The Davinci Code - Blasphemous Feminist Garbage

[Dust Devil]

Are you saying he never met C3PO because he ceased being anikin when he turned to the dark side? I think since Anikin built c3po he would have closer ties to him than say your average trash compactor or binary load lifter

[cyyz]

Are you saying he never met C3PO because he ceased being anikin when he turned to the dark side? I think since Anikin built c3po he would have closer ties to him than say your average trash compactor or binary load lifter

I'm really tired, but I don't recall him ever meeting 3P0

Scenes where they were close but not quite,

Corvette(Ep 4) when they boarded, droids "escaped" he never saw.
Hoth(ep 5) he was marching in with the Snow Troops, but they had already let the falcon escape when he came in,
Cloud city(ep 5) 3p0 was dissasembled so he hadn't "seen him" he was on chewies back in the bag...

[Dust Devil]

No they saw eachother when Han was being frozen in carbonite. Chewy turned around so he could have a look.

[Guido]

No they saw eachother when Han was being frozen in carbonite. Chewy turned around so he could have a look.

Yeah, but there were tons of droids who looked like C3PO - remember on the deathstar there was one almost totally identical, but black, and I seem to remember a silver one as well. I'm sure he wasn't the only gold protocol droid...


edit - holy crap, I just realised what a nerd I am...

[cyyz]

No they saw eachother when Han was being frozen in carbonite. Chewy turned around so he could have a look.

"chewy turned around?" So was 3p0 still in the backpack, or half assembled/backwards by then? Not fully loaded?

Also, I think anakin had bigger issues on his mind at the moment, freezing han, waiting for luke. Etc.

Okay, but lets say he remembered 3p0, what then, what of it??? "what's up dog, long time no see, toss him into the smelters??"

Maybe he was ignoring him, you've been to a mall seen someone you didn't want to see you and just ignored them and hoped they don't recognise you?

He killed his wife(metaphorically speaking) whats the big deal about ignoring or not caring about 3p0 and still 20 years... long time, I don't think it would have been a big deal to him.....

damn you DD for this...

[Dust Devil]

All valid points. I think we'll have to petition george for some answers. I would like to think that Vader might give him a "hey what's up man" 3PO was essentially his first major creation and he took alot of pride in it. but Galactic Civil War can change a guy I suppose

[costermonger]

Maybe this guy is not refering to bears1, but he is refering to land mammals becoming whales2. There is no evidence of this3, just wild speculation,

1. He's absolutely not refering to bears. Nothing anything like bears in any way. So your original statement was quite obviously made up, as I pointed out originally. He's talking about artiodactyls, a group of hoofed land mammals that served as an evolutionary intermediary, who's descendants include whales and hippos.

2. Mammalian fossils found on land predate marine species fossils quite significantly - it's obvious that marine mammals evolved from land species. Hence the oxygen respiration, live births, social lifestyles, etc.

3. Yes, there absolutely is proof. The simplest of which would be that whales have vestigial limbs. Despite having no use whatsoever for them, whales all have pelvic bones, and the larger species are very commonly found with femoral remnants - underdeveloped, unused legs that are most commonly contained completely within the whale's body, but on occasion they're found to protrude from the body to actually form rear limbs. They're completely functionless, but they're there. Why? Because once upon a time whales or their ancestors had legs. Millions of years later, there's very little left of those legs, but the proof is there, and it's there in every species of cetacean - dolphin, whales, etc.

[goates]

No, categorically I am not.

Let's see one source where a respected scientist (ie. not one wacko who's lunatic ravings you're attributing to the entire scientific community) claims that whales evolved from bears.

Evolutionists say "the whale's past is extremely obscure. All we know is that sometime ... some smallish, four-footed land animals began a series of extraordinarily rapid evolutionary changes. In the geologically short span of 50 million years they learned to swim instead of walk, and to reproduce offspring able to swim from the moment they left the womb." (The Living World of the Sea, William J. Cromie, p.268-269.)



