The.Voyage.That.Shook.The.World.2009.DVDRip.XviD-aAF96
ReeGed: Aright I had to call this lunacy to your attention because it would be unfair to have you download it otherwise. This film was commissioned by Creation Ministries International. Basically the kind of lunatics who take the bible as literal truth, word for word (and also deniers of the fact of Evolution). What they’ve done in this film is present a distorted view of Darwin and his history to what i can only assume is to fit their views (read the wiki for more information). This is such a pathetic attempt at trying to undermine what by now is the fact of evolution (supported by mountains of scientific evidence). I actually saw something similar done by Kirk Cameron and his crew of loonies (the same guys who found out that the banana is proof of god, rofl) HERE, we’re they’re handing out their own edited versions of Darwins “Origin of Species”.
Quality: DVDRip, nice and crisp 
Synopsis: In celebration of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, this insightful documentary retraces the scientist’s infamous, five-year research trip on the HMS Beagle. Featuring dramatic recreations and commentary from leading scholars, The Voyage That Shook the World examines the observations and experiments that led to Darwin’s groundbreaking theory of evolution.
 |
 |
 |
Ratings: IMDB: 5.9/10.0 (34 votes) | RT: N/A
Genre: Documentary | Biography
Directed by: Steve Murray
Starring: Antoni Biernacki, Mike Casten, Sam Downes, Drew Kelly, Liam Norris
Language: English
First Cinematic Release: 21 May 2009 (Australia)
Release Name: The.Voyage.That.Shook.The.World.2009.DVDRip.XviD-aAF
Video: XviD @ 1404 Kbps - 624×352px (WxH) - AR: 16/9 - FPS: 25.000 fps
Audio: MP3 @ 448 Kbps (Constant) - 6 channels
Size: 52 Files @ 721.4MB
Runtime: Release - 53 mins
Filename: aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world
Links: NFO, Wikipedia, Allmovie, YouTube Trailer
Download: Torrent Search | Download Search | Usenet Search | NinjaVideo | Subtitles
October 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
The Voyage That Shook The World 2009 DVDRip XviD-aAF
download
http://rapidshare.com/files/297170831/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/297170828/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/297170907/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/297170602/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part4.rar
or
http://hotfile.com/dl/15642637/f0d31f7/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part1.rar.html
http://hotfile.com/dl/15642667/95ee95a/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part2.rar.html
http://hotfile.com/dl/15642647/03ee6eb/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part3.rar.html
http://hotfile.com/dl/15642508/6bb76b3/aaf-voyage.that.shook.the.world.part4.rar.html
10% data recovery! Single Extraction! Links interchangeable
no pass
October 24th, 2009 at 9:27 am
This is one of the most enjoyable forums I have ever read on zerosec.An actual debate about something substantive. Aside from the few that feel they need to insult others who do not see there point of view this was quite enjoyable. I on the other hand learned a long time ago that this subject will be debated until the idiots in charge blow us all up. I bid you all good day and I am off to work.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:44 am
"I just wanted to say that Evolution is most certainly not a fact. It is still a theory."
Evolution is a fact. The theory concerns which or what element(s) trigger that evolution. Is it environment, is it social, is it genetic, is it that ‘only the fittest survive’?
You really need to educate yourself, on the facts.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:52 am
To those people wanting evidence about how DNA and Fossils and so on prove evolution lease read the following books:
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins
There you will find all the info you need, if you can be bothered.
Incidentally I have read the bible cover to cover. I am interested to know if the people supporting creationism also support stoning your children to death for being naughty (see Matthew 5.14) or offering your daughter up for rape (see Sodom and Gomorrah) or the treating woman as sex slaves (see Exodus)? If you are honest in your belief of the bible you must also support these deplorable acts.
I am also interested to know why in Genesis the bible contradicts itself within a couple of pages (check the order of what God created and when)?
October 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm
October 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am
https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Richard Lenski’s ‘Long-term Experimental Evolution Project’
October 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
You special little snowflakes whining that ‘it’s just a theory’ really need to go look up what ‘theory’ means in a scientific context. Evolution is a process we’ve observed, quantified and can replicate in a lab. That’s about as ‘fact’ as you can get.
