Kansas will never hear of this movie.

I would say more utah then kansas but thou's crazy's who go to war heros wakes and say they are burning in hell are in kansas i think. I am not to sure what you would mean but kansas as a whole.

Granted, we have some very outspoken opponents to evolution here in Kansas. However, I have taught in this state for almost 30 years, and have NEVER had a problem teaching evolution in the classroom!

looks good, though over-dramatic. I feel like I remember commenting a post about some movie about Darwin a while back, figuring it would be pretty ridiculous in terms of just making stuff up.

This trailer has made this movie jump automatically to my top 3 anticipated movies of the year. Alongside Where the wild things are & The Fantastic Mr Fox. Seen everything else.

Wonder if Wallace is given credit here.

Also note, Paul Bettany played a doctor that visited the Galapagos in Master and Commander.

I think that is why he got the part.

or maybe because he's a good actor?

Was that in the casting ad they posted on craigslist?

"Looking for actor with english accent. Must have previously visited Galapagos. Only SERIOUS applicants apply!!"

His character's name was "Charles" in that film as well. I always thought that he was supposed to be Darwin in Master and Commander.

It sure got me excited.

Definitely looks pretty interesting.

looks pretty interesting, will be seeing

You can't prove the non-existence of God or even gods for that matter. Darwin's goal was never to disprove God, it was simply to study, and theorize, the growth of life on our planet.

I can disprove the existence of God in on word: Hemorrhoids. WTF!

Hey, hemorrhoids are no joke buddy.

All I'll say is there is more proof for the non-existence of God than for the existence.

This statement is absolutely ignorant. There is no certifiable either way. The existence of evolution, the big bang, none of it is evidence that disproves God. It might disprove how people have seen God, and how they thought God worked (or how old the universe is), but it cannot disprove a god's existence.

The thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is that the big required, though a small amount, it did require some sort of 'stuff.' I feel at some point there was a creator. I cannot prove this, I cannot prove his existence now, that is a matter of faith. I cannot prove that human kind has ever or will ever really know who that creator was. But what I cannot do is state matter of factly, as you have, that he/it does not exist.

This statement is absolutely ignorant. There is no certifiable evidence either way. The existence of evolution, the big bang, none of it is evidence that disproves God. It might disprove how people have seen God, and how they thought God worked (or how old the universe is), but it cannot disprove a god's existence.

The thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is that the big required, though a small amount, it did require some sort of 'stuff.' I feel at some point there was a creator. I cannot prove this, I cannot prove his existence now, that is a matter of faith. I cannot prove that human kind has ever or will ever really know who that creator was. But what I cannot do is state matter of factly, as you have, that he/it does not exist.

This statement is absolutely ignorant. There is no certifiable evidence either way. The existence of evolution, the big bang, none of it is evidence that disproves God. It might disprove how people have seen God, and how they thought God worked (or how old the universe is), but it cannot disprove a god's existence.

The thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is that the big bang required, though a small amount, it did require some sort of 'stuff.' I feel at some point there was a creator. I cannot prove this, I cannot prove his existence now, that is a matter of faith. I cannot prove that human kind has ever or will ever really know who that creator was. But what I cannot do is state matter of factly, as you have, that he/it does not exist.

This statement is absolutely ignorant. There is no certifiable evidence either way. The existence of evolution, the big bang, none of it is evidence that disproves God. It might disprove how people have seen God, and how they thought God worked (or how old the universe is), but it cannot disprove a god's existence.

The thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is that the big bang required, though a small amount, some sort of 'stuff.' I feel at some point there was a creator. I cannot prove this, I cannot prove his existence now, that is a matter of faith. I cannot prove that human kind has ever or will ever really know who that creator was. But what I cannot do is state matter of factly, as you have, that he/it does not exist.

You call his statement ignorant yet you indulge in mentality rather that physicality.

There's no physical evidence either way, it's a philosophical question that can only be answered for yourself, in a mental study and a question of belief. It's ignorant to say you have physical evidence that a god doesn't exist, because there exists no such evidence.

I agree. Darwin's theory does not disprove God, it just simple attempts to disprove creationism. The two are not hand-in-hand, although some people tend to think so.

"a book which will essentially prove the non-existence of God."

Yes, this is a completely false statement. Many Christians believe Darwin showed God's process. Discussing the "proof" that confirms or denies God's existence is ridiculous, because if God does exist, He exists above proof--so it's a moot point. Religion and spirituality is about faith alone. It cannot be argued. And if you try to argue it, you're just wasting your time.

I am really looking forward to this film. PB is great.

He exists above proof? Well there is a typical cover all the areas response.

Meaning that no one can prove his existence, and no one can disprove it. We'll all someday die and then see who was right. Until then it's ridiculous to argue.

It may well be ridiculous to argue but it is NEVER ridiculous to debate. But read my other posts because I've covered the fact that I believe there is proof against God, meaning he exists well below proof.

if you believe god to be some supernatural entity, then there is no way that there will e'er be evidence to prove god's existence. at least no evidence we will ever experience(for we exist in a natural word). same goes for ghosts and unicorns and the bloogeyblagus. these are all things that we, being part of what's natural and real(i use the term "real" loosely so as to not spark a philosophical debate on what that is) will never experience. prove to me that a bloogeyblagus does not exist. you can't. if i make claims that the bloogeyblagus did certain things in the natural world that can be tested, then science will eventually or immediately provide evidence to show that it is near certainty that whatever happened was natural. but that just shows that the bloogeyblagus didn't do whatever it is i said it did. it doesn't disprove it's existence.

science and faith are two separate things. and this movie seems ok tite. darwin was such a nice guy. and jennifer connelly is so very aesthetically appealing!

It's interesting that Icon pictures is involved...