The above author may be a wacko, but these textbooks are being used and their material is being taught, in CDN highschools. Maybe this guy is not refering to bears, but he is refering to land mammals becoming whales. There is no evidence of this, just wild speculation, yet if a student were to openly and repeatedly question this dogma, (and religion of evolutionism as propounded by our education system) he would be branded the wack job and ostracized. Much along the lines of the early Christians who were more than ostracized, but slaughtered prior to the council of Nicea, 325 a.d. I find some really glaring propostitions in Brown's fictional tome. His theme that Christianity was put in place by the powerful first century Christians, ( the most powerful being the apostles, who were all crucified or stoned to death for their steadfast belief in a myth - that's some kind of power they had) to subjugate and demoralize women, is one of the most laughable. Women were very prominent in the Old and New Testament of the Bible, much more so than in the secular world. We wont even talk about what Islam has done to/for women. Yet Davincis author finds it necessary to single out Christianity as the great oppressor of women of all time. If that were the case, why were women the first people to come upon the empty tomb of Christ as recorded in Mark 16. If women were such losers, why would the authors of the fictional gospels (as per Dan Brown) have women be the first to discover the proof of the resurrection. That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

Evolution is taught in biology classes because they are science classes and evolution is the best theory we have about how it all came about. Creationism is not based on any scientific theory and as such should only be taught in theology or religion classes.

As for the holes in the evolutionary history, they are slowly filling them in. They are also slowly updating and correcting evolutionary thinking as Darwin's original theory was not quite right yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1836692
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ossil.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Why should I believe in the Bible any more than what the Buddhists or Hindu's believe?

[mellow_pilot]

The scientifically observable fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere, to prove transpeciation. Why then, is this belief still dogmatically held and taught, does this blind belief not constitute a form of religion?

LOL!!!

You're killin' me!

So here's my question. How do you know the bible isn't wrong and the Quran is right? Oh wait, I remember now, humans aren't smart enough to understand god and such so we just have to believe whatever some guy in a robe tells us.

But I can't prove there is no god so i guess he exists... then again, you can't prove that evolution doesn't exist...

Check and mate.

Here's another brain teaser for you. If god is so great, why does he let priests, his supposed servants and representatives on earth, rape little children. And none of that crap about being judged later on. If god was truly good and omnipotent, he would rain fire and brimstone on the asholes and send the straight to hell himself!

CYYZ, just because someone uses a common phrase of work such as 'holy shit', 'sweet Jesus', 'or what in the hell', it doesn't change anything about their religious bliefs, it simply means that their speech patterns have developed to include common phrases within a society. Kinda like a rapper calling a friend a 'Nigga' doesn't make him part of the KKK.

edit- oh, and I forgot; if there is a fossil record (as is freely admited above), doesn't that preclude the creationist theory? And there is plenty of evidence to prove evolutionary steps among many species.

[niss]

Steven Colbert Said Something Like This

I accept other peoples beliefs....there are literally hundreds of differant ways to accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Saviour

He also said something like this

But arent people free to choose to believe what i beleive?

I still think the theory from family guy was the greatest.....God lit his fart on fire and that was the "Big Bang"

[fogghorn]

The scientifically observable fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere, to prove transpeciation. Why then, is this belief still dogmatically held and taught, does this blind belief not constitute a form of religion?

Here's another brain teaser for you. If god is so great, why does he let priests, his supposed servants and representatives on earth, rape little children. And none of that crap about being judged later on. If god was truly good and omnipotent, he would rain fire and brimstone on the asholes and send the straight to hell himself!

CYYZ, just because someone uses a common phrase of work such as 'holy shit', 'sweet Jesus', 'or what in the hell', it doesn't change anything about their religious bliefs, it simply means that their speech patterns have developed to include common phrases within a society. Kinda like a rapper calling a friend a 'Nigga' doesn't make him part of the KKK.

edit- oh, and I forgot; if there is a fossil record (as is freely admited above), doesn't that preclude the creationist theory? And there is plenty of evidence to prove evolutionary steps among many species.

You say that there is evidence of evolutionary steps - do tell, give us some examples. As far as God allowing priests to rape children goes. God gave human beings something called free will, if a priest choses to do evil, he can do it just as easily as anyone else. The secular world chooses to portray catholicism as the arbiter of all that is Christianity. There are many Bible scholars who argue that the RC Church is the false church, the whore spoken of in the book of revelation. If that is the case, this church is the cause of as much deception as any atheist or cult leader. God will deal with these people and us when he chooses to. Do you think God is bound by time? You want to put him on our timetable and our method of thought. That is why people reject any notion of God, their pride will not allow them to consider anything that falls outside of their worldview.
On another note, I see Davinci code has met with rave reviews at Cannes - not! . The reviewers were actually laughing at the punch line which was supposed to be the most serious line of the movie. Good ole Tom Hanks, what a loser

http://movies.msn.com/movies/cannes06/d ... de_critics

[Clothesliner]

... That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

Yes, I've gone back a long ways in the thread...

