MovieChat Forums > SpaceAce2001 > Replies
SpaceAce2001's Replies
I think that mostly comes from his buddy Ray Comfort. Kirks area of study is primarily the Crocoduck
Also just to let you know even if you could disprove all of evolution (which you can't) you would still be no closer to proving God's existence. God is not the default position.
Transitional forms do not happen from generation to generation (parent to offspring), no scientist ever predicted that and if you can find one who did I will be the first to tell him he's wrong (after everyone else who probably did), transitional forms occur very slowly over long periods of time. Humans are a transitional form, we evolved from earlier life and we will continue to evolve into other life forms assuming we don't undergo an extinction event. And what is your point about crocodiles and turtles? There is no set rate of evolution or DNA mutation (no one ever said there was) different organisms evolve differently (and since you were the one who cited punctuated equilibrium I think you would understand that life does not evolve in even consistent rates). Macro-Evolution has occurred and should continue to occur, all fossil evidence shows that life started out very simple and primitive (around 3.8 billion years ago) and then slowly became more complex until we have what we have today. Several examples of macro-evolution including phylogenetic trees are provided here along with citations: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683
Do you realize that you claim to have evidence that could turn all of science and our knowledge of the natural world on its head? So where is your noble peace prize? Where is your honorary doctorate? Scientists would welcome anyone who could refute evolution with open arms, scientists want to discover more about the natural world, there is no set idea that scientists want to indoctrinate the world with so lay off the conspiracy theories.
Now I have never claimed that I know all the answers, I have never said that God doesn't exist, before I believe and dedicate my entire life to this God I would at least like a little confirmation that he does indeed exist (seems perfectly logical). At this present moment however all signs point to an old Earth (billions of years) and that life began very simple and evolve into diverse complex life. When that becomes refuted I'll accept it but I'll tell you right now the likes of Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Hamm, and Eric Hovind aren't even close to presenting anything that represents a logical, scientific argument. All of them began with their conclusion (they want the answer to be creation) and that isn't how science works. Hell Ray Comfort thinks a banana is evidence of God's existence.
The only reason that some religious people (like Kirk Cameron) get mocked is because they constantly are insisting absurd ideas are true that are completely contradicted by the laws of nature. They claim that they know more about science than all of the PhD's on Earth when they don't even know the first thing of what they are talking about. Come on man, please tell me you are not this ignorant. The fact that the age of the Earth is being adjusted shows that we are going off what current studies and data is telling us and as time goes on our number is getting more and more accurate. There is nothing to suggest the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that is absurd on all levels. The reason some religious people cling to it is because that is what people believed a long time ago and if they admit that they were wrong then people might start questioning Christianity and other world religions.
I think all creation events in every religion are equally nonsensical it's not an attack on Christianity at all, it's an attack on people making outlandish claims that they can't back up.
OK do you know how a fossil forms? Do you realize that a lot of these fossils are billions of years old? Do you know how hard it is for an organism to be fossilized? What is more likely to be fossilized a T-Rex or a squid? Of course not every organism that ever lived got fossilized that is ridiculous, however from the fossils we have found we have assembled a biologic timeline that shows organisms slowly evolving into other organisms. We can tell this through homologous structures and other bone evidence. We also know what lived when because organisms are always staying in their rock layers, you don't find a fossil of a T-Rex mixed in with a fossil of a trilobite because they lived in different time periods and those time periods were millions to hundreds of millions of years ago?
OK do you even know what a transitional form is? I'll give you a little help it isn't a Crocoduck, every organism is constantly evolving and changing into another form, we are transitional forms of life that lived millions of years ago and we will eventually transition into something else in a few millions years or so. Read this background information: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
I keep making the argument that you don't understand science because you keep demonstrating that you don't understand science. Because studies and theories get refined or thrown out that doesn't invalidate the scientific method, what it shows that scientists are constantly searching for better ideas and more accurate information and if anything that shows why the scientific method is a valid system. It goes by the evidence and it goes by the facts. And again in science experiments and studies and research do not "prove" anything 100% what they do is they provide us with enough evidence and data for us to accept it to be true but it always leaves open the possibility that it can be modified or thrown out all together, religion doesn't do that, religion says that what was accepted 2000+ years ago is without any question fact and if you dare question it you are going to hell. It uses fear and guilt to get people to believe things that are logically absurd, like the entire world flooding. You can say Christianity is about freewill but it isn’t, if you don’t think a certain way you burn in hell and under Christianity approximately two thirds of the worlds population is going to hell, that is evil. Evolution is not "speculation", this isn't something that we just pulled out of thin air, this has years of testing and repeated confirmation, the evidence is so strong that we currently accept it to be true and we treat it like it's true.