Science - it works whether you believe in it or not. Suck it up, you hysterical bitches.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Damn, atheists are SO COOL!
Oh and FYI. It’s the THEORY of evolution. NOT the FACT of Evolution. Also like that you said ‘Lunacy’ which pretty much sums up your bias.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Lateralus - look up the definition of a theory in science. To be a theory it has to be backed by facts and repeatable experimentation. Shit, I don’t know how many people I’ve had to educate to what a theory in science is over the years but if I had a stone for each time I’d be building a huge mansion by now!
Panda - you said "We all have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow - based largely on our experience that it always has". You’re wrong. No one has faith the sun will come up (except perhaps people who have never been educated at all and have never built a telescope. We KNOW the sun will come up tomorrow because we have the evidence to prove it and the steps to prove it can be repeated by anyone following the same intructions. That’s science, not faith, don’t confuse the two.
The faith of the religious subscriber and the belief of the scientific observer are poles apart from each other - faith is based on what you believe to be true where no proof is required, whereas science is based on what you can prove as a result of experimentation. I hate when people confuse the two - it’s like saying being an aethiest is a religion of itself when it’s nothing of the sort, it’s a complete absence of the factors that make a religion, relying on proof, evidence, experimentation, peer group review, exactly like science and exactly the opposite of "faith".
October 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Just in case you creationist numties haven’t grasped what a theory is yet, I shall reiterate the point made in WMC’s post:
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.
A scientific theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.
Scientific theories are not guesswork, they are FACTS. Please distinguish this from the general layman’s usage of the word ‘theory’ in such statements as, "I have a theory as to why too much religion turns people into morons", that is just a guess.
The origin of the universe, chemical evolution and biological evolution are completely separate disciplines. Measurements of expansion, temperature and correlation function easily prove the universe is billions of years old, transitional fossils do exist and man is not ‘descended from monkeys’ but shares a common ancestor with other primates.
Anyone who adheres to the myth of creation, in the face of the wealth of information to the contrary, should try typing the words anthropogenesis, abiogenesis or big bang theory into a search engine and read through the results.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
To all those who want evidence of evolution just look at the dna strand and how it has evolved. We share so many other characteristics with other creatures, including some genes that are no longer required for us as humans.
So if creation is correct and evolution is fiction, GOD would have to be the laziest software engineer ever. So much redundant code still sitting in modules no being utilized. Redundant code just opens the door to viruses and hacking, not something you would do if you wanted something perfect in your own image.
Oh and the big question if GOD created us then who created GOD. If no one created GOD then he just appeared. So to have something come from nothing then it evolved from nothing into something. hmmmmmm
Yes possibly we were created by GOD, Aliens or Colonies of bacteria working together to make mobile cities called creatures. But what ever you believe you must always come back to the nothing into something theory called evolution.
So the first spark of existence is always based evolution. You do not need evidence it is just simple maths……
Oh and in closing……. Stop as a human species spending so much effort arguing about where we came from and start to think about where we are going.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The FACT of evolution - What fact?
I thing itis called the "Theory" of evolution
I personally would rather believe there is a God
October 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
To all those who have contributed in this forum topic, I thank you….
It has been a very enjoyable read on a late Saturday night with a glass of wine.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
@ 63 (The One): I have to agree with you. By making my comments in the post I was hoping to spark a debate like this and I’m glad it turned out successful.
I think one of the most important points which several people have made is the idea that religion is blind faith in a deity even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Science is the exact opposite. Real scientists revel at the prospect of being proven wrong, because science seeks the truth.
If the God from the old testament undisputably showed himself to the world tomorrow I’d be the first to get on my knees and pray, because god knows (no pun intended) you don’t want to end up in the hell portrayed in the bible.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I’m not going to watch the movie, but it sounds like they just touch on how Darwin was going to be an Anglican parson before he was diverted by his love of nature.
That really did happen, and it kind of shows how he wasn’t out to bring religion to its knees. He made some observations, made a brilliant book, and that’s that.
