X-Men: Apocalypse Official Trailer

You commit to evolution- theory, not model
You commit to gravity- theory, not model
You commit to the Big Bang- theory, not model

What I can't understand is how one can commit to all of these things, these theories that are incredibly grand and complicated, yet cant accept the slightest possibility that there may be a Creator.
If you accept that all of the universe was created by something from nothing, why is it such a stretch to even entertain the possibility that something created the nothing that created something?
I'm not attacking you for your beliefs and lack thereof. I just don't understand the hard line of complete dismissal. Help me to understand that!
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Because your question has no merit. Nothing is fact until there is tangible proof. That isn't reserved only for god.
Click to expand...

What's tangible proof to you? The problem with your posts is that you keep interchangeably and loosely using words like proof, evidence, and facts. They don't mean the same thing when discussing this topic. Proofs only exist in mathematics and logic whereas science deals with empirical evidence. A proof is a finality that is either true or it isn't, and it stays true unless a flaw was discovered in the proof. Scientific knowledge is tentative and can always change. An accepted theory is simply the best explanation for the natural phenomenon out of all the alternative explanations. Science can't establish fact.
 
alxlwson said:
You commit to evolution- theory, not model
You commit to gravity- theory, not model
You commit to the Big Bang- theory, not model

What I can't understand is how one can commit to all of these things, these theories that are incredibly grand and complicated, yet cant accept the slightest possibility that there may be a Creator.
If you accept that all of the universe was created by something from nothing, why is it such a stretch to even entertain the possibility that something created the nothing that created something?
I'm not attacking you for your beliefs and lack thereof. I just don't understand the hard line of complete dismissal. Help me to understand that!
Click to expand...

That's funny, I don't recall ever stating in this thread or ever for that matter anything about those things.

First you don't understand what theory means in the scientific world. Theory simply means that the overwhelming body of evidence supports it and that there is always room for improvement. However that is why we have another term "Hypothesis" which is when we have an idea that needs to be tested but doesn't have much if any verifiable evidence yet. However even though we don't claim certain theories as absolute fact, they are accepted theories because there is a huge body of evidence to support them. I commit to believing that those three theories are supported by the overwhelming knowledge we have "At This Point" and that those theories are subject to revision as that knowledge grows. So the major mistake that most "religious" people make when they try to argue for creationism is that creationism never made it past the hypothesis stage because there is zero evidence for it.

I have never once in my life claimed that it is impossible to have a creator. Simply that at present there is zero evidence of it and even IF there was, then the Theories we have are the processes through which it worked. The only thing I have ever claimed in respect to religion and deities is that at minimum all religions that claim their diety is the only true way are flat out wrong until tangible evidence is otherwise provided. This is actually my single point of irritation with the creationist mindset. They are so determined to prove science wrong that they have deluded themselves into thinking that their deity couldn't possibly be big enough to orchestrate something as complex as the big bang or evolution. No instead they have an extremely narrow minded viewpoint of the world of "God just flipped a switch and it was done".

Next time you might want to understand who you are arguing with and what their stance actually is before you make yourself look foolish with ridiculous assumptions.
 
variant said:
What's tangible proof to you? The problem with your posts is that you keep interchangeably and loosely using words like proof, evidence, and facts. They don't mean the same thing when discussing this topic. Proofs only exist in mathematics and logic whereas science deals with empirical evidence. A proof is a finality that is either true or it isn't, and it stays true unless a flaw was discovered in the proof. Scientific knowledge is tentative and can always change. An accepted theory is simply the best explanation for the natural phenomenon out of all the alternative explanations. Science can't establish fact.
Click to expand...

Science "wont" establish fact because that goes against the tenants of it. That doesn't change the "Fact" that gravity exists for example. However see the post above and while science may not establish fact, religion can't even establish a basic hypothesis. So you have two choices. You either believe what has the overwhelming majority of evidence in support of it as per my previous post. OR you believe something that has absolutely zero evidence in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I think there is an old saying which is rather appropriate "Wish in one hand, shit in the other and tell me which one fills up first".
 
You are quite an abrasive individual, aren't you? I feel bad for you. That kind of attitude doesn't just appear, but is instigated by traumatic events in life. How has being so confrontational in life helped you out?