Interesting plot point of the battle of Religion/Faith vs Science waging between husband and wife. Will be seeing this movie.

Glad to see Bettany getting a starring role. He's a great actor who seems destined to act in the shadows of stars just because he isn't a big enough name to hold a movie at the box office.

The movie looks great, btw. I'll have to keep an eye out for a release near me.

oohhhh, will those crazy Christian fanatics hold large protests outside the cinema to picket the movie?

Dogma is dog shit!

oh wait wrong movie.

lols @ theological debate on /film.

Jon Amiel doesn't make enough films.

looks okay.

Why does it need to be ignorant? you claim that "that is a matter of faith" and mine is also, except I have faith that there is NO God and that gives me comfort. And you can throw out evolution AND the big bang without a second thought despite their rather crushing view of your 'God'.

Dave -- you have a lack of belief, which is fine, but there is no proof one way or the other...this is not something subject to testing.

As for your response, when did Reebee ever mention "throwing out" evolution and the Big Bang? He stated that he those scientific events did not disprove some type of God. Attacking someone because they believe there is some kind of creator makes you look like an ass.

And I attacked someone? She claimed the big bang and evolution are not proof when I contend they are. That is my argument that they are proof and as such proof of a lack of God. Would you rather I just said it was 'stuff' like they did?

But to put them to one side God is a MAN created fallacy that has shown up in the time line at a ridiculously late stage. We KNOW this to be fact.

Also if I'm an ass at least I'm not a delusional one.

Right, you have faith there's no God, many have faith there is a God. Nobody can prove the other right or wrong, on the very basis of existence alone. Did Adam and Eve exist as the first humans? No. Is the world 6000 years old? No. These are 'beliefs' that have been scientifically disproven. The same cannot, and will never be, said for God.

Right, you have faith there's no God, many have faith there is a God. Nobody can prove the other right or wrong, on the very basis of existence alone. Did Adam and Eve exist as the first humans? No. Is the world 6000 years old? No. These are 'beliefs' that have been scientifically disproven. The same cannot, and will likely never be, said for the existence of God.

Yup I believe in no God and some believe in it. And yes some people believe there is no proving either way. I however believe there is proving no God and have done my utmost to show but a smidgen of it. Therein we disagree.

"at least I'm not a delusional one"....except when it comes to your own certainties.

So I presume you believe in God then? I thought those of us who do not were simply misguided not delusional?

I'll ignore the fact you called me delusional, but I would like for you to explain how the Big Bang and evolution, or any other evidence for that matter, disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of a god, God, gods, creator, whatever you'd like to call it. Someone trained in symbolic logic would likely discredit your leap of "The big bang happened" to "therefore there is god."

I'll ignore the fact you called me delusional, but I would like for you to explain how the Big Bang and evolution, or any other evidence for that matter, disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of a god, God, gods, creator, whatever you'd like to call it. Someone trained in symbolic logic would likely discredit your leap of "The big bang happened" to "therefore there is god."

And to state that, since we didn't 'discover' God until recently as evidence against his existence is foolish as well. We didn't discover the entity 'zero' until relatively recently either. Even more recently, heliocentricity, quarks, cells, various philosophies, etc. etc. etc. The fact that we were unaware of them for a large amount of time does not mean they never existed.

I'm not saying the faiths on earth have it all figured out, for all we know they're completely wrong. But just because we didn't think about a creator's existence until recently means absolutely nothing to the certitude of the claim.

I'm not sure what you mean you've tried to show but a smidgen of it, if you could clarify.

To start I called 'Bullio' delusional but in fairness I probably would give that to most that are believers (maybe I am an ass lol).

I would say though that The Big Bang and evolution prove without a shadow of a doubt the lack of a God because they are proof of the wonder of the world and nature without need for a 'creator'. The world has grown much like we as humans grow. Baby to adult was nature not creator just as single cell organism to human was nature not creator. I constantly see the 'first cause' argument but what always seems left out is that maybe, just maybe the big bang was the first cause? Maybe not an overlord? But regardless just because it's enough proof for me doesn't mean it is for everyone and I am sure that as we as a society grow religion will die out.

And the main point I was making was that we MADE God. We DISCOVERED zero, heliocentricity, quarks, cells, various philosophies, etc. etc. etc. We never discovered God we invented him.

I meant with the smidgen thing that was that this is the tip of the iceberg of the debate.

Lack of necessity does not prove lack of existence. Once again this is a leap of logic. The fact that I really don't need apples to survive doesn't mean apples don't exist to me.

As for the first cause argument, I just don't see how the Big Bang could be, because it required something. Now, what I see as possibility is that the material for the big bang came from another/previous universe, and that perhaps there is an infinite chain of this and there never was a creator to the first one. This makes my head hurt, but so does the idea of an Creator who has been around infinitely as well, but at least a creator can be dubbed supernatural. I have a hard time imagining a natural infinity; that is a chain of universes with no beginning and no end. I'm not saying I'm guaranteed to be right, it just makes sense to me.

And whether we discovered or made God really depends on his/its existence, which is a moot point since that's what our debate is on anyway. Maybe we evolved to such a state we realized that there was existence, and that existence required a creator?

Which brings me to an interesting point: if existence DOES require a creator, there must be a God, because it is a prior and NECESSARY condition.

If existence does NOT require a creator, that does not necessarily disprove his existence because it is only a prior and SUFFICIENT condition.

It is not a leap of logic in my mind, especially not as much as a creator lol

There is however no reason that the big bang required something. It could have been the something that put us where we are.

Also you say 'if existence does require a creator' I would say that it does not but just because I believe there is not a creator that doesn't disprove him, as you say. That is not necessary though as the science disproves God.

I do think by this point though we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree lol