Religion versus evelution and then their is Prometheus

don't think the far right religious fundamentalists / creationists will be worried. they will just see this as fiction. (the same wasy 7th day adventists, so I am told, see Jurassic Park as fiction... because dinsosaurs did not exist...) anyway, 2001 covered the "alien as the cause of our creation / evolution from the apes" back in the 60s. personally our DNA is obviously very close to our evolutionary cousins, so do not see how we can entertain the idea that "we are directly breed by aliens". again 2001 from Arthur C Clarke had a good idea: the monolith does not change our DNA - it "turns on" our human intelligence. will be fascinating what "creation" story Ridley Scott brings for us.

It can possibly. The problem with us human beings is that we indulge ourselves so much into our origins that we do not see what lies ahead. I believe this movie will make that point stand out in a great deal. Space is no different than our rapid development in technology. The further we go, the more our humanity is lost. The lines begin to blur between truth and our created realities. There are reasons why we cannot (as of now) travel to such distances in this wide spread universe. As the characters of the movie has found, there are things out there that will challenge our thoughts and perception of our world. The question is, can we understand such a blinding power? They say curiosity kills the cat. And the devil has more lies than a con man on the corners of New York City.

mmmmh...yeah thanks for your input guys/girls....so much to ponder.......but i could not believe the amount of religious controversy that a movie like "the golden compass" generated....such an outcry over...fuck knows?....so I dunno know how some are gonna respond to this?....I suppose people has become more open minded even if it is just about a theory. From a recent interview i read ...Ridley himself seems to embrace the idea of some kinda alien involvement in our evolution....Personally the whole idea makes perfect sense in my mind....evolution on it's own already just seems extremely plausible...so i am quite open to these other possibilities.....their simply is'nt enough hard core facts to support the Creation theory....I suppose that is what faith is all about (blind unsupported believe)....and if god is a space jockey....i can live with that...lol ....tho i am not saying this to piss of any religious types....I'll be happy to hear out and listen to whatever they might wanne add to this discussion? ...After all ...thats what being open minded is all about!

Ridley said said that an evolution so perfect should have had some help ...the church think that was help from God ( dont think that the church belive in aliens ) ..and the Nasa think was help of some other kind ( maybe alien one ).. To rappresent that thing we have 2 characters in the movie Halloway and Shaw ...one belive in science ..the other in God in a bit naive way... as Scott said they will have both to swallow alot ... But hey is a sci fi movie huh ....

true yes...i do recall ridley saying just that....about both Shaw and Halloway getting a big old twist on their believes....hopefully we also get some kinda divine and unsuspected surprise to make us think else..oh this 6 months wait (no it's 5 and a half months people)....it's gonna kill me! ;)

I do not agree with Ridley Scott's belief in that the math shows it to be really impossible for us to be here right now without some help, those are some bold bullshit words in my opinion. I once asked my mother when I was a kid where god came from and she replied to me by saying "you'll have to ask him when you see him". The fact that I had to wait my entire life for an answer I wasn't even sure would be answered when I got there drove me nutts. When I became older I came up with only two possible answers of my own. God was created by another god and is therefore an atheist or God evolved from nothing into something. If God can be an atheist then so can I, if God came from nothingness then so can I. I'm sure the movie will be really awesome and I can't wait to see it, but I don't share the same idea that man needed help to get where he is today. I'm not against Gods or supreme beings, just the act of our creation through them. If you're going to create anything with a mind of its own, then you better damn well make sure it surpasses you or it'll be for nothing.

I think that religious people really underestimate their own intelligence and power....in reality we don't need any kinda superior being to look out for us.....i believe in a higher being....but I think he leaves us to our own devices...good and bad shit happens all the time...weather u pray to god or not!....he does not control what happens in our lives....we do!....he lets nature take it's cause....he lets us take responsibility for our own actions.....assuming a god even exists?.....cause I don't really care to be honest....i just find it fascinating that some others actually do!

I have some more food for thought: What if God created the ability to create? What if God doesn't exist in any form that we are aware of? If God designed you, would he prefer you to have free will or mindless? If God wanted to speak to us, how would he do it? If God wanted to speak to you, how would he do it? Out of everything in the universe, how much do you think you know? Which is better suited for searching out these questions: science or philosophy? Is God subject to your rules and logical reasoning? If God created you, what does that mean to you, if anything? Just a few questions for you.

goodkat › Did you ever consider that the Bible is nothing more than A Best seller written by people who were overtly frightened of scientifically and totally explainable events around them and things things around them which they could not explain away with their religion. So they wrote a best seller !!! Perhaps The Best Seller of ALL Time. To me it is nothing but an archaic best selling Novel written by people who could not overcome their own fear of the unexplained. furthermore, Ridley Scott's belief ....was/is...odds are...quite accurate. The scientific truth is... he is 100% correct to state that the mathematical odds of Mankind NOT having had help from other worlds is absolutely as ridiculous as the notion that mankind is alone in this universe. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Scott and The TV series "Ancient Aliens" and every other scientific theory that puts forth the idea that Mankind has had help...and is not alone in all of space an time because from a mathematical point of view it is 100% impossible for them to be wrong in any way shape or form. It is IGNORANCE and COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION that is the basis of the "nay sayers" argument. Heaven and G-d are nice ideas, and almost certainly ficticious creations of MAN !!!

