Any other Christians love this film? - The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! (2012) Discussion

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] z10g 12 years ago

I think a viewer that chooses to ignore evolution of species will have about the same enjoyment of the film. But the theme of taking care of and not killing animals plays to the fact that other animals than humans have intelligence and feelings far beyond what we thought before. That also means that non-humans aren't for us to use for enjoyment in a harmful way. Christianity assumes that humans are superior as a life form to all others, and that doesn't correlate to well with a harmonious fauna.

reply

[–] Bladerunner 11 years ago

Christianity assumes that humans are superior as a life form to all others, and that doesn't correlate to well with a harmonious fauna

Why is that? The Bible says in Proverbs 12:10: "The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel." Just because God said that man is "superior" does not mean that man can be cruel to animals.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] z10g 11 years ago

I'll copy/paste a definition so that we are both on board with what harmony is:

1. Agreement or accord.
2. a pleasing combination of elements

"Their animals" is a clue. When humans owns other animals, whether you see the use of them as cruel or not, it is not an agreement on both parts nor pleasing for the owned animal. If it's pleasing, then it would be a friendship, not ownership. Would you say that putting an animal in a cage or killing it when not necessary is cruel or not cruel?

reply

[–] GBDaddy 10 years ago

Whether by design or evolution, there are certain animals that live in harmony (and "friendship") as pets. Dogs, of course, are a perfect example. Animals that don't or can't live in harmony WITH people generally do not. Children do not have an agreement with parents...but being led ("owned" in law) is natural ("their children"). What creatures, including humans, live life being pleased all the time? Worldly utopia and reality don't quite coincide. I understand your point, but it's missing a lot of fundamental reality.

reply

[–] beebub1984 12 years ago

Are you for real? Darwin's 'theory' is not open for debate. Scientific theory is not the same as the ordinary sense of the word where someone has a theory as to explain something we don't really understand. By way of example, gravity is also a scientific theory in the same way that evolution is a scientific theory, but you don't hear people questioning gravity just because it's a 'theory'.

Einstein's E=Mc2. Heard of that? There aren't 'relativity doubters' yet it too is a scientific 'theory'.

You should read some books (other than ones written 2,000 years ago).

reply

[–] poc-1 12 years ago

I think you post is full of intolerance.

The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is by no means obvious.
Darwin himself took ages to formulate it properly and he recognised that it had a lot of shortcomings. In fact he wrote them all down in chapter 6 of the Orign - most of which have been solved in the 150 years since publication.

I tend to think that those evangelical Christians that want to deny evolution completely are in some senses more realistic than Christians who try to square their religion with the theory. All the fundamentalist creationists have to do is to deny the evidence whereas other Christians have to somehow square Natural Selection with their belief in a benevolent deity, which is philosophically untenable, in my view.

And by the way, there is no complete theory of gravity - it is one of the biggest unsolved mysteries of physics.

There are "Relativity Doubters". Einstein's theories are constantly being tested for cracks.

reply

[–] beebub1984 12 years ago

More realistic??

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't really mean 'realistic'. More true to their screwy beliefs which have been proven wrong in many, many differnet ways.

Of course Einstein's theories are constantly being tested. He came up with the theory nearly 100 years ago. Science doesn't just stop. If anyone finds a crack in his theory it will only be after it has been proven and confirmed by peer review, not because a 2,000 year old book disagrees.

reply

[–] poc-1 12 years ago

I mean more philosophically coherent, even if they are farther from reality believing man coexisted with brontosaurus. If you take the position that the evidence for evolution is wrong then you are on sound philosophical ground, relative to those Christians who accept the evidence for evolution by natural selection, just don't appreciate that this invalidates their core beliefs. Of course the evidence is overwhelming, but having had multiple fruitless discussions with creationists, I know how they approach it.