To believe any particular item in a work of supposed non-fiction is factual, one should believe that the entire work is non-fiction. So, to believe anything in the bible is factual, would it not require one to believe the world was created in six days?

The questions that follow are: How can anything in the bible be taken as historical fact if one doesn't believe the universe was created in six days, and therefore how can one believe in a theory based entirely on said book?

As for the shroud of Turin, the oppostion to the proof of its age comes from religious individuals. You'd have to believe either carbon dating is invalid, or the scientists performing the dating were either incompetent or unethical to believe its ascertained age is false. One could simply have the carbon dating done again. I would imagine that no one has had it done again because so few dispute the result.

(edited for formatting..)

[costermonger]

You say that there is evidence of evolutionary steps - do tell, give us some examples.

See my post about marine mammal evolution, which you conveniently ignore. Probably because you have no argument to offer other than "God put those vestigial limbs there to test our faith!"

[costermonger]

Or, for that matter, pull your head out of the sand long enough to learn a little bit about how many kinds of bacteria are evolving so that commonly used antibiotics no longer have any effect. Or learn a bit about the Tiktaalik, a recent discovery that clarifies the bridge between fish and animals with four limbs. Or take a break from claiming there's no proof long enough to discover examples like that of the modern horse, where the evolutionary path is mapped out through five species that span 60 million years.

How do you argue that this isn't proof?

[BTD]

Zing!!

I love all the Stephen Colbert quotes that are showing up these days. Classic.

He and Jon Stewart are pure genious.

[cyyz]

The questions that follow are: How can anything in the bible be taken as historical fact if one doesn't believe the universe was created in six days, and therefore how can one believe in a theory based entirely on said book?

As for the shroud of Turin, the oppostion to the proof of its age comes from religious individuals. You'd have to believe either carbon dating is invalid, or the scientists performing the dating were either incompetent or unethical to believe its ascertained age is false. One could simply have the carbon dating done again. I would imagine that no one has had it done again because so few dispute the result.

C6.... That's how they carb, so maybe the universe was created in a "carbondated" fashion, Godular 6 days... Which was 6 billion years... Funny how people say "bible is wrong, universe not in "6 days"" oh yeah, whatever this and that, "CX"

The 3 kings were 6 months late, JC had already been born... Every 4 years we have a leap year to correct for scientists uselessness... Maybe you guys have the wrong date for turin too..

Oh and BC AC... You mofo's forgot 0 ZERO...

And secondly, evolution, <Haha> man not enough star trek... The hole is bigger in the past, we aren't evolving, we're de-evolving.....

[fogghorn]

You say that there is evidence of evolutionary steps - do tell, give us some examples.

See my post about marine mammal evolution, which you conveniently ignore. Probably because you have no argument to offer other than "God put those vestigial limbs there to test our faith!"

Whose ignoring who? Who are you to say that marine mammals do not have so called vestigal limbs and pelvic structure, for the simple reason that they are marine "mammals" as opposed to land. There is a commonality between the two, nothing more or less. Also, to what supreme power do you attribute the process of evolution - chance? You say that life as we know it exists, because something was created from nothing, by nothing. I am saying the opposite, that something was created by something. How do you explain the very observable phenomena of irreducible complexity. Take this one for example, the function of the human eye absolutely cannot be reduced to a single cell and evolution - that is a recognized conundrum for science. Or for another, lets look at the Giraffe. It has an amazingly complex system of baffles in it's neck and blood absorbtion methods built into it's skull to prevent it passing out cold the second it puts its head down to drink. The great minds of science put together in one room, cannot begin to explain this function in evolutionary terms. So instead, they turn to their true religion, evolutionism, and use blind faith to square the circle.

[fogghorn]

... That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

Yes, I've gone back a long ways in the thread...

To believe any particular item in a work of supposed non-fiction is factual, one should believe that the entire work is non-fiction. So, to believe anything in the bible is factual, would it not require one to believe the world was created in six days?