I suggest the same to you, sir. I am not a creationist. Yes, I am a Christian. Do I believe all words of Bible? No, I don't. Do I think there was a light switch? Absolutely not. Time is a man-made idea, and creation predates man. I subscribe to the idea of guided design, or more commonly known of theistic evolution. You seem like an intelligent individual, so I'm sure you're familiar with the concept.
Also, the common Judeo-Christian belief is that God is so GRAND, that the light switch was flipped, instead of d/t.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Science "wont" establish fact because that goes against the tenants of it. That doesn't change the "Fact" that gravity exists for example. However see the post above and while science may not establish fact, religion can't even establish a basic hypothesis. So you have two choices. You either believe what has the overwhelming majority of evidence in support of it as per my previous post. OR you believe something that has absolutely zero evidence in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I think there is an old saying which is rather appropriate "Wish in one hand, shit in the other and tell me which one fills up first".
Click to expand...


There is absolutely zero evidence to the contrary.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Science "wont" establish fact because that goes against the tenants of it. That doesn't change the "Fact" that gravity exists for example. However see the post above and while science may not establish fact, religion can't even establish a basic hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Religions have always made hypotheses that can be observed or tested. The hypothesis that would be set forth by followers of the Norse gods is that there is a god throwing lightning bolts while the hypothesis that would set by Hinduism is that the world is sitting on the back of a turtle. Both can be observed to see if either is a correct hypothesis.

Dekoth-E-;1042029505So you have two choices. You either believe what has the overwhelming majority of evidence in support of it as per my previous post. OR you believe something that has absolutely zero evidence in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I think there is an old saying which is rather appropriate "Wish in one hand said:
Two choices for what exactly? Why are those two the only choices? What kind of evidence? Scientific, philosophical, historical, forensic... Are you still talking about God?
Click to expand...
 
3DPro said:
0:29-0:36 - I am so sick of this; complete and total blasphemy against YHVH/Jesus; they just cannot help themselves as they profane themselves continually.

It pains and saddens me to see a country so blessed by God over the centuries to become so debase as Hollywood continues to demonstrate irreverence and/or contempt to Him at every opportunity!

It compels me to think on the following verse:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. - 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV

Dear Lord, what an ungrateful generation that would tolerate such irreverence... especially in the name of entertainment.
Click to expand...

You know, maybe I should be offended... All these impostors claiming to me. False idols and pretenders to the throne.

Nah, I'm not chuffed. I'm OK with it.

Don't worry, puny mortal. In my infinite wisdom the Butthurt Form was created. Please fill it out and submit it.

15oi1r4.jpg
 
alxlwson said:
You commit to evolution- theory, not model
Click to expand...

False. Evolution, as a process, is a fact. One could say the evolution of man is s theory, albeit one supported with an overwhelming amount of evidence including transitional fossils and DNA analysis.
 
Although great to see X-men movie I wish they would not let Bryan "i make shit up as I go along" Singer do them. Just from the trailer

Storm and Psylocke never made appearances in the X-men until after the OG x-men...Psylocke was waaay later - she is Captain Brittan's sister and she was not a Ninja until after she went through the Siege Perilous and was found by The Hand and given over to the Mandarin.

Angel did not get the metal wings from Apocolypse until after he had them amputated due to being almost killed by the Reavers...not to mention the other x-men they have thrown in (Jubilee really??)
 
Draax said:
False. Evolution, as a process, is a fact. One could say the evolution of man is s theory, albeit one supported with an overwhelming amount of evidence including transitional fossils and DNA analysis.
Click to expand...

True, both the mechanisms and processes of evolution are what still remain the "mystery", hence why evolution has not been classified as a model
 
alxlwson said:
True, both the mechanisms and processes of evolution are what still remain the "mystery", hence why evolution has not been classified as a model
Click to expand...

The mechanisms and processes of evolution are not a mystery.
 
groebuck said:
Although great to see X-men movie I wish they would not let Bryan "i make shit up as I go along" Singer do them. Just from the trailer

Storm and Psylocke never made appearances in the X-men until after the OG x-men...Psylocke was waaay later - she is Captain Brittan's sister and she was not a Ninja until after she went through the Siege Perilous and was found by The Hand and given over to the Mandarin.

