Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South

Hey the Pope finally acknowledged that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. It took 400 years but that's not that long in God Time, you know, where 7 God days equals 12.5 billion people years. So really this whole Evolution/Bible thing is just a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the time scale God was talking about when he was speaking in ......Sanskrit?

Sanskrit to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German (Gutenberg?) to Old English to English. Did these people never play the "pass the whisper' game? Just say "Yep, we think God may have a different sense of time" cased closed.

(Really,I can't believe I am the the same species as people who believe the bible is the literal. I think they secretly know that their whole myth is so ludicrous that if they don't doggedly oppose any 'cracks' the entire belief system will crumble. Like the Pope and the Cardinals sit around saying, "yea this is goofy but we must maintain the myth so the poor wretched people will have some hope".)

 

First of all, Imax films are often incredibly boring, poorly scripted, tacky or all three. I have seen a couple I thought were good but they seemed to be the exception. If a theater manager decided it wasn't worth wasting $7 on I appreciate that.

Secondly, quite a number of Christians visit Natural Science museums all the time. Christian perspectives on evolution, natural history and science as a whole run the spectrum. I'm not sure why this thread has to turn into a Christian-bashing venue over a marketing decision that was the museums to make.

Third, from a culinary perspective I have to assert that the censorship of semi-sweet chocolate is in fact as agregious as the censorship of any history or science material. Perhaps for the same reason that Barnes and Noble is not and should not be legally required to carry every book ever published, Sam's club can freely choose what sort of chocolate to buy. Yet to shield people from the pleasures of semi-sweet and subject them instead to the childish and dulled flavor that is "milk chocolate" is objectionable if not offensive. Because a store such as Sam's Club appeals to the masses their choice of products makes a statement about quality standards in our society; they should recognize their moral obligation to raise aesthetic standards to a more acceptable level.

 

When is a 3d, IMAX version of The Passion coming out? Or maybe it should be a experience ride at Disney...

 

Is evolution science? Something came from nothing...(My personal opinion is that evolution is a religion and shouldn't be taught in schools unless creation is taught)

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to show it, but it is wrong when we are told evolution is truth when in fact it is a theory. What do you think? Peace!

 

Evolution is fact. There is a huge problem when people use theory in the colloquial sense, when discussing scientific theory. It creates a lot of confusion. One of the posts in this very thread addresses the theory/fact confusion nicely.

 

Evolution doesn't contend that something came from nothing. Evolution is science, backed by research, and evidence. The same can not be said of creation. Creation(or none of the creation stories that I am familiar with) does not rise to the level of scientific theory. Are you speaking of a different creation theory?

 

It's pretty interesting how many Christians would dismiss the evolution theories when there are overwhelming evidence to support these theories.

 

I once heard a creationist say with a straight face that dinosaurs and other fossils were creatures that didn't survive the great flood. Aparrently there wasn't enough room in the Ark for a brachiosaurus.

 

See my post on page 1 of this thread. Evolution is a fact. How evolution occurs is a theory. A theory in turn, is a concept that has a mountain of evidence to support it.

Intelligent design and/or creationism has no testable hypothesis and is therefore not science. By extension it does not belong in a science classroom.

Furthermore, would you demand a science teacher say that the heliocentric theory of the solar system is "just a theory", and that there are other schools of thought, including the "epicycle" theory?

Any science teacher worth beans could not stand before a class and say that the evidence for "intelligent design" is remotely close to the evidence for evolution. If you don't realize that the evidence disparity is at that level, then you just haven't been paying attention.

 

I agree its a missunderstanding of the scientific method regarding the confusion of the scientific use of the term "theory."

While creationists might bash evolution by saying its only a theory, many of the principles that allows me to transmit my thoughts to the BBS wirelessly and for you to read it are theories themselves.

I won't call evolution a fact but given the evidence and the rigorous methodology used to test it its the best idea we have for how the diversity of life came about.

 

Well it is only a theory not a fact that semi-sweet chocalate is superior to milk chocalate. It also diminishes the heavenly goodness of chocalate to deny the divineness of the creamy rich combination of milk, cocoa, sugar and vanilla.

 

The mantra, "evolution is only a theory" has a countervailing mantra, equally disingenuous, that "scientific theory is fact." The tension between evolutionists and the creationists is philosophical in nature, not scientific. To repeatedly say evolution is scientific is to butt your head against the wall; it's irrelevant. It assumes that science is the source of all knowledge, an assumption not shared by those that evolutionists are likely arguing with. I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance or genuine, but you cannot have a philosophical argument solely on a scientific plane; it is inadequate. So talk as much as you like about how scientific evolution is, but you won't be able to win an argument with a creationist like that; you're not even talking about the same subject.

