Imagine the greatest science fiction story of all time - 2001.
And then imagine the greatest science fiction story of claustrophobic horror of all time - ALIEN.
Then imagine Ridley Scott tries to trump ALIEN above 2001 - congratulations, you just imagined:
PROMETHEUS.
But only a complete fool would attempt to portray the ancient history of human beings as the pre-determined work of a fairy-like 9-foot-tall race of slap-head giants.
Has Ridley Scott / Jon Spaihts / Damon Lindelof not being paying attention to the last 100+ years of science? Apparently not if 'fission' is part of 21st century achievement [according to Peter Wayland].
Life on Earth absolutely does NOT require any creator. Human beings absolutely DID NOT just spontaneously emerge one day, where nothing existed before.
How utterly naive to class the species of 'humans' as the number one, priority species of Earth. That is total creationist mentalism!
No matter how great this movie becomes in terms of mysterious plot, visual effects, small Space Jockeys, proto xenos etc, it will always fail to grasp my imagination because it totally fails on a very fundamental level - very bad science.
This movie will always be a 2001 and ALIEN wannabe.
FAIL.
The Space Jockey - ruined.
ALIEN - ruined.
Ridley Scott - ruined, you are retired.
Aren't you jumping to conclusions? It's not even out yet.
Oh, you've seen the movie? Cool.
Calm the f**k down. ::)
We don't know how the ancient astronaut stuff is going to play out. It could be handled very well. At any rate, it was the avenue that HAD to be taken with the Space Jockey, because it is FAR too human-like originally to be some completely unrelated alien species.
Also: this is a movie. It is not a documentary. It's science fiction.
Go back under whatever trolling rock you emerged from with your draconian one dimensional view, you have no place in these forums.
Also, as silly as the ancient astronaut hypothesis is, it is not "true" creationism. You want true, braindead creationism, you flip through a Bible. At least ancient astronaut hypothesis is sexy and makes for good entertainment.
I agree... we haven't even seen the movie yet. The trailer did not lead me to believe this movie is about creationism. I have hopes that Ridley will deliver a masterpiece for the "Alien" universe. ;)
b/c Prometheus would totally be the first movie to suggest Earth was seeded by Aliens...
... if that is in fact what it's suggesting, which, as stated, remains unknown
This is a work of fiction.
You're going to tell me : science fiction. But SF is a very large thing, that encompasses many genres. Hard SF is only a sub-genre of it. SF has become a loose word, it seems, which is maybe the core of the problem (and I think that there are maybe problems in some areas in what regards distinctions between fantasy and SF).
There are people that like or only like truly hard SF. There is nothing wrong in that... Except when they criticize works that are not hard SF by using hard SF arguments.
Another problem is the fact that in SF the
fiction element prevails 90% of the time (I'm gentle). It is a literary/cinematographic etc. genre. The science serves the story, not the inverse.
QuoteBut only a complete fool would attempt to portray the ancient history of human beings as the pre-determined work of a fairy-like 9-foot-tall race of slap-head giants.
I don't see why. As an idea, it is 100% valid to build a story upon. What matters here is the execution. As for the science aspect, there are several things to consider : it can be the scientific truth/reality of the universe of fiction where the work is located (what matters is the coherence of the fictional universe). 2 : there is no problem with the notion that a very advanced species can create/manipulate life, leading to a human-like species. Unless we deal with a more drastic approach, but that would be coherent (for instance, the SJs or aliens control and manage Earth's ecosystem for millenias, or I don't know...). 3 : we haven't seen the movie ;D : if the SJs or another race has been instrumental in the homo sapiens origins, then it's by modifying (mutation, strange black veins, huh ?) other hominids, or it can be simply by helping them for example (Prometheus with the fire).
In a work of SF, I've nothing against a well-made and well-grounded "ancient astronaut" basis. I can even accept a bit of facility in the concept, if the rest is good.
I would be more stricken by things like : a Space Jockey that would have the power to create xenomorphs, but that would have a flawed body (naturally very fat, non-symetrical, one-legged, or else ;D) ::) ;D... "Hey, we've just created the "perfect organism" to destroy ennemies ! - Cool, maybe you should consider upgrading yourselves a little bit." (that's for some artistic interpretations of the SJs, that are very good... but not in practice ;)).
Quoteas silly as the ancient astronaut hypothesis is, it is not "true" creationism
Indeed.
The idea upon which
Prometheus is built is good, in so far as it is a "weak" ancient astronaut theory : there has been a contact, but there hasn't been, for example, pyramids built on Antarctica to house AVP conflicts.
Someone thought if 1 Xanax made them chill, 10 would make them mega-chill.
No. 10 Xanax turn you into a raging monster.
Someone took 10 Xanax and decided to start a thread.
This is that thread.
@180924609
i agree with everything you said, but still i have hope the movie is not going to totally f*ck it up.
science-fiction will always be science-FICTION, the trick is to keep the fictional themes on a level where it doesn't get ridiculous, and Prometheus so far seems to be... quite "on the edge" with its concepts.
Well the original post was the most idiotic post I've read in a while. Thanks, that was fun. ;)
Quote from: Ulfer on Mar 31, 2012, 10:11:27 PM... but there hasn't been, for example, pyramids built on Antartica to house AVP conflicts.
Thanks for clarification on that last part. You rock. ;D
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 31, 2012, 09:44:26 PM
Also, as silly as the ancient astronaut hypothesis is, it is not "true" creationism. You want true, braindead creationism, you flip through a Bible. At least ancient astronaut hypothesis is sexy and makes for good entertainment.
Cvalda, I realize we may fundamentally disagree as to matters of Faith/Religion. However, I would make a clear distinction between those who take many parts of the Old Testament
literally, from those who understand it should be read with a critical appreciation of mythology, poetry, and metaphor. In general, Fundamentalist / "Creationists" take the Old Testament absolutely literally. They do not recognize or acknowledge the fact that the Old Testament does not represent a scientific cosmology. This mind-set extends to the "modern" emergence of what is called "Intelligent Design", which is
exclusively a fundamentalist/creationist agenda.
You have commented on the perceived "cognitive dissonance" between Faith/Religion and Science. I absolutely agree that this would definitely be a problem, if one were to hold an absolute, literal interpretation of the Old Testament. However, speaking from a particular Catholic perspective, this was
not the position held or advocated by the founders of the Church, nor held by it's greatest apologists (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.). This rigid, absolute, "literal" interpretation of the Bible is something perculiarly unique to a seqment of the American protestent/evangelical movement, which had it's origins in the 19th century. Unfortunately, due to it's apparent influence within "modern" American culture, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that neither the Church (Catholic) nor the main European Protestant denominations hold (nor held) such an absolutist view.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 31, 2012, 10:31:20 PM
Cvalda, I realize we may fundamentally disagree as to matters of Faith/Religion. However, I would make a clear distinction between those who take many parts of the Old Testament literally, from those who understand it should be read with a critical appreciation of mythology, poetry, and metaphor. In general, Fundamentalist / "Creationists" take the Old Testament absolutely literally. They do not recognize or acknowledge the fact that the Old Testament does not represent a scientific cosmology. This mind-set extends to the "modern" emergence of what is called "Intelligent Design", which is exclusively a fundamentalist/creationist agenda.
The literal interpreters vastly outweigh any of the others, and shout the loudest culturally. Not that any particular interpretation has any more relevance than the next, considering the highly dubious source material.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 31, 2012, 10:27:09 PM
Well the original post was the most idiotic post I've read in a while. Thanks, that was fun. ;)
My sentiments exactly :)
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 09:37:29 PM
Life on Earth absolutely does NOT require any creator. Human beings absolutely DID NOT just spontaneously emerge one day, where nothing existed before.
How utterly naive to class the species of 'humans' as the number one, priority species of Earth. That is total creationist mentalism!
i agree with almost all but this ^ little precipitated BUT
things in the trailers point to human race being created (or help evolve) by this SJ race (tagline, starmap in ancient cultures) BUT
we dont know the hows and whens, the timings, etc. until we actually see the movie.
R. Scott is taking a great risk going epic and trying to explain human origins. I mean the way to do it is gonna chase him the rest of his life, wether for good or bad.
What Kubrick did was poetic, almost no dialogue, pure visual and sutil explanations, that leave to imagination. You dont have Marshall Green explaining in elementary teacher way. thats PG-13. that alone makes Prometheus internationl trailer S*CKS
BUT
you have Imax trailer, and theres really other thing. more Alien feeling. no child dialogue. different editor.
So we dont know if Rated version will actually CUT garbage and add long panoramic shots, aside the usual blood/gore/sex scenes. that could be briliant for Ridley.
bottom line, wait until R version.
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 09:37:29 PMLife on Earth absolutely does NOT require any creator. Human beings absolutely DID NOT just spontaneously emerge one day, where nothing existed before.
I think we should lose this assumption that modern human beings were created by the Engineers. There is more than enough evidence from Scott's own words that at the most they intervened with our evolution in the relatively recent past. The Ancient Astronauts theory itself doesn't have any creation aspect - it is about primitive cave dwellers being 'educated' or augmented by extraterrestrial beings.