Angel did not get the metal wings from Apocolypse until after he had them amputated due to being almost killed by the Reavers...not to mention the other x-men they have thrown in (Jubilee really??)
Click to expand...

Jubilee has been in (and cut) from just about every other movie. Why stop now?
 
Found myself fast-forwarding through the Trailer.

What does that mean ?
 
Days of Future past was amazing.

This doesn't look good at all.
 
Days of Future Past was okay - and gave them the opportunity to fix what they messed up with x-men 1 - 3 killing cyclops - totally messing up jean, calypso, pyro....etc.

But again - a total "singerization" of a great x-men storyline. Should have been Kitty to go back up they totally effed up her appearance in x-men movies...and suddenly Kitty has the ability to send people back in time?? even the fact they included blink - who died in the phalanx storyline...
 
variant said:
The scientific method is a human construction.

Actually, under a subjective moral worldview, ethical boundaries are based around "Just cause." If all ethics are subjective, then to break an ethical boundary is equivalent of just going against the latest trend. Science itself is based on the concept that the certain moral values its built upon are fundamentally objective.
Click to expand...

While I wouldn't say it's equivalent to, "going against the latest trend" there is plenty of actual information out there about countries doing scientific work that cannot be conducted in the United States due to ethical boundaries/laws.

variant said:
Hand waving away an entire branch of philosophy with "it's a completely subjective experience" is also very condescending. By presupposing a subjective view of beauty, you yourself are making a philosophical statement about it.
Click to expand...

Not sure how I am hand waving it away, I presented the definition of the argued word 'Aesthetics' and let it's definition speak for itself. It's definition clearly points out that it's based on "taste" and "principles", two things that vary from person to person making it subjective and subject to differences based on an individuals physiological mutations.

variant said:
You may not feel God, that doesn't say someone else doesn't. You are relying on the notion that your senses evolved so you are getting an accurate representation of reality as well. However, evolution doesn't care one wit about whether it is accurate. It could have very well evolved so that your reality is nothing but a delusion because that would better suit your survival. You could very well be a brain in a vat, and your entire world view, all of your senses, are nothing but a figment of your imagination.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more and it falls into my point, what I make of the world is not what another person makes of the world. For all we know, the people that we deem schizophrenic may actually be seeing reality.

variant said:
Logic, as in the branch of philosophy that was pushed forward in the Christian western world. You really think that the Christian philosophers throughout the ages haven't used the laws of logic when conducting their philosophical arguments?

Science itself was built on the Christian worldview. The assumption that the world is a rational, orderly place is the very foundation on which science flourished.
Click to expand...

Obviously we can't pick the brains of those that 'discovered' the scientific method but, I believe the point of the scientific method is to create a standardized process for discovering how the world around us works in a reproduceable manner that ignores supposition and personal bias. Religion, being a personal bias, most likely didn't have an influence on the discovery of science. Were the people that developed this method Christian westerners? Probably. Does that mean their religious "preferences" (because they probably didn't have a choice at the time) influenced the development of the scientific method, no. In fact, this kind of argument is why the method was developed, to weed out false information and assumed connections that aren't there.
 
USMCGrunt said:
While I wouldn't say it's equivalent to, "going against the latest trend" there is plenty of actual information out there about countries doing scientific work that cannot be conducted in the United States due to ethical boundaries/laws.
Click to expand...

Why is it anything other than going against the latest trend? If it's subjective, it is purely based on the individual on what is or is not moral, and if it's is collectively held, it's simply a current trend that will change as every other view or opinion changes.

I am not talking about the "immoral scientific practices", but the very moral structure which the scientific method is built upon. Such as the fact that foundation of the scientific method presupposes that telling the truth is objectively good and lying is objectively bad.

USMCGrunt said:
Not sure how I am hand waving it away, I presented the definition of the argued word 'Aesthetics' and let it's definition speak for itself. It's definition clearly points out that it's based on "taste" and "principles", two things that vary from person to person making it subjective and subject to differences based on an individuals physiological mutations.
Click to expand...

The debate between objective or subjective beauty has been going on since ancient Greece. If you would like to learn more on it, I am sure you can find lots of writings on it online.