Someone's already pointed this out, but it bears repeating since Oski did it again. Don't paint the South with a broad brush. We're talking about less than a dozen theaters in the South not carrying the film. If anything, it means the South is generally welcoming of the movie since it has gotten play nearly everywhere.

Not all the Imax theaters are in Musuems, though many are. Also, non-profit entities operate like for-profit ones in many ways -- especially in providing product that sells. To say that a non-profit should ignore the bottom line and should show (in this case) a movie they think will be a loser is foolishness.

And, my wife is right about Imax movies -- the big screen is cool, but they've got some crappy-ass writers. Hopefully, the volcano flick is different.

 

There is really no need to argue with someone who does not care how much evidence or support you have for your theories. If they do not believe it the scientic method, you can not make them believe, even though there are evidence all around us which shows the success of this proven method. There will just be more and more support the theory of evolution as more and more new data and evidences are revealed in the future, let the facts speak for themselves.

 

Is that willful or genuine?

 

True in this context perhaps - but where we see the controversy occur the most is in the arena of public school science class, where school boards mess with textbooks, etc - and I think it's probably irrational to not make that (science is the source of knowledge) the base assumption in the circumstance of teaching a science class.

 

I disagree. I don't think I've ever been to an IMAX that I didn't think was worth the price of admission. Yes, sometimes the writing is bad, but they always hold my interest, visually and in regards to subject matter.

By that logic, schools shouldn't teach gravity, mathematics, driving, history, etc., etc. Of course, you can extend this back to saying that creation shouldn't be taught either, because it is just an idea of something coming from nothing.

Which begs the question, why should it be a philosophical argument in the first place? Evolutionists / scientists don't think it is philosophical until you reach a certain point (say, the Big Bang, or even before that). I can't tell you why creationists think it is entierely a philosophical argument and not at least partly a scientific debate, given the facts, because I'm not one.

 

I agree with you in general that I believe science can't tell us everything. There are just some questions that can never be answered scientifically like am I here for a purpose. Except that most evolution versus creation debates involve whether evolution should be taught in science classes.

Also many creationist don't just want to have a philosophical discussion they actually believe that evolution is false scientifically and have gone to great lengths to try to disprove it scientifically.

So while yes we're talking about philosophical mindsets it not only is adequate its absolutely necessary to confine an argument solely on the scientific plane when the subject is whether an idea is correct scientifically.

Just wanted to add one more thought. While evolution is a theory and hasn't been absolutely proven scientifically if it didn't work much of modern medicine wouldn't work since its predicated off of that. Epidemiology is essentially studying evolution on a small and rapid scale by keep track of how infectious microbes successfully adapt and spread. In tracking new diseases it also considers how random genetic mutation can cause a disease to move from one species to another or to develop new transmission abilities.

Also we as humans engage in our own form of evolution. Anytime a farmer selectively breeds livestock that right there is selection, albeit not natural, for specific traits that give that geneline an advantage. Even though its mediated by humans its essentially the same thing as genetic trait that gives a particular animal an advantage in a particular environment to the point that only animals with that trait prosper and it gets more and more pronounced to the point its different species altogether.

 

To ease some of your minds...I'm a Christian...I'm pretty fundamentalist, I suppose. Not a literalist throughout...depends on the nature of the book within the Bible I'm reading. Much more likely to take a literalist view on the Gospels or Acts which purport to be accounts of real events. I hang out with other Christians, though certainly not exclusively! I don't know even one who says, "yep...Genesis is definitely the exact way it went down. 7 days, baby. Woo hoo!!" I don't know one who wouldn't accept the notion of it being metaphor, except maybe Carl Everett. Genesis is not a science text...it's a precursor to addressing the need for a savior, in Christian theology.

God created...it was good....good relationship with man...man chose his own ways and will over God's...sin enters...broken relationship...unrepairable relationship from our side...God intervenes by saving humanity through Christ. That's Christian theology in a nutshell.

I hear many of your concerns about all of this. But even as I read this article, I don't get the sense there's this mass protest from the pews for something like this. Seems like a story blown up on an otherwise slow news day.

I think an omnipotent God could have used evolution within his creation. I see no problem with that. I certainly won't deny intra-species evolution (like moths changing colors, etc). I have a harder time seeing a common ancestor for a whale and a bat.