You are absolutely right that if Scott was suggesting that the Engineers created humans from proverbial clay then this movie will suffer badly for it, but he isn't going down that road. If you read every quote from him in regards to this aspect of the story he always refers to a 'jump' in our evolution, not our creation.
'Beginning of Time'?
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 11:26:59 PM'Beginning of Time'?
He might of not meant that literally. Oh I don't know... psshuh?
It's not because Scott & co are playing the "it's inspired by serious theories" card that i'm going to take anything more seriously in PROMETHEUS than i did with ALIEN or ALIENS...
These are glorified B movies.
This is all make believe if you can't enjoy a movie, especially a science fiction movie, because it's not realistic enough then its your loss...
Some comments led to believe that some people are seriously expecting the answers to life itself in this movie.
It's not called science FICTION for nothing...
But yeah fun read that initial post.
Thanks.
Pretty sure the Engineers created humans, if not all life on Earth. That's why we look exactly like them. As I said before, how successful this problematic story element ends up will depend upon the execution. We'll have to wait until June to see.
QuoteR. Scott is taking a great risk going epic and trying to explain human origins. I mean the way to do it is gonna chase him the rest of his life, wether for good or bad.
I don't really see why, if the execution is good. It's the motivations and implications that are going to matter, and Scott has said it several times.
QuoteSome comments led to believe that some people are seriously expecting the answers to life itself in this movie.
When it regards some fans, it's like : "Hey, the true nature of the universe [our universe] is going to be revealed in the last episode/book/film of this series !", which is kind of funny, sad, and i don't know what at the same time ;D.
It turns out that they think about ending their life when the said last book/episode/film is known to them, while the other great fans (the ones who said "Hey, everything about this universe [the universe of the fiction] is going to be revealed") mostly blame the creators.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 31, 2012, 11:34:46 PM
Pretty sure the Engineers created humans, if not all life on Earth. That's why we look exactly like them. As I said before, how successful this problematic story element ends up will depend upon the execution. We'll have to wait until June to see.
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a
coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 31, 2012, 11:34:46 PMPretty sure the Engineers created humans, if not all life on Earth. That's why we look exactly like them. As I said before, how successful this problematic story element ends up will depend upon the execution. We'll have to wait until June to see.
IMO...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F5%2F51%2FFonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG%2F220px-Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG&hash=dc524efee0d57fb9424e0e05faaeb1c99ebb0646)
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 11:41:09 PM
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 31, 2012, 11:34:46 PM
As I said before, how successful this problematic story element ends up will depend upon the execution. We'll have to wait until June to see.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Mar 31, 2012, 11:42:50 PM
IMO...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG/220px-Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG
You'd better get used to it, 'cause that's what you're potentially getting.
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 11:41:09 PM
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?
Because that's the most troubling science factual detail we might be dealing with in this science fiction film?
No resentment towards human like androids, artificial intelligence, faster-than-light-travel etc etc...?
Just saying...
Quote from: Eva on Mar 31, 2012, 11:53:38 PM
No resentment towards human like androids, artificial intelligence, faster-than-light-travel etc etc...?
Well, currently, none of those things you just mentioned actually exist.
Just saying...
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 01, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
Well, currently, none of those things you just mentioned actually exist.
And neither does ancient astronaut theory. It's a sci-fi movie. Calm down. ::)
Quote from: Eva on Mar 31, 2012, 11:53:38 PMBecause that's the most troubling science factual detail we might be dealing with in this science fiction film? No resentment towards human like androids, artificial intelligence, faster-than-light-travel etc etc...?
Not at all, because the last three are
made up. Humans aren't - you can't just go and alter FACTS about them and their history to suit a story. Unless you set said story in some kind of alternate reality, then it's fine... and your film double sucks. ;)
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 01, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
Quote from: Eva on Mar 31, 2012, 11:53:38 PM
No resentment towards human like androids, artificial intelligence, faster-than-light-travel etc etc...?
Well, currently, none of those things you just mentioned actually exist.
That was sort of the point I was trying to make...
What matters is the
concept, its validity and the doors it opens for the film and for speculation or reflexion outside the film (as the other great works of SF, if
Prometheus turns out to be that good or at least good).
In order to be serious, the concept has to be based upon plausibility, but unless it's hard SF, it doesn't need to be built upon
the truth.
QuoteUnless you set said story in some kind of alternate reality, then it's fine... and your film double sucks.
If Scott had said : "This is very hard SF.", it would be OK. He didn't say that.
But if it were very hard SF, he couldn't do a film based on such a premise from the very start, I think.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the first
Alien is not hard SF neither ;)...
QuoteWell, currently, none of those things you just mentioned actually exist.
Speculation, based upon things that we have by the way (robots, IA, etc., in a "primordial" stage of course compared to their invented futuristic equivalents). We cannot even say that we will be able to reach the stages that are presented in what has become the trademark usual SF universe (great starships, etc.). In comparison, altering the past in an uchronic way is even less risky.
What would I add ? Is it so wrong to do a film set in the future that has also an uchronic foundation, and that has amongst its ambitions the one of showing "what it would be if" ? Which is what most "SF" works do ?
Wait, is this film based on fact? I believe the key word is fiction. If someone has issues with a film that is based on fiction because of their own beliefs, then why watch anything fiction based? It's entertainment, not reality. The bible is a book of words written by man just as the script for this film has been. What makes the bible more relevant than this film? It's all in what a person believes and since neither the film or the bible has any hard evidence, why don't we all enjoy the show.....unless it sucks!
Some of these threads are so hysterically asinine.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 01, 2012, 12:32:01 AMSome of these threads are so hysterically asinine.
Come on, the OP makes a perfectly valid point. A well-labored and done-to-absolute death point, but he/she and the people engaged in the conversation shouldn't be derided for it. A bit of rage can be therapeutic. ;)
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 01, 2012, 12:32:01 AM
Some of these threads are so hysterically asinine.
for me personally it's the biggest concern i have about this movie.
ALIEN was simple, cold, profane. it felt real.
Prometheus is potentially going to feel like a fantasy movie, just because of some ridiculous stuff that was implemented to make this movie feel more epic, but could ultimately dumb it down. this doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and i hope it won't. but they better wouldn't have brought this stuff in in the first place.
I'm still here. Still waiting. To see the movie.
Maybe there will be dinosaur engineers.
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 11:41:09 PM
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?
I might add, besides the huge amount of morphological similarities...that the fact we share approx. 95-98% of our genetic code with the our nearest "cousins" chimpanzee/bonobos, followed closely by gorillas and orangutans, points unequivocably to a shared, common
ancestor.
I understand your concerns, Zeta Reticuli.
I hope that the movie won't disappoint you, or not too much.
For my part I'm glad that Scott has decided to do something bigger and to tackle bigger themes (if only by showing the way). And I find it appropriate in so far as I think the mystery of the SJ from Alien let the door opened to that direction. Furthermore, Scott has repeated that he wanted to do something different, even though the film will share many things with Alien, notably at the end, if I read him well.
In the meantime I think that it will not, if well made, ruin the movie to your eyes, because it's Scott that makes this film. It won't turn into a Roland Emmerich's blockburster. I mean : Stargate is cool. The pyramids that are used by spaceships, that's good, even though it is as far-fetched and not-to-be-taken-seriously as the first AVP plot. But it's just a basis without exploration (because of the nature of the film) : Ra is our god, and that's nearly all. Conversely, Prometheus seems to be a movie that will give a meaning to its premise - and not the "creationistic" aspect only, of course. There will be provocative aspects. Sure, all of them will not be built upon 100% solid foundations, but it's nearly always the case in SF.
Frankly, if I have fear for the movie, it is not for this premise of a role of aliens in human evolution (in what way, we will see). I just hope that it will indeed be provocative. And I think it will, because Scott would not have said what he said in interviews if it were just a gory Avatar.
I think that when you allude to the "fantasy" aspect, you are exactly on the point that I evoked in my first post, and that produces topics like this one about many films or series (I remember that kind of topics about Caprica and Stargate Universe, for example).
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 12:53:10 AM
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 11:41:09 PM
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?
I might add, besides the huge amount of morphological similarities...that the fact we share approx. 95-98% of our genetic code with the our nearest "cousins" chimpanzee/bonobos, followed closely by gorillas and orangutans, points unequivocably to a shared, common ancestor.
Hello, long lost brother! ... erm, Uncle? ;D
This is not a creation film, it's about what happens to people that don't understand creation.
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.
Eyeballl kid said it the best.
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully. I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. What
has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.
The problem of the Engineers creating all terrestrial life could be explained by saying that the DNA of all terrestrial life, being all essentially from the same original source, is all programmed with some sort of guiding genetic code that directs the descendants of the original strain of life to eventually reach the apex of the code's blueprints--us.
Or something.