If anything his views were probably along the lines that evolution and creation-ism were complimentary. Which is what I think too.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Arguing about religion or politics on the interwebs is about as useful as tits on a tree.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
hm, I think tits on a tree would get a few men to enjoy nature more (especially forests)…. personally, I wouldn’t mind tits on trees =)
October 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
america thinks it is heaven,americans(not all)think they are angels avenging all the bad in the world,usually caused by americans, right under the noses of the godsquad "moms apple pie eating" middle classes, whom also believe in god ie "the president".! away tae yer beds ya nasty greedy horrible people,you guys need a couple o hundred years sleep! that should get rid of yez! evolution has been proven your church has been proven as corrupt sick and false, you guys are a disease, avoid this shit. be human not a fuckin blind asshole. sad,tragic,pish. c’mon the humans!!!
October 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Theory doesn’t imply fact. I don’t know why people think it does even in the scientific sense. Theories can be unproven or even rethought. There have been several theories that have been shot down or rethought. One example could be Newtons Law of Gravity. We are finding now that it isn’t entirely accurate but was accurate enough to do certain calculations. Scientist test a hypothesis or hypotheses and then if that hypothesis or hypotheses is/are supported enough by data, it becomes a theory. A theory is our best guess to why our hypothesis or hypotheses worked.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16PpvdpMXo
October 24th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
quite an enjoyable read, all ur comments n stuff =] if someone would up it on mu or something one-clickish, i would give the piece of shit a try, maybe worth a LOL or two^^
October 24th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Check their site out, it’s really interesting. Worth keeping an open mind.
http://creation.com/
October 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Meh I’ll still download it regardless of who commissioned it.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Creationism is BS and though I’m a supporter of the theory of evolution um it’s not a fact….. there are only well supported theories no facts in the world of science. Anyways yeah *downloading*
October 24th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
@ LOL exactly
October 24th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
How did this story go from comments of the movie to deep discusions on the origin of man?
Anyways.. while we are in it - think about this:
can you prove math, the past isn’t an illution or that you’re not the only mind and everyone else is imagination?
Why does everything exist, insted of nothing? but here we are - so where did matter in the very, very first place come from?
can something come from nothing?
evolution tells us that we origin from primates or monkeys, but why is the human DNA more related to pigs than monkeys?
BTW Stargate Universe ROOOCCKKS !!!!
October 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am
@Anders
Check out string theory and m-theory for an explanation (or at least most workable theory so far) but you have to be able to deal with 11 dimensions and other exotic ideas to grasp it.
Also, I wish people would stop saying human DNA is more related to pigs than chimps, it’s complete nonsense and a little research would prove it so. And before you say that pigs are used for transplants to humans whereas chimps are not, the reason is simple - pigs are slaughtered anyway, having been raised for food and so raise far less objection than would the breeding and raising of primates for use as donor organs - even though they would be far better candidates for xenotransplantation due to their higher genetic match. Humans who are given pig organs face a harder battle to stop their bodies rejecting the pig organs than anyone who was given a primate organ would be since the larger the genetic difference between species the more likely a rejection is to occur.
Oh, and you’re right about one thing - SU does rock, or at least it will once it gets properly started!
October 25th, 2009 at 2:19 am
\"The FACT of evolution - What fact?
I thing it is called the \"Theory\" of evolution
I personally would rather believe there is a God\"
In the USA it is still called the \’Theory of Evolution\’.
Whereas in the rest of the enlightened world it is accepted scientific fact and simply called Evolution. There are theories as to what drives and triggers \’the\’ evolutionary process.
I prefer to believe there is a Tooth fairy and a \’Father Christmas\’.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:17 am
@78
So what would happen if something changed the way we thought of Evolution? If it was fact, then it would be a falsehood, right? Theories are not fact but a best guess to why something happens or how something happens. There is a reason why they are called theories and not facts. Theories can be molded, updated, removed, discarded, reevaluated, and scrutinized. Facts are things that are static. 2+2=4 is a fact. We are human beings, fact. Facts never change.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Holy shit!
Lots of ignorant American Fucks read Zerosec!
Man das ist gud to know. I will start keeping my jokes PG-13.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:06 am
@48 Sorry I meant Dawkins is *a* sad exception, and he is. Most scientists don’t have a problem with religious people, and many people of faith are scientists themselves. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution; they even have a Vatican Observatory.