The questions that follow are: How can anything in the bible be taken as historical fact if one doesn't believe the universe was created in six days, and therefore how can one believe in a theory based entirely on said book?

As for the shroud of Turin, the oppostion to the proof of its age comes from religious individuals. You'd have to believe either carbon dating is invalid, or the scientists performing the dating were either incompetent or unethical to believe its ascertained age is false. One could simply have the carbon dating done again. I would imagine that no one has had it done again because so few dispute the result.

(edited for formatting..)

There are aspects of the shroud of Turin, that state that unequivocally it dates to the 1st century. Aside from that we have the absolutely astounding image it holds, science has not explained it's creation in any way shape or form, can you?? As to the creation of the Universe. The bible states that it was created in 6 literal days. We have a propensity for leaning on our understanding, in the last analysis, we understand very little, but we think otherwise. That is called human pride and it is ultimately our undoing, the state of this world attests to that. It may sound preposterous that the Universe was created in this time, but we were not there, the theories about the big bang are constantly being revised and the beginning is a continuing mystery, not unlike the shroud of Turin.

[costermonger]

Who are you to say that marine mammals do not have so called vestigal limbs and pelvic structure, for the simple reason that they are marine "mammals" as opposed to land.

Are you suggesting that a marine species was "created" with physiological similarities to another simply.. because? Please, for a moment recognize that your argument against evolutionary theory consists of "because I say so" and nothing else. You ask for proof, but you have none. You have belief. For you, that's obviously all that is required. For others, it's a terrible argument.

Also, to what supreme power do you attribute the process of evolution - chance?

I do not feel the need to attribute everything we do not yet understand to a higher power. Barring my own beliefs, there is absolutely no reason evolution and sprituality cannot coexist - if you follow evolutionary theory back far enough, there are still many questions that go unanswered. Ie, what caused the big bang? Science does not explain everything, it's very likely that it never will, but simply look at the knowledge humans posess now when compared to 1000 years ago. As a species, we are not at the height of our intellect. A convenient explaination for every facet of life is not required when the search for knowledge is ongoing. If you do require an explaination for everything, organized religion may just be what you need.

How do you explain the very observable phenomena of irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity is not a phenomena, it is a theory (with a very, very small scientific following), and a poor one at that. It makes the assumption that all information required to understand a process is either already known, or does not exist because there is no process, only manifestations of a higher being's will. The most glaring fault with the idea of irreducible complexity is that everything that is not understood appears to be irreducibly complex until understanding is achieved. . "I do not understand X, ergo it is not possible to understand X".

The great minds of science put together in one room, cannot begin to explain this function in evolutionary terms.

The great minds of science circa 1500AD put together in one room cannot begin to explain how a bird flies within the framework of contemporary physics.

[fogghorn]

Well, I think that you are beating the drum that we will eventually achieve knowledge of most things, currently unexplained, through a process of intellectual evolution. That is a nice thought, I choose to disagree. Knowledge is definitely increasing almost exponentially, wisdom on the other hand, is not. I know that is a very subjective statement, but that is my take on things. I think that the current de-evolution of our society is the proof.

[costermonger]

Well, I can respect that. Your views are exactly that, your views. The whole idea I've been trying to bring about here is that you can beat me over the head with your views, and I can beat you over the head with mine, but at the end of the day all we've accomplished is to waste some time. Nobody ever comes out of a debate like this with a different belief than they had when they started. Each sides' "proof" doesn't qualify as such to the other.

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

National Socialism Lives!

In this thread.

A perfect example of what an intolerant, substandard school system this country has been inflicted with.

[w squared]

I'm sure that we've all seen these bumper stickers. A reelatively quiet way of announcing one's faith.



Most of us have also seen these. Again, a simple declaration that one subscribed to evolutionism.



I saw one of these not too long ago:


This one I don't get. as opposed to presenting an argument, or simply stating one's belief, it attacks the position held by others who have done nothing more henious than express their views quietly. It's indicative of an attitude that is becoming all too common these days...that "my way is the only way."

This is the only one that doesn't make sense to me.

[punk]

Aside from religious debate & Star Wars trivia...I saw the movie & it kinda sucked...the book was much better...carry on with the religious wars...

[marktheone]

I saw the movie and it was a snoozer. Nowhere near as good as the book.