Shut up, it's sci-fi. Wait til June so we can gripe about this in detail (if griping is even warranted). :P
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 01, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
The problem of the Engineers creating all terrestrial life could be explained by saying that the DNA of all terrestrial life, being all essentially from the same original source, is all programmed with some sort of guiding genetic code that directs the descendants of the original strain of life to eventually reach the apex of the code's blueprints--us.
Or something.
Shut up, it's sci-fi. Wait til June so we can gripe about this in detail (if griping is even warranted). :P
Aye, there is the rub..."Science-Fiction"
I can't speak for anybody else, but I prefer to have a healthy dose of Science in my Fiction...I cordially dislike having a bunch of Fiction crammed into my Science.
Was that a gripe? ;)
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
Aye, there is the rub..."Science-Fiction"
I can't speak for anybody else, but I prefer to have a healthy dose of Science in my Fiction...I cordially dislike having a bunch of Fiction crammed into my Science.
Was that a gripe? ;)
If it's relatively plausible in the film, there's nothing to gripe about, especially if it turns out spectacularly. Science fiction is like chocolate and peanut butter. They go well together, people. :P
As most said, its a scifi movie, anything goes. The theory of aliens contributing to the creation of humanity isnt that out there tho if for so many reasons those theories are circling around and explored by various archeologists and professors. I personally dont believe in those, but its certainly not a "what a silly thing that scifi movie suggests" kind of a thing. Those theories are actually being looked into
Quote from: StrangeShape on Apr 01, 2012, 04:31:52 AM
As most said, its a scifi movie, anything goes. The theory of aliens contributing to the creation of humanity isnt that out there tho if for so many reasons those theories are circling around and explored by various archeologists and professors. I personally dont believe in those, but its certainly not a "what a silly thing that scifi movie suggests" kind of a thing. Those theories are actually being looked into
Oh, I have no doubt that these "theories" are being "looked into" by a whole bunch of people.
However, who are these archaeologists and professors of which you speak?
What college or university are they associated with?
Can you direct me to any peer-reviewed research articles that they have published on this subject?
THE FIVE STAGES OF PROMETHEUS
1. Denial- "OMG this movie is going to be amazing! AN ALIEN PREQUEL FROM RIDLEY SCOTT!!---oh hey, what's this?... No way would Ridley Scott retcon the Jockey and turn him into a giant humanoid wearing a suit! I think there's gonna be something else!"
2. Bargaining - "Okay well, at least the Jockey is this totally alien being that is, like, unfathomable to us, which is what made it so great in the first place..."
3. Contempt - "WTF!??!??!!!!!!! The Jockeys created humanity and all life on Earth?!!! WTF IS THIS SHIT?!!! THIS FRANCHISE IS RUINED. THE SPACE JOCKEY IS RUINED. ALIEN IS RUINED. EVERYTHING'S RUINED!!!!!1!! f**k RIDLEY SCOTT AND f**k THAT DOUCHEBAG LINDELOF!!!!1!!"
4. Acceptance - "Okay, well maybe it could sort of be kind of cool. I mean, the Jockey looked really humanoid originally, so he had to be related to humanity somehow. I mean, this isn't Star Wars or Star Trek, LOLZ. It completely depends on how Ridders pulls it off, though..."
5. Obsession - "OMG this movie is going to be amazing! AN ALIEN PREQUEL FROM RIDLEY SCOTT AT LONG LAST!!!" *obsessively checks IMDb and AVPGalaxy* "Need this movie nooooow."
Bottom line is, Prometheus is going to be a big scale scifi action thriller. I admire its gonna add some thoughts about life in the mix. As a side note, Im also glad Ridley doesnt want to do another dark movie, I fully agree with him its an overkill nowadays
I think I am at stage 3.5 :P
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 04:58:24 AM
I think I am at stage 3.5 :P
Don't worry, you're almost through it. :P ;)
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 01, 2012, 04:49:25 AM
THE FIVE STAGES OF PROMETHEUS
1. Denial- "OMG this movie is going to be amazing! AN ALIEN PREQUEL FROM RIDLEY SCOTT!!---oh hey, what's this?... No way would Ridley Scott retcon the Jockey and turn him into a giant humanoid wearing a suit! I think there's gonna be something else!"
2. Bargaining - "Okay well, at least the Jockey is this totally alien being that is, like, unfathomable to us, which is what made it so great in the first place..."
3. Contempt - "WTF!??!??!!!!!!! The Jockeys created humanity and all life on Earth?!!! WTF IS THIS SHIT?!!! THIS FRANCHISE IS RUINED. THE SPACE JOCKEY IS RUINED. ALIEN IS RUINED. EVERYTHING'S RUINED!!!!!1!! f**k RIDLEY SCOTT AND f**k THAT DOUCHEBAG LINDELOF!!!!1!!"
4. Acceptance - "Okay, well maybe it could sort of be kind of cool. I mean, the Jockey looked really humanoid originally, so he had to be related to humanity somehow. I mean, this isn't Star Wars or Star Trek, LOLZ. It completely depends on how Ridders pulls it off, though..."
5. Obsession - "OMG this movie is going to be amazing! AN ALIEN PREQUEL FROM RIDLEY SCOTT AT LONG LAST!!!" *obsessively checks IMDb and AVPGalaxy* "Need this movie nooooow."
Lol, this is really well done and the funniest thing about it is that it really does reflect behavior of many fans
5.5
I'm about a 4.5, myself. Inching perilously close to a 5, though. ;D
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 09:37:29 PM
Imagine the greatest science fiction story of all time - 2001.
And then imagine the greatest science fiction story of claustrophobic horror of all time - ALIEN.
Then imagine Ridley Scott tries to trump ALIEN above 2001 - congratulations, you just imagined:
PROMETHEUS.
But only a complete fool would attempt to portray the ancient history of human beings as the pre-determined work of a fairy-like 9-foot-tall race of slap-head giants.
2001: a space odessey, was somewhat ambiguous in meaning. It didn't specifically give any certain answers, but it raised the questions of religion, extra-terrestrial intelligence and artificial intelligence. In
2001, the extra-terrestrial force was not shown to create humans, it only influenced them to use tools and set up a switch on the moon to send a signal once the race had evolved enough to reach it. The film was left wide open for interpretation (not so much the novel and sequels).
In Prometheus, extra-terrestrial involvement with earth might just mean initially seeding the planet with organic molecules and giving a little help with atmospheric terraforming and waiting a couple billion years to see what transpires. Later somebody could pop in dressed up as a human, and introduce a technology such as say, written language.
As for the humanoid appearance of the biomechanical jockeys, well that is a mystery. How could they appear so human and be of extra-terrestrial origin? I think most people would agree that would be silly.
But perhaps there's another explanation. Maybe some sort of original "gods" or higher intelligence didn't engineer humans in the image of the jockeys,
maybe the "gods" engineered the jockeys to look like humans for some future purpose. There may be an explanation that works out fine.
kinda 4.5.
The only thing that irks me about all of this "mankind was created by Aliens" shtick is that...
Ridley actually seems to believe it's a serious possibility in interviews :laugh: ...allways insisting that the chances of life evolving on earth were pretty slim and grim.... yeah, okay ridles...
4.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 01, 2012, 05:14:51 AM
I'm about a 4.5, myself. Inching perilously close to a 5, though. ;D
Realistically, I'd say 4.5 as well, but without any doubts that the movie will be amazing... I just want to save myself from the crazy fanboy exclaimations that comes along with '5'. :laugh:
And the overbearing 'this-leads-to-Alien' prequelfreaks. :-X
don't forget the DIS MOVIE IS DAH SUC IT PG 13 4 KIDS crowd.
MFW this thread.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthetangential.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FCosby6.gif&hash=95f07430259bddce9c8a5ae6309075a11a68934a)
Quote from: Pn2501 on Apr 01, 2012, 05:27:57 AM
don't forget the DIS MOVIE IS DAH SUC IT PG 13 4 KIDS crowd.
family
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F26.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m0881zi71i1qaj09co1_500.gif&hash=424ad51c43cd9c02285f5a3b9af0f9b9fcc2bcd8)
entertainment
Ahem. *changes into Devil's advocate outfit*
But Ridley has already said he wants the film to be R. If it ends up PG-13, there is legitimate cause for upset and annoyance, because we will be plonking down $15 to go see a movie at the cinema we already know is compromised and not the director's intended vision--for that, we'll have to wait for the Blu-ray and then give Fox around $30 with tax for the pleasure of finally seeing the film as we should have seen it in the first place.
Oh, I can definitely agree with you there. It's not in my interests to be watching a comprimised film (especially not as my first time) with a 'proper' version existing.
that imdb will rot your brain fiorina,
i don't care if i have to see it twice in the cinema, if its good ill be seeing it more than once anyway, any excuse really.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fjackyman225%2Fimages%2F5%2F52%2FThe-dark-knight-rises-two-face.jpg&hash=716a0c319d6d571fecebde64994605e5832fd21c)
pg - 13
Quote from: Pn2501 on Apr 01, 2012, 06:09:30 AM
i don't care if i have to see it twice in the cinema, if its good ill be seeing it more than once anyway, any excuse really.