Dr. Hovind??? LOL thanks for the laugh (by the way I think you have Kent and Eric Hovind confused, Kent Hovind has a degree from Patriot University (which isn't even accredited) in Christian Education which doesn't exactly make him an authority in any kind of scientific field). I have listened to the guy and all he does is play word games with people, he baits people into contradicting themselves and his way of debating is incredibly childish and asinine. The only way to talk to him is to bring yourself down to his level and most intelligent people aren't willing to do that. He says that if you don't know everything then your entire line of thinking is flawed and invalid but since God knows everything then that means Christianity is true. That entire statement is asinine and illogical and you are never going to get closer to the truth is you listen to that moron. Again no one is saying that they "know" the Earth is 4.56 billion years old, it is the currently accepted age however because by radiometric dating the oldest evidence ever found on Earth dates back to that time period. There is absolutely nothing to suggest it's only a few thousand years old. There are rocks all over the place that date back to billions of years, there is no logical reason for believe the Earth is 4-6000 years old, there are plenty of reasons to believe that it is billions of years old. Tell me this if the Earth is only a few thousand years old why do we find layers of strata that date back to hundreds of millions to billions of years? Why do we never find a dinosaur fossil in a rock layer younger than 65 million years old? (I'm assuming you believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted and that dinosaurs are actually some biblical creature?) Again that is the currently accepted scientific idea, when new evidence comes along we will refine it but now the ball is in your court and its up to you to refute it.
At least religious people are consistent??? Yeah they are consistently believing things that have no basis in reality
By the way in case you care:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lZXOIb2o9o
So then they should have allowed the Nazis to bully them away? Why didn't the other side leave when AntiFa showed up? Make no mistake AntiFa is just as extreme as the Nazis are along with BLM.
Your argument that they support Nazism because they didn't immediately abandon their cause is nonsense, and no things aren't always as "cut and dry" as you would make them out to be.
Explain to me how faith is a reliable pathway to truth? People can have faith that Christianity is true, people can have faith that Islam is true, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc. and it doesn't get us anywhere.
No science is based on evidence and experimental testing, the things that scientists say they don't base it on faith or what feels right. Theories and Laws are based on evidence and repeated testing and confirmation. It's kind of like in a murder trial the jury makes their decision based on the evidence, not on faith. It's kind of like saying "yeah I know that all of this evidence suggests that the guy is innocent but I have faith that he's guilty and he just looks guilty so I am going to vote guilty". That is absurd, even if the evidence was wrong the jury had a definite reason to believe he was not guilty and therefore it would be the logical thing to vote not guilty.
I don't think you understand science at all. Religion and Philosophy are not reliable pathways to truth because they do not rely on logic, reason or evidence. Again science does not say that theories and laws are 100% proven or 100% fact. We have simulated the Early Earth's Atmosphere in a laboratory (Miller Urey Experiment) and we know that it is possible for the Early Earth Gases to form organic compounds which very well could have created the first unicellular organisms. The Precambrian is very hard to trace fossils because most of the life had soft bodies or were very primitive but after the Cambrian Explosion we have a fairly reliable fossil record as that was a period when life began to evolve and developed hard parts. the thing is scientists are OK with saying "I don't know" and just because they don't know everything doesn't mean that they don't know anything (which is what our pal Eric Hovind would have you believe). Evolution has so much testing and confirmation behind it that from our perspective it is as close to fact as it can get so for the time being (despite the fossil record not being completely intact) we treat it as fact until contradictory evidence comes along later, again science always opens the door for theories/laws to be modified or thrown out if necessary, it encourages asking questions, it encourages critical thinking, it encourages people to question the status quo and collect new evidence/ideas about the natural world. Religion doesn't do that, religion says if you question God or don't love him enough you are going to burn in hell and be tortured for eternity so toe the line and shut up. Society does not progress with that kind of attitude.
Evolution is not an accident, there is a reason why some life forms lived on and some died off and it all comes down to adaptation and environmental conditions. When the Earth's environment changes the organisms that have favorable adaptations to survive in the new environment live on while the ones with unfavorable adaptations die off again Rabbits in a snowy environment --> White ones live, black ones die.
As far the the helicopter goes the ending of the DAF novel is very similar. Bond follows Jack Spang to Africa and he attempts to flee in a helicopter and Bond shoots it down.
I thought Waltz was OK as Blofeld, not as good as Pleasence or Savalas but a hell of a lot better than Charles Grey (who actually allows Bond to touch the tape that powers his space lazer, WTF?).
Spectre definitely should have removed the "adopted brother" subplot along with their attempt to tie all of the previous villains together. Too big of a coincidence.
I've heard some complaints that now the MI6 regulars are starting to become involved in the action too much and yeah it was kind of starting to feel like the Avengers but I kind of like these characters and they are played by solid actors (Harris, Fiennes, Wishaw, Kinnear) so I also don't mind that.