They start by question dating evidence and especially they question the notion of time. Then they go on about missing links, denying the existence of any transitional forms, and have a series of pat arguments to show why archeopteryx is not one of them. Finally they seize on Darwin's statement
"If a mechanism is too complex to have come into being spontaneously, and if all its component parts must be present in order for it to be able to function, then this is sufficient evidence to entirely invalidate my theory" (if I remember completely) and they trot out a series of bogus examples, such as the eye or flight etc.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trayoder 12 years ago

It is your goal to be offensive? Have Christians wronged you in some way that makes you hostile towards their beliefs? It just comes off as cruel. It is a persons right to believe whatever it is they want to believe. I as a Christian don't believe in evolution but I don't go around posting obnoxious responses belittling others who don't believe in the same things I do.

reply

[–] zhokar 12 years ago

Intolerance? More like common sense and having a head that tries to understand and explain the universe in the most logical fashion, scientifically. I do see how his post is unsulting to "believers", if you shove your agnosticism into someones face, you're no better than missioning religious radicals.
Ignorance is bliss and apart from that religion can be a good coping mechanism and source of hope. The world tends to have more dark sides if you try to take it at face value.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

Lateral evolutionary change is largely proven. Vertical (inter-species) much less certainty. What has no proof at all is the first act of creation for which even Dawkins and Darwin admit is completely unknown.

Of course if you want real scientific truth get a few drinks into an evolutionist and they start revealing all the problems with their theories.

beebub1984 I assume that you are a scientist who can fully understand evolutionary science, chemistry, math relevance, interaction, archeology, etc. Otherwise your belief is simply based on faith, faith that science and scientists are providing you with credible information. Your faith is little different than religious faith. You believe things that are mysteries to you but are presented as fact by a large group of people who depend on their veracity (or appearance of veracity) to keep their paychecks coming. You doubt this. Do some research and you will find plenty of books that deal with accuracy and application of science. Study epistemology. Heck, I have a friend who has a PHD in math and is working on her second post doctoral certification. She has serious doubts that math is the correct tool for exploring and understanding the real world. Too complicated to explain here and she is writing a book about it so I must respect her right to first publication rights.

Consider the Pythagorean theorem which simply states that the square root of the sum of the squares of two sides of a right triangle will reveal the length of the third side. Consider the 3, 4, 5 example. We know the square root of (3 squared + 4 squared) or square root of 25 is 5. Wow good equation. But wait there is another answer -5. Negative five is not a valid length or direction which requires more co-ordinates. In other words the Pythagorean theorem yields a correct answer and an incorrect answer. Hmmm?

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

reply

[–] DaliParton 12 years ago

In other words the Pythagorean theorem yields a correct answer and an incorrect answer. Hmmm?

You think you are being clever and its true. You are demonstrating just how clever creationism apologists are at misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

How? Well you just misstated the Pythagorean theorem in order to support an erroneous conclusion -- that negative lengths also satisfy the theorem.

A more accurate version of the pythagorean theorem goes like so:

In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides that meet at a right angle).

Those are literal squares as illustrated in this diagram:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Pythagorean.svg/265px-Pythagorean.svg.png

As you can see, negative lengths do not satisfy the requirements of the more correctly stated Pythagorean theorem. Just as knocking down a misstatement of the theory of evolution does not invalidate the actual theory of evolution.

reply

[–] holtor 12 years ago

>In other words the Pythagorean theorem yields a correct answer and an incorrect answer.

Wow, this is almost as stupid as it gets. And this is what your friend with a "PhD" in "math" told you? May I ask at which clown college she got her degree? Apparently one where they teach creationism too, right?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] holtor 12 years ago

>usually no nothing
>you site

LOL

>But what do I know

Not much, obviously. Maybe you should learn to write before making weird claims about physics and biology.

reply

[–] hogfather22 12 years ago

Um wow. You Say 4 billion years is not long enough for evolution? Do you not understand how many years that is? 4,000,000,000 years. Average human life is say 80 years, that is 50 million human life times since earth formed.

(3.6 million is when they {who is they?} say life (single cell organisms) were created)

I seriously hope that was an error. 3.6 million years is about a million years earlier than when the human genus split from the chimp genus. Dinosaurs died out 60 million years earlier than that.

4 billion years is more than enough time for life to evolve from single celled organisms.

Florida! But that's Americas wang

reply

[–] Blarhhh 11 years ago

i was just reading through and find it incredible hilarious and ironic that people who believe in science usually no nothing.