As will I, but very begrudgingly--I hate spending a lot of money on an inferior, compromised product, all the while knowing I'll be expected to shell out yet more money down the line for the real thing.
The evil of Fox.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 01, 2012, 06:11:13 AM
Quote from: Pn2501 on Apr 01, 2012, 06:09:30 AM
i don't care if i have to see it twice in the cinema, if its good ill be seeing it more than once anyway, any excuse really.
As will I, but very begrudgingly--I hate spending a lot of money on an inferior, compromised product, all the while knowing I'll be expected to shell out yet more money down the line for the real thing. The evil of Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjbu0kSEuQQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjbu0kSEuQQ#)
Quote from: Ulfer on Mar 31, 2012, 10:11:27 PM
As an idea, it is 100% valid to build a story upon. What matters here is the execution.
Precisely what I've been saying for ages.
We don't 'need' a galaxy to be portrayed as having acid-bleeding biomechanical monstrosities, either, but I can think of at least two films involving them which were pretty damned good.
Just like we don't 'need' history to be portrayed as involving flying DeLoreans, interdimensional blue telephone boxes, intergalactic sadistic safari hunters or blonde schoolgirls who patrol small towns looking for vampires to slay.
But if you got rid of them, some amazingly inspirational film/TV
art would be lost.
Also, it always amuses me when people say they can't possibly stomach even so much as a hint of the ancient astronaut theory, because they personally don't like it,
in a series which revolves around a parasite which grows from the size of a snake to larger than a man in less than 24 hours without apparently eating anything.
LOL
Would I have
preferred it not to deal with that subject? As someone who actually thinks the ET hypothesis for our origins has some merit, I'd have to say... Yes. Not because it's somehow impossible, but because, for me, the derelict represented the ultimate in 'here be dragons'. Something which was meant to be considered alien in
every way. A place of Eldritch monstrosities, untouched/untainted by humanity.
But that's purely an aesthetic preference and if any large-scale, big budget science-fiction franchise had to touch on the concept, I don't see anything
wrong with it involving certain themes touched upon by the original. I could see it happening...
What matters is how unfolds on screen. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because it involves our origins won't be what makes it a good or bad film. The writing, acting, direction, lighting, creature designs and more will dictate that.
A part of me thinks this weird obsession about how it
must be bad because it revolves around that theory, is the result of butt-hurt over Anderson's film, but the ancient pyramid plot point was never one of the primary reasons that film was regarded largely as a creative failure.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Apr 01, 2012, 06:17:53 AM
Also, it always amuses me when people say they can't possibly stomach even so much as a hint of the ancient astronaut theory, because they personally don't like it, in a series which revolves around a parasite which grows from the size of a snake to larger than a man in less than 24 hours without apparently eating anything.
Hey, hey, hey--we never see them
not eating anything. So
there. ;D
Quote from: Pn2501 on Apr 01, 2012, 06:13:20 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 01, 2012, 06:11:13 AM
Quote from: Pn2501 on Apr 01, 2012, 06:09:30 AM
i don't care if i have to see it twice in the cinema, if its good ill be seeing it more than once anyway, any excuse really.
As will I, but very begrudgingly--I hate spending a lot of money on an inferior, compromised product, all the while knowing I'll be expected to shell out yet more money down the line for the real thing. The evil of Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjbu0kSEuQQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjbu0kSEuQQ#)
No no nonono you're doing it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDxuMW_9FE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDxuMW_9FE#)
bahahha i forgot about that one, f**k I'm getting antichrist flashbacks now.
Oh, Bat Chain--nothing like you bringing out a little Von Trier meme-ry to lighten my spirits!
4.6 I'll say.
QuoteAs for the humanoid appearance of the biomechanical jockeys, well that is a mystery. How could they appear so human and be of extra-terrestrial origin? I think most people would agree that would be silly.
Some would say that evolution could lead species, on other planets similar to our own, to beings looking like Earth animals (including us) in a general way. We have examples of millions of species since the beginning of life on Earth. On an Earth-like planet, evolution could be similar, with more or less variation, and different courses taken. But at the end, in order to use tools etc., you need certain characteristics and the adequate circumstances.
The thought that aliens of the level of Earth most intelligent species must necessarily be so different intrigues me more than the idea of similarity.
Quotebut the ancient pyramid plot point was never one of the primary reasons that film was regarded largely as a creative failure.
Agreed.
QuoteAlso, it always amuses me when people say they can't possibly stomach even so much as a hint of the ancient astronaut theory, because they personally don't like it, in a series which revolves around a parasite which grows from the size of a snake to larger than a man in less than 24 hours without apparently eating anything.
Well said.
You guys need to keep up. I'm at stage 11 :)
Spoiler
It's like... how much more black can this movie get...? and the answer is none... None more black...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages02%2F130%2F6b014f2cb580446fa1160da539e1a5b0%2Fl.jpg&hash=0dae3cc702f73ef98b2962ff2880d640c67965f1)
My timeline was a bit different. I went 5, 1 and then 3... and then got stuck in an infinite loop. Then that loop became strange, and I got Godel-worried.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AMWhat has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.
A story that demands the audience ignore basic common sense and just accept what's happening is a bad story. Science fiction is not immune from this. IMO the concerns of the OP are completely valid, because if they are justified then the entire backbone of this film will be one
giant freaking plot hole.
Not saying it will be, but Alien fans have every right to be outright terrified at the possibility of it.
5, 1, 3, 5, 1, 3, 5, 1....
Quote from: Pn2501 on Apr 01, 2012, 06:09:30 AM
that imdb will rot your brain fiorina,
i don't care if i have to see it twice in the cinema, if its good ill be seeing it more than once anyway, any excuse really.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fjackyman225%2Fimages%2F5%2F52%2FThe-dark-knight-rises-two-face.jpg&hash=716a0c319d6d571fecebde64994605e5832fd21c)
pg - 13
Dent's damn exposed eye freaked me out more than any R rated stuff every time it moved in it's socket. Not in a gory, yuch way but jit was just so distracting for some reason. I'd find I'd missed dialogue becasuse I was just starting at his damn eye darting around.
Also - I think TDK shows Scott could deliver an intense film so long as the gore is carefully managed and swearing kept below the guidlines for an R.
I don't care anymore. The look of the film alone is enough for me. I want to see those ships and interiors on the big screen. If they're backdrop to a good film then all the better.
LOL! :D
Ridley Scott agrees with me. This movie should be rated-R. ;D
If it's pg 13, I hope we can at least get some space tapir plush toys for the movie. That would sweeten the deal for me.
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 01, 2012, 03:06:42 PM
If it's pg 13, I hope we can at least get some space tapir plush toys for the movie. That would sweeten the deal for me.
There you go buddy. Sweet dreams ;)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lincrafts.com%2Fark%2Ftapir.jpg&hash=de627663027196355bd23d1c0e5a4142f3789fe8)
Quote from: Eva on Apr 01, 2012, 03:35:45 PM
There you go buddy. Sweet dreams ;)
http://www.lincrafts.com/ark/tapir.jpg
Does the Derelict ship have a giftshop?
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:50:33 PM
Does the Derelict ship have a giftshop?
Right next to the petting zoo.
Quote from: Eva on Apr 01, 2012, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:50:33 PM
Does the Derelict ship have a giftshop?
Right next to the petting zoo.
Reminds me of the self destruct scene in
Spaceballs :D
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Apr 01, 2012, 04:18:17 PM
Reminds me of the self destruct scene in Spaceballs :D
Ahhh.... those times when spoof movies were actually
funny and smart instead of downright embarrassing in their own ineptitude.
Spoiler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEywGpIt0vw#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEywGpIt0vw#ws)
Still gets me every time :D
Surely, you cant be serious! ;D
I love it most when these topics go waaay off on the side roads.
I imagine this scenario.
Engineers are nearly extinct. The last survivors are hibernating.
Engineers have sown the seeds of life in the cosmos.
The genetic material implanted has predeterminated mutations.
It has in this way the possibility of evolving creatures similar to engineers (humans).
Humans have fallen into a trap. Was not an invitation. This is the sign that humanity and the planet earth was ready for use.
We are the insurance policy of this breed.
"Every king has his reign... And then he dies"
----
I'm paleontologist... course I can not conceive of a creationist mindset. This is pure shit. Prometheus seems more oriented to present an fantascientific reinterpretation of the "intelligent design". Not a bad idea.
I am on stage 3 and i believe i gonna stay there.
QuoteThis movie will always be a 2001 and ALIEN wannabe.
FAIL.
The Space Jockey - ruined.
ALIEN - ruined.
Ridley Scott - ruined, you are retired.
QFT!
Quote from: Lord Freezer on Apr 01, 2012, 05:40:26 PM
I imagine this scenario.
Engineers are nearly extinct. The last survivors are hibernating.
Engineers have sown the seeds of life in the cosmos.
The genetic material implanted has predeterminated mutations.
It has in this way the possibility of evolving creatures similar to engineers (humans).
Humans have fallen into a trap. Was not an invitation. This is the sign that humanity and the planet earth was ready for use.