He didn’t give a pass to nazis he said over and over again that he didn’t condone their behavior. He denounced them repeatedly. You seem to want to lump anyone who was there and wasn’t on the side you support in with the Nazis (and these people didn’t kill anyone) which is blatantly dishonest. There were fine people on both sides there were morally reprehensibe people on both sides. President Trump NEVER said the Nazis were fine people he wasn’t referring to them and I think you know that. I can recognize that there were people on the other side who wanted nothing to do with AntiFa but I at least have the maturity to not lump them together with that hate group. Seriously dude lay off the fake news and start acting like an adult
Why would you send an agent into the field without a gun? It doesn't matter how good he is, if you want him to be successful you are going to make sure he has the tools he needs.
Skyfall would have been the perfect Bond film if the gunbarrel was in the right place (that is literally my only complaint). Casino Royale was also great but again the gunbarrel was in the wrong place and there were a few instances of questionable dialogue, my main gripe is: You lost because of your ego. Um actually he didn't, he lost because he got unlucky, no poker player ever would have folded a full house. I ranked both Casino Royale and Skyfall as Great
Spectre was just "Good" for me, my main complaint about Spectre was that they felt they needed to tie together all of the Craig films and I don't think that was necessary, Spectre could have been its own separate thing and it would have been good. I felt there were way too many unbelievable coincidences. I'm also not buying that Raoul Silva would have worked for Spectre, he seemed like the kind of guy who just did his own thing. It is hilarious though that when Blofeld was putting up pictures of characters from previous films he conveniently left out Dominic Greene.
Quantum of Solace is one of the worst films I've ever seen. It was a Bourne wannabe with no story, no interesting characters, atrocious acting and it was completely directionless. And why on Earth would your master plan involve extorting money out of Bolivia? Bolivia is a 3rd world nation.
3. Skyfall - Great
5. Casino Royale - Great
11. Spectre - Good
22. Quantum Of Solace - Bad
I will never defend the wind surfing, that was dumb not ifs ands or buts. I didn’t mind the invisible car, they had an explanation as to why it was invisible so I am ok. I thought the story about bond being black listed was really creative, I loved the sword fights and the film puts in subtle references to the previous films that only the dedicated fans are going to pick up on.
I recently did a bond marathon and surprisingly die another day is the only one I watched straight through without taking a break
And some people on the side you were referring to were not Neo Nazis. You know Anti Fa was on the other side, do the people who weren’t Anti Fa deserve to be lumped together with them?
You are beyond dishonest
You see I really like Die Another Day. When I ranked the Bond films I have 4 categories: Great, Good, OK and Bad:
1) Die Another Day - 8th - Good
2) Goldeneye - 12th - Good
3) Tomorrow Never Dies - 17th - OK
4) The World Is Not Enough - 21st - OK
M never told Bond to stay with Elektra, she specifically told him to discover who switched the pen. So no Bond didn't disobey a direct order.
Renard is talking to Davidov and Arkov about how Bond escaped the parahawk attack. Davidov tries to make the excuse that Bond was too good for the parahawks and Renard cuts him off and says "Bond is unarmed".
Why would Bond ever be unarmed when he's on a mission?
And no I actually think this is the worst Brosnan film, could have been good but there are far too many things that just don't make any sense.
it's the result of intelligent design. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the Earth was created by a deity.
By the way the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, the Earth is estimated to be about 4.56 billion years old, you're numbers aren't quite right. You know Mercury doesn't have a magnetic field? Scientists have concluded based on experimental evidence that Mercury does have a weak magnetic field:
https://phys.org/news/2011-12-mercury-magnetic-field-nipped.html
Where is your scientific study? Don't take offense to this or anything but I am more inclined to believe NASA over you.
Again I don't think you fully grasp what science is all about. No law or theory states that "this is true 100% there is no way it's not true, you must blindly accept this". Science has years and years (maybe decades) of study and research behind it. Is it perfect? Of course not, there have been countless hypotheses that have either been modified or thrown out completely, our viewpoint of the universe is constantly evolving (a few centuries ago it was universally accepted that the Earth was the center of the solar system). The point is we go where the evidence takes us and when it needs to be modified it is. At this current point all signs are pointing to an old universe (and by old I mean billions of years), and an old Earth (again billions of years), and it's also pointing to life started out as a simple one celled organism and over billions of years (3.8 billion approximately) it's offspring constantly evolved and changed and through the process of evolution/natural selection we have the dynamic biosphere that we have today. You seem to think that just because scientists have thrown out ideas or that some experiments/studies (and I have not read the study you are referring to but even if I take your word for it it doesn't help your case) have been invalid that that discredits all of science and it doesn't, it actually shows that science has very high standards and for something to be universally accepted it has to stand up to very high scrutiny (which evolution has).
At this present moment all signs point to evolution, when there is new evidence we will modify our way of thinking about the universe. The difference once again is that evolution has actual experimentation and repeated confirmation about it while all world religions do not. There is no agenda to convince everyone the Earth is 4.56 billion years old, that is where the radiometric dating has lead us to. Is it older? Quite possibly and when there is evidence we will correct ourselves. The point is there is evidence that leads to an old Earth, there is ZERO evidence that the Earth is thousands of years old and that