilla than many he's fought in past movies. I didn't really care that we didn't see as much of Godzilla at the start of the movie. That was more about the human characters.
I don't know, I take a 50/50 view of Ray Kroc's vision and approach. In the McDonald's brothers, you had two guys who came up with a great idea. They were idea guys. In Kroc, you had a guy who could see the bigger potential of their idea. The brothers refused to see what McDonald's could be and gave up after one try to go nationwide. Kroc was able to take their idea and make it a national brand, even when the McDonald brothers refused to adjust to the times and advancement in food tech (such as the milkshake packets that could make great-tasting shakes, without the expense of refrigerating ice cream). Kroc was an implementation guy and had the drive. The McDonald brothers just wanted to make hamburgers.
I think that it's a tale that's been repeated throughout history. A lot of Thomas Edison's patents were on instruments created by other people, like Nikola Tesla. Edison saw the bigger potential of business, whereas Tesla just wanted to make advancements for mankind. If you take a moralistic view, the McDonald brothers and Tesla are certainly in the right but the people who made fast food and modern electric products accessible to the masses were the Krocs and Edisons of the world. Ethically were they bastards? Of course, yet that doesn't detract from what they accomplished when the originators of ideas failed to put them forth. The idea men create; the implementation men change history.
Guardians of the Galaxy is such a damn fun movie! I can watch that one again and again.
Agreed and unfortunately, that's about 90% of Hollywood today. I heard two of my co-workers talking recently, commenting on how bad the network shows were, how they were not well acted. My response to them, was basically what did they expect? Hollywood these days is full of model types that look good and are dumber than bricks. They can't think, much less act.
True that!
Abrams made laughable Star Trek entries that were half-ass rip-offs of the 80's Trek and 90's Next Generation movies.
He's a hack.
Okay, I guess I missed that remark in the shuffle.
Wait a minute, I don't see how what she did was illegal when it's what she's contracted to do for the Wallace Corporation, creating memories. I think you've got that wrong. Her silence is inexplicable in that moment.