We are the insurance policy of this breed.
"Every king has his reign... And then he dies"
----
I'm paleontologist... course I can not conceive of a creationist mindset. This is pure shit. Prometheus seems more oriented to present an fantascientific reinterpretation of the "intelligent design". Not a bad idea.
I like this theory. I bet it hits pretty close to home in the movie. The trailer states that we went searching for our beginnings, and may have found our end.
We perhaps may have indeed found it.
If people are really going to argue that the movie is going to be bad because it's science it's accurate, then there goes about ALL of the science fiction films and novels ever written. That argument is completely ridiculous. However, if you dislike them using the Ancient Astronaut theories because you believe it doesn't fit into the Alien universe or that it's been done too many times before, then it's debatable.
I for one agree that the original Alien showed off how alien they were. How different they were to like on earth. But, the aliens in 2001: A Space Odyssey were completely, if not more, alien. Yet, we didn't exactly complain about it. In fact, it shows that they are so different because of billions of more years in evolution and advancements in science. So, it's clear that they'll portray the Space Jockeys like that in this film. They've mastered this biochemical power, something that humans are just now learning. So, it makes sense in that aspect.
However, it's been done before. Ever since 2001, it's been a major concept in alien films and novels. However, I can already tell the Prometheus will deal with the Ancient Astronaut theory in a different way. From the looks of things, it'll be unique.
like who cares if its a bad creationist idea. Its just a movie, not part of the science bible...
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AM
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully. I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. What has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully, if at all. What, you think you wield some sort of intellectual superiority over others because you know more of the periodic table than most? I've read through your posts. While admittedly well-written, make no mistake- I can see through your thin veneer of false rationality. Go ahead, quote some algorithims and deem me inferior. I know your kind, and I am utterly disgusted by you. Has this been discussed yet? I'm sure I need correction, so please, go ahead.
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 02, 2012, 03:12:56 AM
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully, if at all. What, you think you wield some sort of intellectual superiority over others because you know more of the periodic table than most? I've read through your posts. While admittedly well-written, make no mistake- I can see through your thin veneer of false rationality. Go ahead, quote some algorithims and deem me inferior. I know your kind, and I am utterly disgusted by you. Has this been discussed yet? I'm sure I need correction, so please, go ahead.
Wow...crap. Where did that come from? Sorry if I upset you.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 02, 2012, 03:15:17 AM
Wow...crap. Where did that come from? Sorry if I upset you.
Don't apologize. That rant was ridiculous. :P
Internet forums are ripe with many participants who feel the need to come off superior to everyone and while doing so demean them in the process. That kind of behaviour is for cowards,
calm down everyone were humans we know nothing bout each other. only know were having cool time with these movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LegJtWJURNg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LegJtWJURNg#)
this video is to keep the party. not offtopic coz is about one of the almmighty titans:
PROMETHEUS BROTHER ATLAS 8)
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 02, 2012, 03:12:56 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AM
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully. I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. What has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully, if at all. What, you think you wield some sort of intellectual superiority over others because you know more of the periodic table than most? I've read through your posts. While admittedly well-written, make no mistake- I can see through your thin veneer of false rationality. Go ahead, quote some algorithims and deem me inferior. I know your kind, and I am utterly disgusted by you. Has this been discussed yet? I'm sure I need correction, so please, go ahead.
Hah, internet's bitch over here.
If anything Deuterium writes some of the most interesting and thought provoking posts on the boards.
Someone's jelly.
For my money, evolution_rex hit the nail right on the head with this comment:
Quote from: evolution_rex on Apr 02, 2012, 01:02:10 AM
If people are really going to argue that the movie is going to be bad because it's science it's accurate, then there goes about ALL of the science fiction films and novels ever written. That argument is completely ridiculous. However, if you dislike them using the Ancient Astronaut theories because you believe it doesn't fit into the Alien universe or that it's been done too many times before, then it's debatable.
I doubt this thread will take us anywhere usefull. The premis discussed by the OP, seems to anticipate that the creationist concept is what's at the basis of Prometheus storyline, without us actually knowing this to be the case.
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 02, 2012, 03:12:56 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AM
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully. I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. What has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully, if at all. What, you think you wield some sort of intellectual superiority over others because you know more of the periodic table than most? I've read through your posts. While admittedly well-written, make no mistake- I can see through your thin veneer of false rationality. Go ahead, quote some algorithims and deem me inferior. I know your kind, and I am utterly disgusted by you. Has this been discussed yet? I'm sure I need correction, so please, go ahead.
Way out of line. The member you are attacking does not at all claim to be superior to anyone, neither does anyone else here. We may not all agree but mutual respect is paramount. Such vitriol is unwelcome.
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 09:37:29 PM
Imagine the greatest science fiction story of all time - 2001.
And then imagine the greatest science fiction story of claustrophobic horror of all time - ALIEN.
Then imagine Ridley Scott tries to trump ALIEN above 2001 - congratulations, you just imagined:
PROMETHEUS.
But only a complete fool would attempt to portray the ancient history of human beings as the pre-determined work of a fairy-like 9-foot-tall race of slap-head giants.
Has Ridley Scott / Jon Spaihts / Damon Lindelof not being paying attention to the last 100+ years of science? Apparently not if 'fission' is part of 21st century achievement [according to Peter Wayland].
Life on Earth absolutely does NOT require any creator. Human beings absolutely DID NOT just spontaneously emerge one day, where nothing existed before.
How utterly naive to class the species of 'humans' as the number one, priority species of Earth. That is total creationist mentalism!
No matter how great this movie becomes in terms of mysterious plot, visual effects, small Space Jockeys, proto xenos etc, it will always fail to grasp my imagination because it totally fails on a very fundamental level - very bad science.
This movie will always be a 2001 and ALIEN wannabe.
FAIL.
The Space Jockey - ruined.
ALIEN - ruined.
Ridley Scott - ruined, you are retired.
UM..The movie is SCIENCE FICTION. If people claimed this shit happened and wanted to teach that to children in schools and really believed it, then that would be ridiculous. But science fiction movies take place in fictional universes that paralel our own or just have a "what if" attitude, towards our own.
Evolution is boring... there is nothing imaginative about life just coming about out of primordial soup...
The interesting thing is the whole idea of GOD, being tossed on it's head... suddenly every church and bible is pointless because what people worshipped as god could just be a higher species. I think this is the line that will be taken, and I think this is why you have a very religious character being featured.
Finally please name one species on this planet that man hasn't dominated and exploited... I would also add "in record time."
3.1415926...
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AM
Quote from: Circadian on Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.
I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully. I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort. What has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.
Serious Question: WHY do Creationists and those who believe in divine intervention always have to be the ones to present clear evidence of why they choose to believe this scenerio and the Evolutionist gets a pass? Years ago one man looked at fossils, pondered it, came up with a story of his choosing, taught it to someone else, who then taught it in a University as the only plausible theory, and years later only the ones who believe this way are considered educated and intellectually soundminded while condemning and belittling the ones who believe it couldve happened another way. Yet neither side really has ANY concrete evidence to prove their hypothesis! Only a story that sounds accurate and must be reformed a little after a new fossil is found that doesnt correspond to the timeline. All that exists as proof is circumstancial at best, considering collective DNA and what have you. Isnt the basis of Science Fiction begging the question..What if? What of the statement of once all possible explanations have been eliminated, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth? Have we really eliminated all other possible explanations of the beginning of life other than Evolutionary biased ideology? I think Promethius is simply offering another possible scenerio in the form of course of entertainment and it has already stirred up questions and debate of the age old question,...which is a good thing.
QuoteWHY do Creationists and those who believe in divine intervention always have to be the ones to present clear evidence of why they choose to believe this scenerio and the Evolutionist gets a pass?
Because evolutionists HAVE presented clear evidence for a very long time and don't "get a pass".
You're making the mistake of thinking you have to provide evidence to support a belief. I believe in God. I don't need to provide evidence to anyone. If I could, it would cease to be a belief.
People also make the mistake in thinking that if you believe a supreme being, you have to be blind to science. Both can and do easily co-exist and will continue to easily co-exist.
Quote from: SM on Apr 03, 2012, 02:07:24 AM
Because evolutionists HAVE presented clear evidence for a very long time and don't "get a pass".
You're making the mistake of thinking you have to provide evidence to support a belief. I believe in God. I don't need to provide evidence to anyone. If I could, it would cease to be a belief.
People also make the mistake in thinking that if you believe a supreme being, you have to be blind to science. Both can and do easily co-exist and will continue to easily co-exist.
Well said. The last part is especially important, and a point I have always tried to emphasize.
Quote from: SM on Apr 03, 2012, 02:07:24 AM
QuoteWHY do Creationists and those who believe in divine intervention always have to be the ones to present clear evidence of why they choose to believe this scenerio and the Evolutionist gets a pass?
Because evolutionists HAVE presented clear evidence for a very long time and don't "get a pass".
