Hey lets play Darwin versus Disney! Who's imagination was better?

at least Disney saw a wooden boy evolve into a REAL BOY

I say the best imagination was when the person wrote that they entire planet was poofed into being in seven days by a magic sky wizard. Then a fully formed and educated adult male was formed from mud. Some time after the sky wizard tore one of his ribs out and made some chick out of it. Things were going fine until the Disney-esque talking snake made shit hit the fan by eating the Disney-esque cursed apple.

Okay..so it took a lot of imagination on Darwin's part to imagine a donkey evolving into a horse....well, Disney made the bad boys turn into..well...

that's an interesting take on the Genesis account of creation, a bit out of context, but what else is new? Then it goes from a twisted account of creation to that we evolved from apes? No wonder people like to get lost in Disney imagination...

oh....btw....where does it say that the creative days were a literal 24 hour day?

WOWWWWW- now THATS some imagination!!! can't believe I sat the whole thing-TOTALLY entertaining....
come on Disney - you can beat that!!!!!

......come ON DISNEY to the rescue!

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

A lot of Disney's fairy tale movies came from Grimm's fairy tales. Just modified them so they were more kid friendly.

The original fairy tales were NOT meant to be read by kids.

yes, and all fairy evolution stories should not be read to kids either, it gives them nightmares and teaches lies

How about this for imagination: If you were my kid and misspelled 'whose', I'd beat you and then lock you up in an empty room for 3 days with no food.

you must of been watching too many Darwin movies lately!

so what you are saying here is that if you breed 2 genetically similar animals say a Male lion, and a female tiger you wouldn't have a third species the Liger [link to en.wikipedia.org]

Dunno I have to say you have me convinced what with all your science comparing Darwin with Disney and whatnot.

.....The Liger would be a Liger because of the breeding of two created animals, The Lion and The Tiger.

Darwin was probably more moral and humane the the Disney corp. Peddling their child slave made plastic wares for other children to believe in lies and choke the ocean.

and evolution doesn't teach children { and adults} to believe in lies????


at least Disney appeals to our child like imaginations-not claiming anything else but Fantasy-
evolution claims to be "scientific"....and remains only a theory

O.K. Brace yourself I'm about to drop some science on your noggin. I know closed minds tend to look at science as the devils work but try for just one moment to open up that tiny closed tighter than an oyster that knows the hot sauce is on its way mind of yours and absorb some knowledge.

Charles Darwin's theory on common descent in evolution is a historical inference that made evolutionary theory a new type of theory in the history of science.In a historical inference, there are specific initial conditions outlined in the hypotheses. Branching patterns in evolutionary trees are an example, where the common ancestor specifies the initial conditions. "Hypotheses are statements claiming that particular causal events occurred in the past that produced a set of observed effects." Thus, evolutionary trees are hypotheses illustrating ancestral-descendant relationships and provided one of the earliest testing grounds for evolutionary theory.

Each evolutionary tree is a separate hypothesis framing the specific historical conditions for the origins, relations, and loss of characters, species, or taxa;for example, "Amniota: the last common ancestor of mammals and reptiles, and all its descendants." Moreover, Stephen J. Gould (2002) claims that Charles Darwin's approach to the historical inference was unique because of his fourfold continuum of inferential methodology:

1) consilience - multiple theories coordinating or interlocking to provide the same explanations for the evidence;

2) discordance (dissonance of one) - single observations that fail to meet optimal design in the current context is explained as a vestige of history;

3) uniformity - extrapolation from many observations; and

4) sequencing - the ordering of "various configurations, previously regarded as unrelated and independent, into stages of a single historical process".

An evolutionary tree (of Amniota, for example) illustrates the initial conditions causing evolutionary patterns of similarity (e.g., all Amniotes produce an egg that possesses the amnios) and the patterns of divergence amongst lineages (e.g., mammals and reptiles branching from the common ancestry in Amniota). Evolutionary trees provide conceptual models of evolving systems once thought to be limited in the domain of making predictions out of the theory. However, the method of phylogenetic bracketing is used to infer predictions with far greater probability than raw speculation.

For example, paleontologists use this technique to make predictions about nonpreservable traits in fossil organisms, such as feathered dinosaurs, and molecular biologists use the technique to posit predictions about RNA metabolism and protein functions. To summarize, evolutionary trees are evolutionary hypotheses that refer to specific facts, such as the characteristics of organisms (e.g., scales, feathers, fur), providing evidence for the patterns of descent, and a causal explanation for modification (i.e., natural selection or neutral drift) in any given lineage (e.g., Amniota).