Idiot.

reply

[–] poc-1 12 years ago

Personally, I think that people who believe in both a benevolent Judeo-Christian god and evolution through natural selection, simply don't understand the theory properly. This is not to say such people are stupid, ignorant or not well-read. Far from it, but the full impact of what the theory means takes a long time and study to sink in, even for Darwin himself.

Darwin didn't have girl troubles, and was never kidnapped by pirates either. He was genuinely worried that marriage would curtail his science but reasoned logically decided it would be nice to have some female company and it would provide health benefits, and promptly married his cousin. His wife, Emma, proved to be an excellent match, intellectually and physically, and the couple had 10 children.

For his true insights on women and marriage read the following excerpts from his notes:

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwins-notes-on-marriage

reply

[–] fantasyescapist 12 years ago

WTF? Did I miss something? Very few Christians I know were offended by The Da Vinci Code, not an innocuous film such as this one.

What is Galileo in a film, for example, gonna make some pious, fundamentalist folk protest? What a mad world, indeed.

George Lucas talking about: 'Hey, give it to me, I'll fix it. I'll make 20 more of them'

reply

[–] lindamudarris 12 years ago

Yes, I do agree! Darwin is apart of our history & we can't exclude him because of his opinion. We all have opinions & people can except them or not.
From the review I will go & see this movie. It sounds like I would have a great time seeing a movie w/out any cussing involved.

We are wired to ask questions all the time!

To bad I can't wear my pirate outfit to this movie!!

reply

[–] beebub1984 12 years ago

Evolution is not a 50/50 issue. There's overwhelming evidence for the facts of evolution and zero evidence for the hokum of creationism beyond the words from a 2,000 year old book.

reply

[–] lindamudarris 12 years ago

they are asking if Christians love this film not unbelievers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] beebub1984 12 years ago

Does that mean I'm not allowed to respond to bogus statements made by the likes of you?

reply

[–] lindamudarris 12 years ago

no. just be nice to others, that's all.

reply

[–] beebub1984 12 years ago

In what way is correcting innacuracies not being nice?

reply

[–] cgrill8 12 years ago

I've read so many contradictions dealing with evolution, Darwinism, the iceman found some years ago, etc. etc... some changing the idea humans evolved from and to various different groups of species, and questioning if evolution is based on the extinction of one race for the other to survive, then why are their still gorillas and monkeys still around... or that the human body is older than we realize and some mated and/or evolved into monkeys... it's so disgustingly vauge and does nothing but help divide the rest of us living, here, today into hating each other based on our individual opinions. Christianity does not spurn nor put "man" on a pedistal, just the opposite. Everyone keeps claiming how a 2000 year old bunch of scrolls is malarkey etc. yet it also tell us to take CARE of animals. The OT at one point does point out when were "allowed" to eat meat, and then really only certain animals, not anything and everything with 4 of 6 legs. The NT comes along and it's overall message is for everone to LOVE one another for the sake of it, going beyond boundaries, beyond the norm, not split people up based on all our differences and to help spurn hatred - just the opposite people. I'll get off my soap box right there (yeah too late) I know.

But as a long time fan of everything Nick Park and Aardman, I can't wait to see this new Pirate movie. My little girl wants to see it too. And while the jokes sound like they may be a little over my kids heads, they'll probably still like it, since we're long time Wallace & Gromit fans from the early 90's.

reply

[–] beebub1984 12 years ago

Well some of the stuff you're read is wrong. Simple as. Evolution is not based on the extiction of one race for another to survive. The reason gorillas and monkeys still exist is because we didn't evolve from gorillas or monkeys. Our closest relative in the animla kingdom is the chimpanzee. We have a common ancestor with them. It wasn't a chimpanzee or a monkey or a gorilla. It would probably be best described as an ape. But all this talk of did we used to be monkeys etc. is only a very small part of the whole amazing thing that is evolution. If you go back far enough we have a common ancestor with every living thing on the planet.

reply

[–] dwrubin 12 years ago

The Old Testament says man is created in God's image. That sounds like a pedestal to me.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hogfather22 12 years ago

and questioning if evolution is based on the extinction of one race for the other to survive, then why are their still gorillas and monkeys still around

Seriously, this is the worst argument creationists have come up with. It's like saying if you came from your mum and dad, how can you have brothers and sisters?