You're making the mistake of thinking you have to provide evidence to support a belief. I believe in God. I don't need to provide evidence to anyone. If I could, it would cease to be a belief.
People also make the mistake in thinking that if you believe a supreme being, you have to be blind to science. Both can and do easily co-exist and will continue to easily co-exist.
Thank you for this. I completely agree.
Religion and science are like Apple and oranges. Both exist but they don't compare. They should compliment.
I agree with your responses as well. But, I honestly do feel that the anti Deity, athiest crowd is very aggresive in pushing only Evolution, which cannot be proven. Theories abound, and can make sense to a degree, however, a plausible solution isnt always the correct one. I highlighted the previous conversation also to say, while gone too far, I do believe, especially on this forum, that religious views ARE always put down, railed against, and made to make the fellow member look uneducated and stupid to the point that many times I have told myself Im done with ever commenting here again. Glad to see that many share my views somewhat of science and religion in the same universe and complimenting each other.
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 02:41:55 AM
I agree with your responses as well. But, I honestly do feel that the anti Deity, athiest crowd is very aggresive in pushing only Evolution, which cannot be proven. Theories abound, and can make sense to a degree, however, a plausible solution isnt always the correct one. I highlighted the previous conversation also to say, while gone too far, I do believe, especially on this forum, that religious views ARE always put down, railed against, and made to make the fellow member look uneducated and stupid to the point that many times I have told myself Im done with ever commenting here again.
-_-
Must...hold...tongue.
No, please. Tell me how stupid I am for not accepting this and how simple it is to prove how things actually happened millions of years ago. Prove my point for me
I would explain basic evolutionary biology to you, but, as the saying goes:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Perhaps Deuterium would have more patience than I. Hell, he's a religious man to boot. If he chimes in, you'd best pay attention.
QuoteBut, I honestly do feel that the anti Deity, athiest crowd is very aggresive in pushing only Evolution, which cannot be proven
Aggressive fundies (on both sides) aside, evolution has been tested time and again since Darwin first proposed it, and it's always stood up.
This is from PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html)
Quote2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?
In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
QuoteTheories abound, and can make sense to a degree, however, a plausible solution isnt always the correct one.
What theories and can they stand up to testing?
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 02:41:55 AM
I agree with your responses as well. But, I honestly do feel that the anti Deity, athiest crowd is very aggresive in pushing only Evolution, which cannot be proven. Theories abound, and can make sense to a degree, however, a plausible solution isnt always the correct one. I highlighted the previous conversation also to say, while gone too far, I do believe, especially on this forum, that religious views ARE always put down, railed against, and made to make the fellow member look uneducated and stupid to the point that many times I have told myself Im done with ever commenting here again. Glad to see that many share my views somewhat of science and religion in the same universe and complimenting each other.
Evolution, like any Theory in science, is inherently, and eminently falsifiable. Any single test or observation that contradicted the central argument(s) of the Theory, has the potential to disprove the entire structure. However, in over one hundred and fifty years of study, research, tests, observation and predictions...this has never occurred. Scientists can rightfully be as confident in the overwhelming body of evidence and facts that support the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection/Modern Synthesis, as any other established Theory in Science (e.g. Thermodynamics, Laws of Motion, SR and GR, Quantum Field Theory, etc.).
I agree that there is a vocal and aggressive segment of atheists (not all), just as on the other side of the spectrum, there is a vocal and aggressive segment of evangelical fundamentalists (not all). Both groups seek to drive a wedge between Science and Religion. The former seems to take a perverse pleasure in deprecating and diminishing anyone holding firm religious Beliefs/Faith, while the latter seems content to accept almost every other facet of modern science, yet emphatically declares Darwinian Evolution to be "unproven" and false.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 03, 2012, 03:31:56 AM
Both groups seek to drive a wedge between Science and Religion. The former seems to take a perverse pleasure in deprecating and diminishing anyone holding firm religious Beliefs/Faith, while the latter seems content to accept almost every other facet of modern science, yet emphatically declares Darwinian Evolution to be "unproven" and false.
I'd say the vocal creationists seek not to drive a wedge, but to engulf, entrap and digest science the way an amoeba does its prey. At any rate, there
should be a wedge between science and faith, same as there is between Church and State. The two are not compatible on any level other than the personal, and to bridge them in any official capacity is dangerous to science itself.
I love this website. ;D
Evolution is .... forget it. I cant say it better than deuterium.
Much love! We all need this movie asap
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 03, 2012, 03:36:40 AM
At any rate, there should be a wedge between science and faith, same as there is between Church and State. The two are not compatible on any level other than the personal, and to bridge them in any official capacity is dangerous to science itself.
I absolutely agree that the there should exist a clear political
separation, between Church and State. Furthermore, Religion (in any guise) has no business in a Science classroom...just as Science needs to respect it's boundries and limits -- i.e. developing hypothesis and models that explain our physical Universe, and which can be validated by empirical observation and tests.
Not to get hung up on semantics, but I prefer the term "separation", here, as it is connotes a neutral division between reasonable parties. For me, the term "wedge", in this context, confers a different meaning -- a motivated action to gain advantage by one party, at the expense of the other.
Quote
I think it's entirely logical. The idea that we've been here three billion years and nothing happened until 75,000 years ago is absolute nonsense. [...] We talk about Atlantis and cities under the water that have long gone, long submerged, but they're in the relatively recent past. I'm talking about one-and-a-half billion years ago - was this planet really empty? I don't think so"
--Ridley Scott, Empire, May 2012
Stage 3.0, Nirvana.
Which Newtonian clockwork orrery are you turning here Ridley?
Of course the planet wasn't empty. The Elder Things were hanging out up in the mountains.
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 03, 2012, 04:21:41 AM
Quote
I think it's entirely logical. The idea that we've been here three billion years and nothing happened until 75,000 years ago is absolute nonsense. [...] We talk about Atlantis and cities under the water that have long gone, long submerged, but they're in the relatively recent past. I'm talking about one-and-a-half billion years ago - was this planet really empty? I don't think so"
--Ridley Scott, Empire, May 2012
Stage 3.0, Nirvana.
Which Newtonian clockwork orrery are you turning here Ridley?
;D
Ridley doesn't realize it, but he just royally pissed off the entire Kingdom (Superdomain) of Bacteria, which have been happily occupying our planet for close to 4 billions years. He better be careful or he is going to get attacked by an angry mob of E. Coli., wielding pitchforks. Okay...very, very very tiny pitchforks. :P
Quote
I think it's entirely logical. The idea that we've been here three billion years and nothing happened until 75,000 years ago is absolute nonsense. [...] We talk about Atlantis and cities under the water that have long gone, long submerged, but they're in the relatively recent past. I'm talking about one-and-a-half billion years ago - was this planet really empty? I don't think so"
--Ridley Scott, Empire, May 2012
Ugh. Oh, Ridley. ::)
By "we've been here three billion years," I'm hoping he at least means our entire biosphere and not just humanity itself.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 03, 2012, 04:39:15 AM
By "we've been here three billion years," I'm hoping he at least means our entire biosphere and not just humanity itself.
Ridley flunked Biology, but absolutely aced Arts & Crafts. ;D
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 03, 2012, 04:37:10 AM
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 03, 2012, 04:21:41 AM
Quote
I think it's entirely logical. The idea that we've been here three billion years and nothing happened until 75,000 years ago is absolute nonsense. [...] We talk about Atlantis and cities under the water that have long gone, long submerged, but they're in the relatively recent past. I'm talking about one-and-a-half billion years ago - was this planet really empty? I don't think so"
--Ridley Scott, Empire, May 2012
Stage 3.0, Nirvana.
Which Newtonian clockwork orrery are you turning here Ridley?
;D
Ridley doesn't realize it, but he just royally pissed off the entire Kingdom (Superdomain) of Bacteria, which have been happily occupying our planet for close to 4 billions years. He better be careful or he is going to get attacked by angry mobs of E. Coli :P
Yeah.
Bacteria 1
Tripods 0
Nice one, erm...God.
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 03, 2012, 04:48:35 AM
Yeah.
Bacteria 1
Tripods 0
Nice one, erm...God.
;D
I, for one, welcome our new Bacteria overlords
I remember watching a documentary on this court case a while back - Creationism (in disguise as 'Intelligent Design') vs Evolution in schools :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/)
To say that things as they transpired, didn't exactly help the case of Creationism, would be the understatement of all time.
Yes, Evolution is essentially still a theory, but by far the best scientifically supported theory we have at this time.
Quote from: Eva on Apr 03, 2012, 01:19:18 PM
Yes, Evolution is essentially still a theory, but by far the best scientifically supported theory we have at this time.
Pretty much a fact though when you boil it down. Those who say otherwise are either not getting it or ignant.
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 03, 2012, 04:21:41 AM
Quote
I think it's entirely logical. The idea that we've been here three billion years and nothing happened until 75,000 years ago is absolute nonsense. [...] We talk about Atlantis and cities under the water that have long gone, long submerged, but they're in the relatively recent past. I'm talking about one-and-a-half billion years ago - was this planet really empty? I don't think so"
--Ridley Scott, Empire, May 2012
Stage 3.0, Nirvana.