So no, they’re not often at odds in general life. They’re often at odds in the media and news and a small minority of minds attached to loud voices. Generally, science and religion get along fine, because *most* people are generally tolerant and just want to get on and make a living.
@59 You missed the point, I should have said we "assume" the sun will come up every day. The point being we all use that part of the brain which makes assumptions about the world without it having to be proven every single time.
Another example; everyone had faith that Newton’s laws governed everything in the universe, until Einstein came along and showed that gravity can bend light. Until then, everyone had 100% faith in a Newtonian universe.
The main difference between scientific and religious "faiths" is that scientists are open to being DISproven and addressing contradictions, whereas religious people generally are not.
However, try convincing a science-minded person that there are things science will *never* explain. Most of them will vehemently disagree and never accept that idea. That’s their "faith" - that the universe is discoverable and explicable.
Faith is not something to get rid of - it’s part of how our brains work, and will always be there. We generally have faith that life is good, that people are good, that "it all makes sense". Unless you’re depressed of course.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I think #65 Miyamoto puts it best:
"If anything his (Darwin) views were probably along the lines that evolution and creation-ism were complimentary. Which is what I think too."
And which is what I think too.
Darwin even talks of a Creator too; so all the anti-religious, science-only people are really quite pathetic. I mean we all know the people who literally believe in Noahs Arc and that God has a choosen people and all the evil things that OT’s GOD demands of his sheeple, as #54 pointed out, are totally ridiculous and not really worth a discussion. BUT, as #81 puts it very true: "try convincing a science-minded person that there are things science will *never* explain. Most of them will vehemently disagree and never accept that idea. That’s their "faith" - that the universe is discoverable and explicable."
For example, reincarnation! There are children who remember their last lives and even still remember where their "old" family lives etc.! Any of you Science-only people mind explaining that to us?
Truth is stranger than fiction. Get over it.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
[quote]The main difference between scientific and religious "faiths" is that scientists are open to being DISproven and addressing contradictions, whereas religious people generally are not.[/quote]
No,no, no and again NO! The difference between science and religion is that science has to be backed by facts, data, repeatable experimentation and is open to peer scrutiny and review. Religion, on the other hand, is blind belief in something there is no evidence for, no facts, no data, no repeatable experimentation. Totally opposite ends of the spectrum! As for your assertion that "Most scientists don’t have a problem with religious people" - show me the evidence. Most of the scientific types I have ever spoken to do not belief in a God or Creationism, since it would go against every principle of scientific research.
It’s not a faith that the universe is discoverable and explicable, it’s fact. We simply have not got the tools or the knowledge to ask the right questions to answer everything yet and there may be ideas that the human mind can never fully grasp such as m-theory but that doesn’t mean they are not explainable. Take any 100 year segment of human history, look at the things that could not be explained at the time - then move 100 years forward and lo and behold those questions have been answered. By science. Not faith.
And finally, changing the sentence to "I should have said we "assume" the sun will come up every day" would still make it incorrect - I do not assume the sun will come up every day - science has given me the tools to know the sun will come up every day because we know about orbits, gravitational effects, what the sun is made of, how it interacts with other bodies, etc etc etc. I therefore do not have to assume anything with regard to Sun rising every day. That’s the point of science, to explain and furnish us with the tools to know things, or to point us in the right direction to ask the right questions so answers can be refined as new technology and answers in other scientific areas come along to help us - such as the refinement of Newtons laws (most of which still stand) by Einstein - who himself had better knowledge and tools to work with than Newton (scientific advances at work).
October 25th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
[quote]Darwin even talks of a Creator too[/quote]
Darwin talked of a Creator because to not do so would have incurred the wrath of the Church and the Establishment and being jailed or hung was not really something Darwin really wanted. It was this fear that led to him not publishing his book for 10 years, and that forced him only to mention the origins of man in one sentence in the whole book. Not because he was a believer!
October 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@#84
That’s what you think but that’s not necessarily the truth.
We’ll never know for sure. So don’t take that as a fact.
