Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US snubs Darwin biopic as too controversial

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US snubs Darwin biopic as too controversial

    A BRITISH film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-snubs...0912-flkx.html

  • #2
    So whats the inference here...that the rest of the world is somehow more progressive because they approved a movie about the theory of Evolution?

    Bahahahahaha! :lol:

    Stop it.

    Anyway...At least they're still calling it a theory. Because clearly it is.

    Understanding that would be a reason for not showing it over here because some jokers can't differentiate. :roll:

    Maybe they can cut a deal with TV Land so they can show it between I Dream of Jeannie and Bewitched.
    The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

    Comment


    • #3
      The alternative to evolution...the Theory of Stupid.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: US snubs Darwin biopic as too controversial

        Originally posted by Cooter Brown
        A BRITISH film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor.
        Is this the movie you're talking about?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
          Anyway...At least they're still calling it a theory. Because clearly it is.
          Exactly! Just like Einstein proposed his "theory" of gravitation. The math stuff makes gravity look fancy and complicated, when it's really just angels trying to pull people's pants down.

          Comment


          • #6
            Here are a few others that are "just" theories...

            Cell Theory
            Modern Atomic Theory
            String Theory
            Theory of Gravity
            Germ Theory
            Theory of General Relativity
            Theory of Special Relativity

            By trying to discredit evolution by stating that it is "just a theory", you really are just telling everyone that you are completely clueless about the difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory.

            Comment


            • #7
              In the unlikely event that I have one or two "friends" left on this forum, I am going to stay out of this one.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                Anyway...At least they're still calling it a theory. Because clearly it is.
                Originally posted by STL_Runner
                you are just telling everyone that you are completely clueless about the difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory.
                From Darrow/Bryan cross examination.

                Q--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?
                A--I do.
                Q--Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?
                A--No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.
                Q--Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?
                A--I don't know what they thought.
                Q--You don't know?
                A--I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.
                Q--Have you an opinion? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?
                A--Well, I should say so.
                Q-- Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?
                A--No.
                Q--You have not?
                A-- No; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.
                Q-- I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?
                A-- No.
                Q--Don't you know it would have been converted into molten mass of matter?
                A--You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance.
                Q--Don't you believe it?
                A--I would want to hear expert testimony on that.
                Q--You have never investigated that subject?
                A--I don't think I have ever had the question asked.
                Q--Or ever thought of it?
                A--I have been too busy on things that I thought were of more importance than that.
                Q--You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?
                A--Yes, sir.
                Q--When was that Flood?
                A--I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning.
                Q--About 4004 B.C.?
                A--That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate.
                Q--That estimate is printed in the Bible?
                A--Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given.
                Q--But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
                A--I never made a calculation.
                Q--A calculation from what?
                A--I could not say.
                Q--From the generations of man?
                A--I would not want to say that.
                Q--What do you think?
                A--I do not think about things I don't think about.
                Q--Do you think about things you do think about?
                A--Well, sometimes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A theory is a devised assumption. It's speculative and in this case is based on a biased spin of (un)available informaton.

                  Period.

                  I would love to answer ANY questions you may have for me, Daisy. 8-)

                  To clarify... I don't believe that MAN has evolved, but I'm NOT saying that other animals, insects and plants haven't.

                  But there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, NONE, NIL, NULL, ZILCH transitional fossilized evidence to validate ANY theory :roll: that suggest that MANKIND has evolved rom anything.

                  The missing link is still missing and thats why they call it that.

                  Other non human animals crossbreed between species and we know that cross pollination, etc occurs in plants. But it doesnt take a "Darwin" to figure out that a donkey and horse make a mule. :roll: Well, I guess it did for y'all.

                  Print this.

                  And before I am unfairly blamed for posting about religion let the record show that I haven't mentioned it.

                  But now Cooter on the other hand... :wink:
                  The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by STL_Runner
                    you really are just telling everyone that you are completely clueless about the difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory.
                    And you're telling people that you haven't a clue about either.

                    I KNOW the "difference."

                    Apparently you're unaware of their commonality.

                    I'm going to need for you to focus or leave the thread.
                    The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                      Originally posted by STL_Runner
                      you really are just telling everyone that you are completely clueless about the difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory.
                      And you're telling people that you haven't a clue about either.

                      I KNOW the "difference."

                      Apparently you're unaware of their commonality.

                      I'm going to need for you to focus or leave the thread.
                      A theory in normal usage means a guess or a hunch.

                      A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses that have been verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

                      So for you, or anyone, to state that evolution is "just" a theory, only goes to show how little you understand about science and the difference between the term theory in scientific usage and the term in normal usage. I think the scientific term most closely related to normal theory is scientific hypothesis.

                      If you want to learn more, read up on the Scientific Method. If this "theory" of creationism were true science, instead of religion posing as science, then it would stand up to the scientific method. Instead, it crumbles worse than Asafa Powell in the last 10 meters of a race.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You really believe that I don't know the definition of a scientific theory?

                        If nothing else, I have Google toolbar just like you do. :roll:

                        The reality is that not enough "evidence" exists to substantiate removing the term THEORY from the title.

                        Stop right there and think about that.

                        And don't ever let me hear you say "proven hypothesis." Just don't do it. Maybe on someone else but not here. I just look like this.

                        If a hypothesis has been proven, then it deserves to be called something else.
                        The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                          You really believe that I don't know the definition of a scientific theory?
                          If you did, then why would you make the argument that evolution is "just" a theory? Anyone who knows how tough it is for something to become a scientific theory would NEVER state that it's "just" a theory.

                          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                          The reality is that not enough "evidence" exists to substantiate removing the term THEORY from the title.

                          Stop right there and think about that.
                          Correct, evolution will remain a scientific theory as long as there is no evidence to DISPUTE it. So, you're making the exact opposite point you intended to.

                          Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                          And don't ever let me hear you say "proven hypothesis." Just don't do it. Maybe on someone else but not here. I just look like this.

                          If a hypothesis has been proven, then it deserves to be called something else.
                          You are correct, when a scientific hypothesis has been supported with repeated testing, it IS called something else - a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I thought you said you knew about this stuff?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hey, it's got Jennifer Connolly, again playing the wife of a scientist! Somehow that crucial piece of information got left out of the linked article :P

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cooter, please tell me that colouring book with Jesus riding the dinosaurs, and the names of those colours is a spoof. Please?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X