Which Newtonian clockwork orrery are you turning here Ridley?
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape on Ridley's "facts" . I can mark it up to generalizing. He probably should have even been more general.
"The idea that we've been here three billion years" I'm assuming he's talking about the age of the earth. He's off by around 1.5 billion years, but he could have just said billions of years old and left it at that. At least he didn't say 6000 years old :)
nothing happened until 75,000 years ago is absolute nonsense And here I'm assuming he's talking about the emergence of modern humans. He's off by around 125,000 years, but again I'm not going to bust his chops that he didn't google this stuff before speaking in an interview. I get the point he's trying to convey in the context of his movie, and it gives me some interesting theories on where he might be going with this.
Perhaps we (humans) are not the first technological species to evolve on the earth. Maybe the SJ's were the original inhabitants 1.5 billion years ago and left earth for green pastures?
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Apr 03, 2012, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Eva on Apr 03, 2012, 01:19:18 PM
Yes, Evolution is essentially still a theory, but by far the best scientifically supported theory we have at this time.
Pretty much a fact though when you boil it down. Those who say otherwise are either not getting it or ignant.
To quote the "ignorant" Stephen Hawking "The laws of science as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life...it seems clear that there are few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully CHOSEN indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way, except as the act of a GOD who intended to create beings like US." (Hawking, BHT, p127)
But what does HE know?! We have 150 years of Darwinism that doesnt feel the need to prove anything other than it doesnt have to prove itself correct. And we have 5,000 plus years of man believing in Divine Origin that cant really prove their theory either, however arent given the same rules as the Evolution Theory, despite it's obvious flaws as well such as there has never been found 1 fossil to support the "half evolved" dinosaurs or other species. And forget that nature doesnt support Vertical evolution without mutation, only horizontal evotution in the nth degree, unless nature can support genetic engineering.
Ridley's probably been reading Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archeology books
Quote from: Eva on Apr 03, 2012, 01:19:18 PM
Yes, Evolution is essentially still a theory, but by far the best scientifically supported theory we have at this time.
still a theory? well, yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0#)
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 03:26:30 PM
To quote the "ignorant" Stephen Hawking "The laws of science as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life...it seems clear that there are few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully CHOSEN indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way, except as the act of a GOD who intended to create beings like US." (Hawking, BHT, p127)
But what does HE know?! We have 150 years of Darwinism that doesnt feel the need to prove anything other than it doesnt have to prove itself correct. And we have 5,000 plus years of man believing in Divine Origin that cant really prove their theory either, however arent given the same rules as the Evolution Theory, despite it's obvious flaws as well such as there has never been found 1 fossil to support the "half evolved" dinosaurs or other species. And forget that nature doesnt support Vertical evolution without mutation, only horizontal evotution in the nth degree, unless nature can support genetic engineering.
1) I am not quite sure how the Hawking quote has any bearing on this topic. Evolutionary Theory makes no claims, one way or the other, as to the existence of a Divine being, nor the agency of Creation. Nor am I aware of any Scientific Theory that claims to explain these two questions. And please allow me to catch you before you reply with "what about the Big Bang Theory". The Standard Cosmological Model (which includes Big Bang theory) does not have anything to do, whatsoever, with the creation event. The Theory of the Big Bang deals with the early development and evolution of the Universe...not the singular event of "Creation" itself. Science cannot speak upon matters related to Divine influence, as such issues fall outside of the purview of Science.
2) The structure of Evolutionary Theory, and specifically the mechanism of Natural Selection has been continuously tested since it's inception. Things really picked up in the 1930s with the development of Population Genetics, and went into over-drive with the discovery of the mechanism of heredity/inheritance (DNA and the genetic code). Evolution by means of Natural Selection is not only continuously tested, it is supported by overwhelming evidence derived from independent scientific disciplines (Geology, Paleontology, Molecular Biology, Phylogenetic Sytematics, as well as Physics).
3) I do not understand your statement "And we have 5,000 plus years of man believing in Divine Origin that cant really prove their theory either, however arent given the same rules as the Evolution Theory..."
However, if there were some Scientific Theory that could be put forward, it would certainly have to play by the same "rules" as Evolutionary Theory. And like any Scientific Theory, it would remain entirely provisional, subject to either outright disproof, or modification, should any empirical observation and/or experiment contradict the theory. Also, no Scientific Theory can be "proven", in the sense of being established with absolute certainty. However, as previously mentioned, all Scientific Theories can readily be disproven.
4) There are no "obvious flaws" with modern Evolutionary Theory. Scientist, however, may debate certain subtle points within the Theory, without doubting the validity of the overall foundation and structure. This happens with all Scientific Theories. A specific example in Evolutionary Theory, is the rich and healthy debate over what is the agency upon which Natural Selection operates. The general consensus is that Natural Selection
primarly operates on the individual organism and it's phenotype...however, arguments have been made that it also operates at other levels; genes (on one end), as well as on that of groups, populations & species (on the other end).
5) I agree that there isn't "one" (as in singular) fossil in support of transitional species...instead, there is an
enormous abundance of them...despite an incomplete fossil record. To name just a few clades/groups/species that have an incredibly well documented "continuum" within the fossil record, including transitional species are: Humans, horses, cetaceans (whales/dolphins/porpoises), tetrapods, dinosaurs and birds.
6) I do not understand your statement "And forget that nature doesnt support Vertical evolution without mutation, only horizontal evotution in the nth degree, unless nature can support genetic engineering"...so I don't even know where to begin.
Oh if only science fiction films were factual and were called science fact films, and were as dull as ditchwater.
(Prometheus - creationism? Really?)
Are Nigel Kneale's scripts considered creationism?
My point was that Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible
1.I believe Hawking's statement could be interpreted as to mean that the odds of such a specific climate, location of certain elements that support life, and exact ratio of it all coming together by such a random act is highly unlikely and more probable that it the result of Divine Influence.
2. You keep saying that the Evolution theory has been tested an never proven wrong, so consequently it MUST be right. If I came up with a crazy explanation that one couldnt prove nor disprove, would that make me right as well? Divine creation has never been proven wrong either, whether one chooses to believe it or not is different.
3. There is NO fossil showing one species caught in transition into another species, ie dinosaurs to birds. You cannot show me a complete species and a different example and conclude one transformed into the other.
4. I know you are obviously more educated in this area, as my degree is in Art, and Im not going to win this arguement, however, my main point is that one cannot easily dismiss Creation and accept another theory that cant be proven either. It is my belief that Atheists have, and always will, distort science to support their personal agenda. Several avowed atheists have over the years confessed their bias when preparing scientific data, as to prove that Creation is a false belief, and therefore eliminating the existence of a Creator, which at the end of the day is what Darwinism and Evolution is really about. Proving to the world that there is no God, therefore life is void of meaning and all that we do has no consequence. That is why religion and science really collide in this discussion because one cannot argue scientific facts void of personal agendas.
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
...which at the end of the day is what Darwinism and Evolution is really about. Proving to the world that there is no God, therefore life is void of meaning and all that we do has no consequence. That is why religion and science really collide in this discussion because one cannot argue scientific facts void of personal agendas.
Some folks might use evolution to push an agenda, but when I look at evolution as it stands alone there is no part that has anything to do with proving or disproving "God."
To address the OP - I don't see why it's hard to think that an advanced alien race to hugely influence an entire planet's early lifeforms. It's easily plausible for the Space Jockey's to find primitive life, and through gradual, subtitle changes, make them more 'advanced.' They might've made humanities ancestors destine to be what they'd someday be - human. I'm not super-knowledgeable in genetics, but I'm sure someone who studies something of the sort could explain how, even though humanity doesn't need a creator, it could still have one.
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human).
i'd like to know where you got that from. or if you just misunderstood something?
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
1.I believe Hawking's statement could be interpreted as to mean that the odds of such a specific climate, location of certain elements that support life, and exact ratio of it all coming together by such a random act is highly unlikely and more probable that it the result of Divine Influence.
in that quote Hawking wasn't questioning evolution, he was talking about "why" it would have happened in this universe anyway.
the funny thing about the emergence of life in our universe is: it's unlikely, but given the number of available galaxies and therefore star systems, it would be even more unlikely if it DID NOT happen ANYWHERE (for example right here on earth).
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
2. You keep saying that the Evolution theory has been tested an never proven wrong, so consequently it MUST be right. If I came up with a crazy explanation that one couldnt prove nor disprove, would that make me right as well?
if you can come up with a "crazy" BETTER theory, of course it would replace evolution.
but it would need to be supported by facts and use them to construct laws which would be able to make falsifiable predictions.
a scientific theory is tested on how wrong it is, not how true it is. if it is able to persist this examination, it is accepted as the best available theory until a better one is established.
and a theory is never 100% true. there is no absolute truth in science. this is the essence of the scientific method.