Evolutionary biologists test evolutionary theory using phylogenetic systematic methods that measure how much the hypothesis (a particular branching pattern in an evolutionary tree) increases the likelihood of the evidence (the distribution of characters among lineages). The severity of tests for a theory increases if the predictions "are the least probable of being observed if the causal event did not occur." "Testability is a measure of how much the hypothesis increases the likelihood of the evidence."

Now that we have that out of the way, let us look at a few things.

1) Why can't evolution and creationism love side by side... Things happen just the way since can all but PROVE that they did, but we can add the LOOK WHAT JESUS DID!!! factor to it by saying twas the fathers hand that guided those two sub atomic particles into one another and created the universe. Twas the fathers hand what found these traits undesirable in the species and removed them;

2) Belittling any scientist by comparing their body of work with animated movies for children when you clearly haven't read said work just makes you look ignorant; and

3) I've read the bible. It is a collection of stories written by men over two thousand years ago, it has ben subjected to multiple editings, translations, and re-envisionings (King James, I'm looking at you ) So how do you know beyond the shadow of any doubt that what you are taking as the word of God is actually his word?

Bottom line is this. You can prove your "theory" just as well as Darwin could prove his.

Actually...I've read enough about evolution to prove to myself that it makes no sense what-so-ever, and remains only a theory. {Why they taught it as a fact in school I never understood}- If "ignorance" is defined as not understanding evolution, then I confess! What I HAVE learned, that they didn't teach us in school, is the following:


If, now, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those that are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through"- 2 Corinthians 4:3,4


Satan uses evolution to blind people to God. If one's don't believe there is a Creator, and that we "evolved", then there's no accountability to God, and an "anything goes" lifestyle follows, which is evidenced in the world we live in.

and when it comes to "proving" the Bible's "theory, time and again, the Bible's historical record has been substantiated by the uncovering of archaeological evidence to prove that the so-called Stories written down by "men" actually occured

we already have one asshole making these stupid fucking Darwin threads,we don't need two

And here is the proof of evolution:

Evolution simply explains the origin of life’s diversity; its multiple forms and unique morphologies. It explains why there are 400,000 species of beetles, why ostriches lost their ability to fly, why frogs lay their eggs in water, while sea turtles lay their eggs on land, and why mammals are the only organisms to nourish their young with milk produced within the mother’s body.

We need to look no farther than the well-accepted and easy-to-explain topic of gravity to help differentiate between a scientific fact and a scientific theory:

Gravity is fact. Objects attract one another. An apple dropped from the roof of a two-story building will fall until it hits the Earth.

Gravity is also theory. There are reasons why the dropped apple falls to the Earth and not to the moon or to the sun. The theory of gravity explains the “how and why” of the fact of gravity.

Evolution is fact. Organisms change over time — Darwin called it “descent with modification.”

Evolution is also theory. There are reasons why and how organisms change and adapt and new species evolve.

Thoughts on evolutionary theory began with the early Greek philosophers 300 years before the birth of Christ. Since that time, at least four theories have been proposed, studied and researched, with the first three being discredited and supplanted by the most-recent one, that being Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Natural selection is the theory which explains some of the “how and whys” of the fact of evolution.

or...better yet, does Creation explain the reason for life's "diversity"?


"How many your works are, O Jehovah!
All of them in wisdom you have made.
The earth is full of your productions.
AS for this sea so great and wide,
There there are living things without number
Living creatures, small as well as great"- Psalms 104:24, 25

Out of curiosity why do faith and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Can not the creator's hand be seen in the removal of traits that he in his infinite wisdom saw that his creations no longer needed to survive? Can evolution not support faith? Or all religions so insecure in their deities that there is no room for science?

Believe blindly give up your technology and spend your days praising me to the exclusion of all else!!! Not a lifestyle that I think anyone would be comfortable with.

If you can give me one reason that evolution, the big bang, or any other scientific FACTcannot coexist with faith then I will convert to the religion of your choice. Science is not about disproving god, it is about explaining the world around us.

As an agnostic I firmly believe in the possibility of a higher power, but there is a difference between BELIEVING something and KNOWINGsomething. To know something you have to be able to quantify it, and religion cannot be quantified. From my interactions with most people of faith there is no room in their ideologies for facts, or common sense.

Commendations, a most challenging reply, yet easy as unlacing knots in a shoe string to unravel it's relevant truths/delusions, this could be a fun one.
1. The creator did not 'remove traits' in his creatures, he did not go about rewriting/deleting DNA assembly codes for eliminating organs/extremities. He designed each species perfect from the start or they would have immediately died off, not lasting long enough to reproduce even once. This isn't 'faith', it's simple science.

