|
|
Post by twyrch on May 3, 2005 21:22:27 GMT -5
You know what... the whole "Alladin" and "Little Mermaid" thing.... *shakes his head* It has the Religious Right Fanatacism written all over it. I still remember not being allowed to watch The Lion King because the songs were sang by a Gay man and they said the "Circle of Life" was preaching Evolution. I'm going to stop here before I really speak my mind.  After all, I need to set a good example.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 3, 2005 22:31:16 GMT -5
Oh no, Evolution. God forbid that we Christians accept the fact that the earth was around for millions of years before us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dred on May 4, 2005 8:51:34 GMT -5
Hey twyrch. I thought Elton John went both ways. At least he did in the past. I know he's been pretty much swinging one direction for quite a while though. I think people that spend all their time looking into the animated films for all these "hidden" messages have way to much time on their hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on May 4, 2005 10:00:12 GMT -5
Ahem: www.snopes.com/disney/films/films.asp [And just to clarify, this is a debunking of such incidents as the "take off your clothes" one.] I will say no more. ;D As to favorite movies: Ordet--a great, in the real sense, a truly great, film by Danish director Carl Dreyer. It takes a look at faith, religious divisiveness, insanity and sanity--it has it all. Anyone who loves great movies is honour-bound to watch this. Citizen Kane--really, I needn't say much on this. Orson Welles is genius. The Third Man--For the cukoo-clock speech alone. Again, Welles is great. Vertigo--really, anything by Hitchco-ck is gold, but if I had to pick one of all I've seen (not terribly many, to be honest,) it would be this one. Great stuff. Unbreakable--I love the pacing on this, the acting, everything except the dead-stop ending (I don't mean the twist.) Several scenes are one-shot, including Bruce Willis's first scene, which is one of my all-time favorites. [Incidentally, I left out both Lord of the Rings--whose problems I've stated elswhere, but which still deserves, for the attempt, to be remembered fondly, and the soon-to-be six entry Star Wars saga, which I love but love with willing blindness to its faults; both of these I've left off because they are really in a different class, and there's so many of 'em besides.] |
|
|
|
Post by twyrch on May 4, 2005 10:47:22 GMT -5
Oh no, Evolution. God forbid that we Christians accept the fact that the earth was around for millions of years before us. LOL!! You crack me up Dinadan.  Dred, yeah I think you're right. I wish I could get paid to listen for "evil" messages in cartoons. |
|
|
|
Post by pink3elephant on May 4, 2005 12:42:03 GMT -5
Oh no, Evolution. God forbid that we Christians accept the fact that the earth was around for millions of years before us. Ummm. . . i try not to be too opinionated, but here i have to speak up. Do your homework on the whole evolution vs. christianity thing, cuz the earth is not millions of year old, and do u really think that we evolved from monkeys? but seriously, do your research. . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on May 4, 2005 13:57:06 GMT -5
Well, it's all really something that can't be known absolutely, one way or the other, because the viewpoints are so opposed. Look here: I am a creationist, and so every time an evolutionist raises a point, such as the genetic similarities between apes and mankind, I can simply reply that God designed it that way for His own purposes. Conversly, the evolutionist will be adamant that such an answer is illogical and antiscientific. The evidence is so neutral that your conclusions will absolutely be predicated on your presuppositions. Each side has an argument that completely trumps the other, so that it's not worth arguing about really. It's all a matter of faith.
And I hasten to add that I am a creationist for theological reasons primarily, not for scientific ones.
My two cents. ;D [And I know I'm O.T. Sorry about that....]
|
|
|
|
Post by Child of Immanuel on May 4, 2005 18:16:05 GMT -5
I don't listen for hidden messages, some girls decided to show them to the uninitiated who were with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 4, 2005 18:46:47 GMT -5
Ummm. . . i try not to be too opinionated, but here i have to speak up. Do your homework on the whole evolution vs. christianity thing, cuz the earth is not millions of year old, and do u really think that we evolved from monkeys? but seriously, do your research. . . Ok, at the risk of this being misunderstood as a flame, I'm going to say, "What?" Becuase, really, it's a pretty darn-well proven fact, geologically, that the earth is actually billions of years old, and that humans have only been on the earth for a fraction of that amount of time. And, moreover, physics has proven that the universe itself is far older than our little planet (which is way out in the boonies, on a galactic scale). None of this is a problem for me, because none of this denies a creative, all powerful God. It's only a problem if you insist on literally believing the translated (and retranslated) archaism of an ancient language and their idioms and figures of speech that we can't really 100% be certain that we understand. That, to me, is completely unreasonable. But yeah, your pointed accusation that I should do my research sort of sits ill with me; I'd like to see some good scholarly evidence that years of independant research by experts comitted to discovering the truth of the universe are all incorrect--and, since the mounds of evidence are not on your side, I'd say that the burden of proof falls on you to disprove it. |
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 4, 2005 18:49:48 GMT -5
Oh, Riothamus, that just makes my day. I especially love this one: "The personalities of the dwarf characters in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs represent the seven stages of cocaine addiction."Who comes up with this stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by dgan on May 5, 2005 3:01:50 GMT -5
My opinion of the age of earth/creation is two-fold:
#1 - I don't recall Adam being created as a baby. I believe, according to the Bible, that he was created as an adult. Therefore, his "age" is dependent on how you define it. Either the length of time he was physically on earth or the length of time it would normally take for one to reach his level of physical maturity? The question of the earth is the same - God could have created anything at any "age" he wanted it to be - but that doesn't mean it was physically around for that period of time, at least in our realm of time measurement.