USMCGrunt said:
Couldn't agree more and it falls into my point, what I make of the world is not what another person makes of the world. For all we know, the people that we deem schizophrenic may actually be seeing reality.
Click to expand...

However, you are now advocating post-modernism. Truth and reality is not subjective. We objectively hold that reality is as our senses tells it is. We exist on the planet Earth and all our interactions with people do actually happen. If a person is blind, the visible world doesn't simply cease to exist.

USMCGrunt said:
Obviously we can't pick the brains of those that 'discovered' the scientific method but, I believe the point of the scientific method is to create a standardized process for discovering how the world around us works in a reproduceable manner that ignores supposition and personal bias. Religion, being a personal bias, most likely didn't have an influence on the discovery of science. Were the people that developed this method Christian westerners? Probably. Does that mean their religious "preferences" (because they probably didn't have a choice at the time) influenced the development of the scientific method, no. In fact, this kind of argument is why the method was developed, to weed out false information and assumed connections that aren't there.
Click to expand...

The scientific method is based on the Christian worldview it was built upon. It presupposes that the world is orderly and can be comprehended by us because Christians expected that a world created by a law giver would be based upon law. Just read about Newton's motivations.

The worst part is that that things are changing, post-modernism is gripping hold and new ideas for what science should be (ie a source of social change) have surfaced and so the scientific method is regarded to them as no longer needed anymore, and that truth is really subjective. C.S. Lewis mused what science would become as the view of scientists changed.

As C.S. Lewis remarked, "Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age."
 
What's with the frequency of threads around here turning into Jesus circle jerks over the last couple of years? I come here for stupid news and hardware reviews, not to be converted.
 
variant said:
The scientific method is based on the Christian worldview it was built upon. It presupposes that the world is orderly and can be comprehended by us because Christians expected that a world created by a law giver would be based upon law. Just read about Newton's motivations.

The worst part is that that things are changing, post-modernism is gripping hold and new ideas for what science should be (ie a source of social change) have surfaced and so the scientific method is regarded to them as no longer needed anymore, and that truth is really subjective. C.S. Lewis mused what science would become as the view of scientists changed.

As C.S. Lewis remarked, "Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age."
Click to expand...

Actually the scientific method is entirely focussed around observation and prediction. Things that cannot be, or have no effect on what can be observed or used to make predictions are inherently unscientific. There is little philosophy behind it, and you are kidding yourself if you wish to push it into the realm of 'belief'. Pure and simple: The scientific method exists because it generates reliable results. The computer you are typing on did not come from an engineer 'believing' it into existence, or cobbling some things together based on a hunch. It required decades of gradual development using huge volumes scientifically documented data that were sourced through the observation, prediction and experimentation described by the scientific method. Our day-to-day life relies so heavily on technology that actively requires the scientific method to exist and to maintain existence: it is not a philosophy as 'I think therefore I am', it is a logical process that has very real effects and very real consequences.
 
alxlwson said:
Man, some people are seriously dicks.

3dPro didn't attack anyone, he just stated his opinion on a movie and it's reference to his, mine, and many others on this forum faith. Then the anti-religion folks swoop down like vultures to carrion and make personal attacks at a guy for expressing a small bit of his faith.

It's funny in life how the bullied become the bullies.
Click to expand...

Yes, because passing judgement on an entire generation by calling them ungrateful blashpemers or whatever retarded shit he said is clearly nothing more than innocently stating an unprovocative opinion.... :confused:

Where in the Bible did Jesus teach Christians to roll over and play victim whenever scrutinized? I must've missed that verse, maybe the priest in pants had me distracted or something.



3DPro said:
Furthermore, humans are not "lowly", but the very express image of God.
Click to expand...

So like, God has an anus and stuff?
 
3DPro said:
0:29-0:36 - I am so sick of this; complete and total blasphemy against YHVH/Jesus; they just cannot help themselves as they profane themselves continually.

It pains and saddens me to see a country so blessed by God over the centuries to become so debase as Hollywood continues to demonstrate irreverence and/or contempt to Him at every opportunity!

It compels me to think on the following verse:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. - 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV

Dear Lord, what an ungrateful generation that would tolerate such irreverence... especially in the name of entertainment.
Click to expand...

Take a look into a little innocent kids eyes who has cancer. No damn reason for it. So do you think God has anything to do with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top