You can search the heavens for God but you will not find him, cause you can only find him in the hearts of the believers. Darwin brought us the word evolution but the Muslims already had the idea from one of the names of Allah Al Musawwir: The Fashioner. It makes sense that a things form and function can change over time through the influence of it's environment but it is hard to understand and except that things can also come into existence out of nothing. Well beyond magic!

That right there is 100% EXACTLY what I mean! I consider myself a spiritual person and as far as I can tell the ONLY accomplishment or positive contribution to the existence of mankind we can credit to the Art Of religion, is this... It has divided us and done so whilst celebrating our differences !!! Two extremely bad bad bad bad and even more bad things for mankind !!! & CLEARLY in today's day and age, mankind is in need of exactly the opposite things and for us all to start celebrating our similarities rather than our differences.

“If we could just take God out of the equation, there'd be no f---ing problem.” ~Ridley Scott All this seems to be the same old argument that has been debated since ancient times. Our world is populated by religious types, agnostics, and atheists. All of which, in one way or another, usually think or feel, that the others are wrong and or foolish. It’s such a heavy subject, that it usually turns hostile at some point. The religious type can be heard saying, “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary…for those who don’t believe…no explanation is possible," while the agnostic or atheist can turn it around and say “For those who don’t believe, no explanation is necessary…” and so on and so forth. And it just goes ‘round and ‘round. Unfortunately, both sides usually become heated, and the strong emotional responses just kill any sense of a sound logical debate. In the case of Ridley Scott, he is a self proclaimed agnostic. Therefore, religious entities and themes are not treated kindly or given much respect in his films, i.e. ‘1492’ and ‘Kingdom of Heaven.’ This agnosticism also seems to give rise to a strong thrust of “political correctness” in his pictures, i.e. ‘Thelma and Louise’ and ‘GI Jane’. Therefore, I conclude that any would-be traditional religious notions that might surface in PROMETHEUS, will be dealt with accordingly, and treated in the same way as in previous Scott films. What it boils down to, is that Ridley is generally down on organized religion, especially forms of Christianity. Starting from when he was a kid, when his parents sent him to church and spiritual formation classes…but did not adhere to the religion themselves. He doesn’t respect those who he considers to be hypocrites. I believe his formative years, at least on this subject had a great affect on him. ~N

Fantastic arguments, all of them Neurion and everyone else. It is nice to agree to disagree as well, we can all have our own opinions and they are all respectable. There are good arguments and bad ones for both sides of this coin. One thing though I think is certain, Religion, whether good or bad, has, and continues to have a massive influence on us all !!!

Also, I wish to add something I think is quite cool here... Is this true of YOU like it is of me? When it comes to believing in "g-d", as I have said, my official position is that I feel he/she was a fabrication. But whenever I have found myself in some serious ass trouble in life, suddenly I start thinking of or praying to "g-d". IN school, if I was screwed and did not study for some major exam I'd be up all nite crying and praying to "g-d" to Please help me pass somehow, or get through it somehow...it is as if I ONLY believe in any g-d when I am desperate of feel I need to bring some g-d into it simply because am in trouble and have no idea how to get out of it. Sometimes I lie to myself and tell myself I am praying to some g-d so that I can find the strength inside myself to get out of whatever it is I am in, but that's not really truth full is it? What is true is I am a hypocrite and selectively choose when I want to believe in a higher power or not. I also, am a Jew, not by choice or preference, but by birth, and although If I could choose from all of them this would be the one I would stick with...But in Judaism it is considered disrespectful to write out the word "GOD" like I just did. You are supposed to show Respect and type it this way...the way I always do here..."G-D" Making me a complete and total fucking hypocrite. It's like I am covering my own ass or something and playing both sides of that coin and not even stopping myself even though I know deep down it is wrong somehow!!! And even just typing that word that way, seems to me to be an idea created out of Fear!!! The whole thing is a Mess !!! I love that Line attributed to Ridley you quoted about "Just taking it out of the equation". Maybe what he always meant was that if we could we would take more responsibility for ourselves and each other.

An argument for the existence of God The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this many understand to be God. It's a fairly simple concept...if all movement and change is cause and effect...like a domino effect...who or what pushed the first domino? ~N

Did you happen to write that here [url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm]SUMMA THEOLOGICA[/url] also or did you lift it from there?

I lifted it from the Summa Theologica. ~N

I any case, I think that the argument is sound. I'm curious to hear/read an argument to challange or attempt to contradict it. ~N

I think it would probably be a good idea to give proper credit to the author when using quotes next time to prevent confusion, thanks.

I agree, sorry for the clumsy oversight. ~N