Which leads me to #2: It is irrelevant. For starters, the carbon-dating system is possibly the most unreliable scientific tool ever created by man, which is the means used by most scientists to come to their "age" conclusions. When you consider points made by Riothamus and myself, the argument is futile because neither viewpoint can be proven by science. Science is the ability to prove a hypothesis repeatedly - since none of us are God, and evolution takes thousands of years at least, I see no purpose in trying to prove either opinion scientifically. Accept it as your faith and leave it at that.
I have no problem with anyone believing in evolution - I only have a problem when it is presented as a fact rather than a belief. I remember a certain age that believed it was a fact the earth was flat, even though they had no scientific ability to prove that hypothesis. Had they only accepted the concept that their convictions were based on belief - not science.
|
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on May 5, 2005 4:35:08 GMT -5
Ok, at the risk of this being misunderstood as a flame, I'm going to say, "What?" Becuase, really, it's a pretty darn-well proven fact, geologically, that the earth is actually billions of years old, and that humans have only been on the earth for a fraction of that amount of time. And, moreover, physics has proven that the universe itself is far older than our little planet (which is way out in the boonies, on a galactic scale). None of this is a problem for me, because none of this denies a creative, all powerful God. It's only a problem if you insist on literally believing the translated (and retranslated) archaism of an ancient language and their idioms and figures of speech that we can't really 100% be certain that we understand. That, to me, is completely unreasonable. But yeah, your pointed accusation that I should do my research sort of sits ill with me; I'd like to see some good scholarly evidence that years of independant research by experts comitted to discovering the truth of the universe are all incorrect--and, since the mounds of evidence are not on your side, I'd say that the burden of proof falls on you to disprove it. I am surprised with you. According to my physics/physical science courses (albeit slightly biased), it is a scientific fact the earth can NOT be much older than about 10,000 years. I need to pull up those arguments...there are lots of them. One stand out being the effects of the sun and gravity on earth and how we measured them and if the earth were even millions of years old it would, basically, have been compacted (a pancake) long, long ago. Also, as dgan has said carbon dating is the msot unreliable scientific "tool" ever created. They've carbon dated objects not much more than a few years old lost by miners in caverns as millions of years old. One could argue, without these scientific facts, that God guided evolution to create mankind if it weren't for the fact that I believe the Bible when it says the Earth and animals and mankind were created in 6 days. Scientifically, however, evolution is infinitely impossible. At least, evolution from one species to another. There have been effects on animals causing them to change in some small way, but never has there every been anything to make, say, a dolphin "evolve" into a dog. Those are two completely different species and are incompatible in every way shape or form. Even if such were possible (which it is not), it is still impossible for evolution to have created what it did. Anyways, I should stop, and we should probably make a new thread moving the subject there if anyone wants to discuss it further, but I'll end by pointing out Evolution is still a 'theory' for the creation of mankind. I'd be fine with it being taught to the masses were it clarified as such to be possible, but only that, and other "possibilities" to be put forth, ie. Creationism which is, in my mind, the only possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 5, 2005 7:00:59 GMT -5
I'd have to see it. The whole red/blue shift of the universe would discount the idea that the universe is anything less than several billion years old...
And, for clarification, I never said that I believed in "evolution" of one species to another. I don't buy the "we're basically just advanced chimpanzees" argument. BUT, I do think that the earth has been around a lot longer than people, whether the bible says 6 days or not. I mean, that was my point with talking about not taking things literally; isn't it just concievable possible that there was some ancient, proto-hebrew figure of speech which described the creative process of aeons in terms of days? I mean, I realize from the wealth of responses that I'm going to be the minority here...but despite that, I think it's hard to argue with geology. Notice I never said anything about radio carbon dating--I know it is notoriously inaccurate. But that's not the only thing scientist use to date things with. They look at rock layers; they look at the alignment of magnetic shifts in loadstone (because the earth periodically shifts its magnetic poles); they look, as I said, at the red/blue shift in the universe. All of that points to ancientness in the extreme.
If you want to see how this is not antibiblical, then I suggest reading Clarence Larkin (specifically his book Dispensational Truth, although Rightly Dividing the Word wouldn't be bad either) or getting a hold of a Dake's bible and reading his commentary.
All of this, however, has nothing to do with favorite movies--if you want to talk about it more with me, feel free to email me, IM me, or private message me on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgan on May 5, 2005 7:15:11 GMT -5
LOL!! I'm sorry, was this a movie thread?
As the father of 6 year old, animated movies have become a staple. I'm impressed with Incredibles, Antz, Ice Age, etc... that really appeal to both adults and kids. It must be very tough, but I think they've been doing a fine job lately.
The alternative has otherwise been movies kids love that adults can't stand (Blue's Clues....need I say more?) - or movies that are way over the head of my 6 year old. I think it's nice they've found somewhat of a balance lately...
|
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 5, 2005 7:28:32 GMT -5
I have found that I do not enjoy the completely computer generated animation that is so popular today. I'd rather see a 2-d cartoon adventure than some mock 3-d cgi stuff. To my mind, there is just no comparison to be made between a great, well-made cartoon and something that has been made cg; sure, cg is impressive, and has allowed a lot of things (like Gollum) to look super-realistic. But, movies made entirely cg just seem....wrong somehow. Or, at the very least, outside of my tastes.
|
|
After all, I need to set a good example. 
Twyrch /|\