I don't deny that evolution is a complex idea. But it is the best explanation we have, with multiple lines of supporting evidence, for the diversity of life on Earth.

Florida! But that's Americas wang

reply

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

Ok... name one sign that evolution is a FACT... natural selection does exist but there is no reason to believe evolution is a FACT. Please enlighten me.

reply

[–] willjohn 12 years ago

Get your head out of your Bible and read some real science books. Do you really believe it would take 40 years to walk the 500 kilometres from Cairo to Jerusalem?
Does it worry you that after you die there is nothing? do you really think that if Bishop Usher had been born 200 years later the evidence would not have changed his mind? Do you really think that two of every creature that ever existed could have all fitted on a boat?

reply

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

Wait... you avoided the question... that would be a sign that says you don't know the real answer so you avoided it with insults. Real smart... I'm clapping... really I am.

reply

[–] willjohn 12 years ago

The idea is for you to think for yourself. If you think I have insulted you I think you should get out more. I am a man of advanced years whose family contained more than its shares of priests and sisters, even a Cardinal Archbishop.
For much of my life I was religious, but the older I got the more ridiculous it all sounded.

Enjoy this life because it is the only one you will ever get.

reply

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

Honestly I didn't really think you were insulting me. It's hard to tell with the internet whether someone is trying to be logical or not. Most people are trolls so I didn't quite respect your post. But I can see that you are not some troll which is nice.

The thing is that scientifically the chances of there being a god of some sorts is actually quite high. If we go back to the origins of the world there had to be "nothing" at one point. Before the Big Bang or however the world first formed there had to be something. It would've been a world without time or space. Time doesn't exist unless there is space. That means that if there was a being that existed in a world that doesn't revolve around space and time. I will quote an explanation for you,

"By definition, something must be eternal (as we have "something" today and something cannot come from "nothing", so there was never a time when there was "nothing"). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question "who created God" is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause."

reply

[–] woodyresident 12 years ago

Firstly I'll acknowledge the post where you said, "Ok... name one sign that evolution is a FACT... natural selection does exist but there is no reason to believe evolution is a FACT. Please enlighten me."

You believe natural selection exists but evolution doesn't? Natural selection can't exist WITHOUT evolution. It would have been more appropriate if you said "evolution does exist but there is no reason to believe natural selection is a fact." This is because there is still debate on whether natural selection is the driving process in evolution. A debate welcome in the scientific community.

What sign would you like? There's an abundance of evidence leading to the theory of evolution. You just have to research into it. It's not a secret theory or anything, the evidence can be viewed at any time by any body.

Secondly, "scientifically the chances of there being a god of some sorts is actually quite high". How is it scientifically? You just pulled that out of your rectum. You say "however the world first formed there had to be something". That just loses all credibility in one go when you don't even know how the world formed. You ASSUME there was something. It's akin to child's logic.

Why does it have to be a 'being'?
Who created the being if you think that the Big Bang must have been created, or us to have been created?
Why did he write a book then completely revise it a few years down the line when he's apparently omniscient and omnipresent?
Why did he kill his own son to prove a point?
Why do Christians who believe the bible is the infallible word of god, twist scientific facts to prove that god exists?
Surely his word is final, and if his word is final why are there so many contradictions in the bible? The logical answer to that would be because there are various contributors. But then that would make the bible wrong... but it can't be wrong because it's claimed as the infallible word of god? Which is it?

Food for thought.

reply

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

Ok start listing your "facts" of evolution on why it must exist. All you said was why I'm wrong or how I could be wrong. You never supported your statements at all. You just said that there is a bunch of evidence but you didn't even give one example. If you are really trying to convince me, then convince me.

reply

[–] woodyresident 12 years ago

I'm not playing into your game of "facts" of evolution. I've already said to research it yourself. You obviously do not know much about evolution and plainly ignore it for more easier digestible knowledge, known as the bible.