2.QUOTE; "Believe blindly give up your technology and spend your days praising me to the exclusion of all else!!!"
This is an excellent description of religion, but what does religion have in common with God, what use does God have for religion? The difference between religion, and science is, religionists presume to proclaim them selves saved, science, usually proclaims there's no such hope.

3. The theory of NON-intelligent, random chance, design cannot coexist with scientific observation of the infinite complexity of cellular structure/operation/replication.

Your concept of 'faith' really needs to be upgraded, faith does not refer to intelligent design, that's science, faith is in Jehovah's defeat Satan's reign of terror, and his global military industrial complex and his nuclear arsenal, at Armageddon. Jehovah will let Satan exterminate all who 'worship' him, but not those standing with Jehovah, or his ecosystem.
"And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.
7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.
.... for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short." Mt24:3

Becoming accepted as a 'chosen one' is a matter of divine invitation, walking in his direction..... check your shoe strings, they're really knotted up.




Last Edited by DGN on 01/26/2013 10:27 PM

Thread: TIME is a concept, not a thing. The fourth dimension is motion, not time. Time is another tool for deception.

A few counterpoints to your points.

1. The creator did not 'remove traits' in his creatures, he did not go about rewriting/deleting DNA assembly codes for eliminating organs/extremities. He designed each species perfect from the start or they would have immediately died off, not lasting long enough to reproduce even once. This isn't 'faith', it's simple science.
Here's 10 of them that while they aren't gone yet, are just vestigial remnants of days gone by, except for #1 which kinda proves design isn't so intelligent.

No. 1 - Male Nipples
Because, why?

No. 2 - Appendix
Darwin claimed the appendix was useful for digestion during our early plant-eating years; it's dwindled down to little since we started eating more digestible foods.

No. 3 - Wisdom Teeth
Back in the day, when we ate mammoth meat off the bone and didn't floss afterward, our teeth tended to fall out. Therefore, when those reserve molars, aka "wisdom teeth," came in they were welcomed. Nowadays, fluoride and dental plans have just made them a huge pain.

No. 4 - Erector Pili
When we were hairier, the erector pili made the hairs stand on end when we needed to appear bigger and scarier. Now, it just gives us goose bumps.

No. 5 - Coccyx
More useful as a game-winning Scrabble word than part of the anatomy, the coccyx, or tailbone, is several fused vertebrae left over from the olden days when we had tails.

No. 6 - Tonsils
Also prone to swelling and infection. If you have them by your 30s, it's almost an accomplishment.

No. 7 - Adenoids
Adenoids trap bacteria, but they're also prone to swelling and infection. Just ask any 7-year-old. Luckily, our adenoids shrink with age and are often removed, along with …

No. 8 - Sinuses
Doctors don't really know much about sinuses, only that we have a lot of them. Possibilities for their function range from insulating our eyes to changing the pitch and tone of our voice.

No. 9 - Body Hair
No doubt we were once hairier. Up until about 3 million years ago, we were covered with it. But by the time Homo erectus arrived, the ability to sweat meant we could shed our wooly ways.

No. 10 - Plica semilunaris (third eyelid)
You may not know it, but you have a third eyelid. Pull open the two more noticeable eyelids and take a look - it's located right in the corner by the tear duct. The third eyelid is left over from what's known as a "nictitating membrane," which is still present in animals like chickens, lizards and sharks.

on to number 2.

2. QUOTE; "Believe blindly give up your technology and spend your days praising me to the exclusion of all else!!!"
This is an excellent description of religion, but what does religion have in common with God, what use does God have for religion? The difference between religion, and science is, religionists presume to proclaim them selves saved, science, usually proclaims there's no such hope.

Well you can't have day without night, you can't have fire without heat, and you can't have god without religion. God is religion. If there were no religion god would not exist, and the only thing that separates religion from myth is about 2,000 years. Science dose not try to disprove god, it works to better understand the universe. Science gives us hope for a better tomorrow.

3. The theory of NON-intelligent, random chance, design cannot coexist with scientific observation of the infinite complexity of cellular structure/operation/replication.

This one is just plain silly. The infinite monkey theorem can prove this with math. here's the link as I'm not a math teacher [link to en.wikipedia.org] What you have is complexity and beauty created from random action.

As for my concept of faith, I'm pretty sure that the bible is where intelligent design came from, after all in the beginning and what not...

And as far as shoestrings go, I prefer sandals!

evolution is not enduring, but our imagination's have endless capacity to create


NEVER MAY THERE COME A DAY
WHEN PEOPLE SAY
IMAGINATION IS NO LONGER A PLACE TO PLAY