Others had the balls to stand up for their true beliefs f.e. Galileo,
and as some pointed out here already, evolution simply explains the evolving of life but not the origin. So maybe a creator was simply the only reasonable cause and he indeed had the balls to point that out.
Regarding the aliens as the origin of life, then the question still is: well what’s the origin of those aliens then?
Evolution and intelligent design are complementary.
And by the way, there’s another prominent fight going on which is IMHO also not a question of "either…or" but "both", and that is Climate Change: non-man-made effects and man-made effects are both affecting the world. Why can we not simply get over it and finally see it as it is. The sun very much has an effect on our current situation as does the man-made pollution. Taxing us now will never ever stop the pollution and is simply the first global tax of maybe many more to come.
Fight Depleted Uranium instead, which is destroying the planet and everything living on it, right here and right now! No matter what the origin of life is - THIS IS KILLING IT!
PLEASE!! PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERY LIVING BEING - EVERYONE must see this, know about it and spread it as far as possible:
The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5146778547681767408&ei=AWrkSqGqO5DJ-AbemdDJDA&q=depleted+uranium#
The same documentary is also available in german, maybe other languages as well.
Thank you.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@85 - No, that’s the facts. Originally Darwin believed in a Creator (hardly surprising given his upbringing) but both his work and personal tragedies made him become less of a believer. In the end, Darwin referred to himself as an agnostic, not a believer. That was probably as far as he could bring himself to go against beliefs ingrained into him from being a child!
October 25th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
@ me again, yes I know what you’re saying, but you’re still missing my point. If you miss someone’s point, the idea is to try and look at what they’re saying in another way, not repeat the same line. I stand by what I said. It’s meant in a way different to how you’re looking at it.
Think about "proof" in subjective terms. Yes, we take repeatable results as proof. A person of faith has their own "proof" too. Their own "repeatable experience". They stand by their experience of their faith.
I would wager than most people in science, when considering the issue, wouldn’t disregard the experiences of millions of people. The only problem is we can’t (as yet) repeat the "experience of god" under controlled conditions. But that doesn’t mean it’s not real.
We all think "love" is real. We say we love our families, partners, friends and pet gerbils. We talk about love in objective terms, like it’s a common experience. But is it? There is no PROOF that one person’s experience of love is the same as another’s. But we do take it on FAITH that love is love, all over the world.
Do you see what I’m getting at?
October 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
let’s assume that’s the truth, @me again.
agnostic means "we know that we don’t know", that seems to be the intelligent way to go. But most people on both sides of the spectrum act like they know for sure and that is questionable.
I certainly don’t believe that everything that exists is a product of pure coincidence. Everything non-man-made is designed so perfectly, there has to be some sort of a blue-print. Life evolvs over time but it has a purpose too, which wouldn’t be the case if it were simply the product of billions of trillions of coincidences.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:46 am
There was a Big Band, from some sort of primordial atom, that made everything in existence. Then when the Universe cooled after a time, elements started to attract to each other. Stars created the heavier elements up to iron. Super Novas created the ones beyond that. Then rocks started to collide and planets forming. Then the Earth formed. The Earth was positioned in the right spot away from the sun. The other planets were also positioned in exact spots too since their gravitational pull would affect the Earths orbit if they were not where they are now. Also, the sun was exactly the correct size and type for our planets location. Then somehow life began on Earth. When I hear a science program on TV gloss over this portion, I always laugh, "Then from a primordial ooze, life began." Then from this ooze, life sprang into the billions of different lifeforms.
I akin this to winning the lottery a billion times in row for all the right things to come together to form life from lifelessness. It is one fantastical feat after another. Yet, when you listen to people that believe in this they are dumbfounded why people believe in a God. Shhh, we are superior to those those God believers. They are delusional. Yea that is it.
Respect others if you in turn want respect.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
@82 says "For example, reincarnation! There are children who remember their last lives and even still remember where their "old" family lives etc.! Any of you Science-only people mind explaining that to us?"
Here is my thoughts on this issue…..
There is a code base in every cell called DNA. This DNA is proven to exist and yes is still being explored and discovered like the new worlds found when the ships did not fall off the edge of the earth. This DNA is the blueprint for life, like an architechs drawing of a building, shows how the body will be assembled. This DNA in my opinion must also hold memories. Animals born with what is called instinct proves that the brain when it is formed can also be formed with ready assembled neuron paths which function as a kind of memory.