Here's a Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

And here's a few books:

Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth.
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True (He's in the video)
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is

But if you want a fact... us humans descended from a common ancestor that we share with the chimpanzee. That's a fact. Oh you want evidence? Get off your arse and look into it yourself. People are so lazy these days.

reply

[–] praisethelove 11 years ago

"Get your head out of your Bible and read some real science books. Do you really believe it would take 40 years to walk the 500 kilometres from Cairo to Jerusalem?
Does it worry you that after you die there is nothing? do you really think that if Bishop Usher had been born 200 years later the evidence would not have changed his mind? Do you really think that two of every creature that ever existed could have all fitted on a boat?"

The Bible is way beyond science my friend. It deals with things beyond what we humans can comprehend. Don't sit there and criticize it. Some people believe there is life after this world. You can't prove them wrong. So don't knock them.

Take good care of yourself, Sally Orchid

reply

[–] ibringrain 11 years ago

"Some people believe there is life after this world. You can't prove them wrong. So don't knock them."
People who believe things they can't prove and go around preaching those beliefs as facts because "You can't prove them wrong" deserve to be knocked. If people don't need their bodies to live, explain why we have them? If we have souls that can live on without our bodies and we are rewarded or punished for our actions/beliefs, why does brain damage affect our memory? How could you justify rewarding or punishing a soul who has no memory because it lacks it's brain? So many loved ones of people with brain damage and Alzheimers talk about how they aren't the same person any more. Who are they now? Our memories and personalities should remain in tact if they aren't reliant on our brains. All the evidence points to our bodies being us, there is no life without our bodies. Even the writers of Ecclesiastes seemed to understand this, "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

If you don't take your beliefs as fact and you're not trying to influence others with those beliefs, I've got no problems with you. But if you're going to go around talking about your beliefs, I've got every right to challenge you. We don't need more people going around believing harmful things like "Women's heads will explode if you let them go to school." or "Gay people caused those natural disasters with all their gay marriage." or "Evolution is wrong, we should teach Creationism in Science class instead." Thank-you-very-much.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dwrubin 12 years ago

I find it a little insulting to label the life's work of one of the greatest scientists of all time "his opinion." Thinking "Two and a Half Men" sucks is an opinion. Darwin's contribution to science is a body of work.

reply

[–] zarathustra2k1 12 years ago

We all have opinions (however stupid) & people can except them or not.

I fixed your post for you.

P.S. It's "accept" - see what I mean about 'stupid'?

I have opinions of my own, but I don't always agree with them - George Bush

reply

[–] j-c-s-f-akkerman 12 years ago

Nothing offensive. It's not like "Paul" for instance

reply

[–] bigmarksnelling 12 years ago

I find it incredible that in the 21st century people still let their lives be ruled by a fictional book. A book which was written to strengthen people's hold on power.

reply

[–] jerrybob1978-1 12 years ago

My parents and I thought it was a good movie. At least it had a story to it. It wasn't all about science.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

I find it incredible that in the 21st century people still believe it is okay to try and force their views into others. If you are a man of science, fine, but that's no reason to try and diminish others' beliefs. Cultural diversity is not a bad thing man. We are a product of our cultural heritage. There's no need to be an a*hole and try to erradicate diversity just because you don't believe in what others believe in.

reply

[–] widescreeneyes 11 years ago

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/26900000/Atheism-atheism-269612 46-1280-800.jpg

reply

[–] GoUSN 12 years ago

I assume that your question was meant for non-denominational protestants. Of course, not presuming to speak for the largest Christian denomination in the world at one billion and counting, I think we Romans are now very comfortable with science, particularly after our ill-fated harassment of Galileo earned us a big fat demerit in history.

reply

[–] julesaz 12 years ago

Charles Darwin actually existed. Why shouldn't he be in the movie? Did you not notice that his character in the film had not yet even considered the possibility of evolution?

Not arguing with your points -- Christians (or anybody) ought not object to a film before they know what's in it. That's the sort of thing that really burns my biscuits. ;)

reply

[–] ashepiro 12 years ago

Oh For Crying Out out loud..Its just a Movie...a Fun Family Movie. Why bring Religon into the Discussion. I am so tired of Seing posts on boards on whether or not any Christians loved a movie. It's just a movie!

-The Fresno Time Lord-

reply

[–] LosGanjales 12 years ago

they should close threads like this... this ain't a religious board.. talk about this movie in your bible group but keep your 'christian' bs out of the world...

reply