So it may just be possible that life experiences are recorded in DNA and in the forming of the brain these neurons are connected to form memories of our ancestrial memories, which some may say are past lives.
This does seem a bit far fetched when you think about it. But if a tiny strand of DNA can have the complete blueprints for a living creature, why does the brain have to be formed as a clean slate, maybe it can be formed with the ready connected neurons as the DNA maps out that function as memories. Remember the brain is the size it is because it is a functional machine. The plans for this machine do not have to be the same size as the machine, just like the drawings for a 100 storey building.
Maybe this can also explain why some transplant patients have memories of their donar?????
@89 says "I akin this to winning the lottery a billion times in row for all the right things to come together to form life from lifelessness."
This is very true and science excepts this as so. But also keep in mind that in the fastness of this universe with billions of galaxies containing trillions of stars which some have planatery systems. Then the odds you speak of seem more likely that one place in the universe developed life.
These are just my thoughts and not to be taken as gospil (so to speak)
October 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Hi @LOL,
you’re totally right. Most of the science people are so absolutely certain on their views, but are sometimes just as ridiculous as some religuous believes. I wished more of them would see that.
@#90:
okay, I heard that concept before but it somehow doesn’t make sense.
If one child dies somewhere how do his/her genes get into the sperm of his/her new father?
On the other hand, with the concept of immortal multi-dimensional beings which incarnate into this world, everything starts to make sense.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
@91
I agree with you 100%, the memories from a dead child can not get into the genes of the father. Be the memories that the father has of the child can and may be passed on, including their life and death.
People search for immortality and it has been staring us in the face the whole time. Have children and pass on your genetic memory and you will live on in genes of your children.
That may be why in some cultures when a person hated someone so much they not only killed that person but also wiped out their entire family line.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:49 am
its call a theory because it is not a fact. if it were a fact then it would be called a law. i have never heard of the law of evolution.
when you die and stand in the day of judgment, maybe then you can explain to Jesus how evolution is a fact.
remember forever is a long time.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I give up with this debate - debating with people who have "faith" or religion is like punching yourself in the testicles - painless, pointless and ultimately fruitless. It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist when those who do believe are willing to ignore evidence, science and common sense. Donald Rumsfeld tried much the same thing in the 1970s claiming that the Russians had super weapons that the Americans could not detect because they were so super - a very circular argument (not to mention a big pile of lies) and one that could not be disproven - except with evidence, which he chose to wilfully ignore or co-opt to his story. Not unlike religious believers (think the Intelligent Design brigade with their pseudo science and wilful obfuscation of scientific fact).
So, believers, believe what you will. When we’re all dead it won’t matter anyway.
When the people you are dealing with come up with rubbish about pigs being closer to humans than apes and monkeys, deliberately fail to understand what a theory in science is, and spread willfully spread misinformation then it’s a losing battle. Hopefully all your children will have grown out of your ridiculous anti-logic beliefs otherwise we will continue to be a race of cave dwellers running back into the dark because the truth outside is too bright! "The light, the light, it burns my eyes".
And you know what, even if I and all the others who think like me, are wrong and Jesus and God (or Allah or Buddah or whatever ridiculous entity you want to name) appeared in front of me together I wouldn’t be getting down on my knees. I’d have a whole bunch of hard questions for them, starting with "why"? And if they were mad at me I’d simply say "you made me this way so get off your moral high horse". The fact is none of the above will ever happen because science has already explained what happens when you die - your body degrades and the heavy elements in us go back to the cosmos to help the next wave of evolution of life.
I can’t wait for life to be discovered on other planets, maybe that will stop all the religious bull, although probably not as religions are adaptable (look at the Catholic Church for a good example) and will change to saying God created them too - even if the aliens wouldn’t agree.
If Jesus appeared in front of me right now I’d take some advice from LL Cool J and knock him out.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:32 am
@ Lateralus
You don’t even know the meaning of the word "theory". Before you rant and rave you should read a fucking dictionary.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Your god is dead and no one cares.