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
3. There is NO fossil showing one species caught in transition into another species, ie dinosaurs to birds. You cannot show me a complete species and a different example and conclude one transformed into the other.
every living being is a transitional form. you and me too.
of course now i could ask you if you ever heard about that Archaeopteryx thing, but i assume you already have some awkward explanation on how it is not showing a transition from reptile to bird, although it is a scientific fact that it is exactly that.
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
4. I know you are obviously more educated in this area, as my degree is in Art, and Im not going to win this arguement, however, my main point is that one cannot easily dismiss Creation and accept another theory that cant be proven either. It is my belief that Atheists have, and always will, distort science to support their personal agenda. Several avowed atheists have over the years confessed their bias when preparing scientific data, as to prove that Creation is a false belief, and therefore eliminating the existence of a Creator, which at the end of the day is what Darwinism and Evolution is really about. Proving to the world that there is no God, therefore life is void of meaning and all that we do has no consequence. That is why religion and science really collide in this discussion because one cannot argue scientific facts void of personal agendas.
and there we have it. the conspiracy. i'm going to stop here for now.
this is why i don't want evolution vs. creation in Prometheus:
because a false representation of facts, especially in this subject, is just more fuel for crazy talk. even coming from a great sci-fi movie.
i don't want influencial filmmakers to make a dumb statement.(and all that in my favorite franchise)
Walker31, please understand I am not trying to "win" an argument, nor am I trying to "prove" you wrong. I absolutely respect your feelings and beliefs. I imagine, in the larger picture, we may hold similar views. I am just responding to a few specific points, on matters of science, that I feel warrant clarification:
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
My point was that Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible
This is a position that has long been promoted by advocates of "Intelligent Design", despite continuous explanation, clarification and rebuttal by Evolutionary scientists. It is the classic Microevolution versus Macroevolution debate. Here, what is really being questioned is the efficacy and scope of Natural Selection. There simply is no question that the nature of variation, when subject to the influence of Natural Selection, can act as a positive mechanism of evolutionary novelty (efficacy). Furthermore, this mechanism, when extended through the immensity of geological time, can produce the full panolpy of taxonomic diversity (scope).
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
2. You keep saying that the Evolution theory has been tested an never proven wrong, so consequently it MUST be right. If I came up with a crazy explanation that one couldnt prove nor disprove, would that make me right as well? Divine creation has never been proven wrong either, whether one chooses to believe it or not is different.
I believe I have been very careful in what I have stated. In no case have I said that Evolutionary Theory "MUST be right". I have made considerable effort to explain that, at any given moment, the entire structure of Evolutionary Theory could conceviably come crashing down. As I stated before...like all Scientific Theories, Evolutionary Theory is entirely provisional, and can be potentially be falsified and disproven based upon a single inconsistent or contradictory empirical observation, experiment, or test, which cannot be reconciled within the Theory. The fact is that there exists overwhelming evidence (facts), which come from many different, independent fields of research, in support of Evolutionary Theory. Therefore, we scientists believe that Evolutionary Theory is an accurate system with which to explain the development and diversity of Life through time.
Quote from: walker31 on Apr 03, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
3. There is NO fossil showing one species caught in transition into another species, ie dinosaurs to birds. You cannot show me a complete species and a different example and conclude one transformed into the other.
I think you may be getting tripped up on definition. Once a transitional fossil is identified, it is (by definition) a new species. While I absolutely hate the ridiculous term "missing link"...when such a transitional species is discovered, it is no longer "missing" (again, by definition). If you can only be convinced of something if you have witnessed it with your own eyes, then it will be difficult to explain a process that generally operates well beyond our tempo-spatial resolution (human lifespan). Be that as it may, there are documented cases of speciation events that have been directly and indirectly observed.
Furthermore, Evolutionary Theory is by no means based exclusively on the fossil record. The fossil record happens to be just one reservoir upon which the Theory can perform observations and make testable predictions.
"Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of Evolution" -- Theodosius DobzhanskyIncidentally, Dobzhansky, the "father" of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, was an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
Thanks for the well written post deuterium.
Intelligent design and creationism do not "play by the same rules" as evolution because they are not scientific theories. Science helps expand our understanding of the universe based on observations, tests, facts, etc. It's reasonable to believe that science will be different decades from now as we make more advancements.
Also, this entire thread shouldn't even exist. I made the Griping thread specifically for venting like the OP (however much I disagree with it and think it's a stupid rant).
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 03, 2012, 08:21:03 PM
Also, this entire thread shouldn't even exist. I made the Griping thread specifically for venting like the OP (however much I disagree with it and think it's a stupid rant).
It's grown so large it would be a mess to merge the topics. The posts would be scattered, etc. It's fine as it is. I enjoy both threads :) Smaller or emergent 'gripe' threads will be merged before they go all hydra.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 03, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
It's grown so large it would be a mess to merge the topics. The posts would be scattered, etc. It's fine as it is. I enjoy both threads :) Smaller or emergent 'gripe' threads will be merged before they go all hydra.
Someone's a masochist. ;D
Wow...............im soooooo looking forward to this movie , gutted that no original sjs will be in the movie but at the same time im glad because it leaves room for more scifi epic goodness :)
Peace out motherlovers :)
While we are on this subject. Check out what Bill Nye says in this clip that always seem to blow my mind everytime I hear it. He says stuff about sex and um... parasites. Yep, sex and parasites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC6iBa3ySbE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC6iBa3ySbE#)
QuoteProving to the world that there is no God, therefore life is void of meaning and all that we do has no consequence.
When is anything ever so black and white?
Quote from: 180924609 on Mar 31, 2012, 09:37:29 PM
Imagine the greatest science fiction story of all time - 2001.
And then imagine the greatest science fiction story of claustrophobic horror of all time - ALIEN.
Then imagine Ridley Scott tries to trump ALIEN above 2001 - congratulations, you just imagined:
PROMETHEUS.
But only a complete fool would attempt to portray the ancient history of human beings as the pre-determined work of a fairy-like 9-foot-tall race of slap-head giants.
Has Ridley Scott / Jon Spaihts / Damon Lindelof not being paying attention to the last 100+ years of science? Apparently not if 'fission' is part of 21st century achievement [according to Peter Wayland].
Life on Earth absolutely does NOT require any creator. Human beings absolutely DID NOT just spontaneously emerge one day, where nothing existed before.
How utterly naive to class the species of 'humans' as the number one, priority species of Earth. That is total creationist mentalism!
No matter how great this movie becomes in terms of mysterious plot, visual effects, small Space Jockeys, proto xenos etc, it will always fail to grasp my imagination because it totally fails on a very fundamental level - very bad science.
This movie will always be a 2001 and ALIEN wannabe.
FAIL.
The Space Jockey - ruined.
ALIEN - ruined.
Ridley Scott - ruined, you are retired.
Suspend your disbelief dude.
Race of 9 foot tall slaphead giants ? Your an idiot if you think the bald guy in the trailer is one of our creators :)
It's all cyclical.
Bald man created mankind.
Bald woman saved it.
where do the dinosaurs come into play in this equation?
...mercy, i just posted in THIS thread.
Quotewhere do the dinosaurs come into play in this equation?
Crew of the Nostromo.
Ash is the serpent.
Ripley is the mammal who survived the almighty explosion.
The 'hidden history' stuff is more Vedic creationism that Christian creationism. I just worry that Scott thinks that the former is any less ridiculous than the latter. I bought the Alien story wholesale, and I need to buy the Prometheus story in the same way.
I can buy into a fantastic future, but I cannot buy into a fantastic past. All fiction must be historically accurate, no matter how made up the story is. If it makes up the past it becomes fantasy, and to me that is not where the Alien series belongs.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 04, 2012, 01:13:19 PM
The 'hidden history' stuff is more Vedic creationism that Christian creationism. I just worry that Scott thinks that the former is any less ridiculous than the latter. I bought the Alien story wholesale, and I need to buy the Prometheus story in the same way.
I can buy into a fantastic future, but I cannot buy into a fantastic past. All fiction must be historically accurate, no matter how made up the story is. If it makes up the past it becomes fantasy, and to me that is not where the Alien series belongs.
Excellent points, Chris. And the Vedic mythos seems to dove-tail nicely with the New Age mysticism that appears especially popular within the Arts & Entertainment community.
I would hasten to add, that I am not commenting on either belief system...one way or the other. I am, however, uncomfortable if such ideas enter into a science-fiction film, and specifically when they contradict the scientifically established origin of our species, and/or developmental evolution of terrestrial Life, in general. As you stated, this then becomes an "Alternative History", and the film automatically veers into quasi Science-Fantasy territory. I recognize many people would be perfectly fine with that. I also recognize that the pure "horror" genre often involves supernatural and fantastical elements (e.g. Vampires, Werewolves, Poltergeists, etc.).
Of course, there is nothing wrong with science-fantasy, or alternative history, as exciting and interesting genres. In fact, I enjoy both. However, the ALIEN saga steered clear of such trappings, and kept all it's horror elements firmly grounded (more or less) within a scientifically self-consistent natural universe. I guess I was "hoping" that PROMETHEUS maintained this direction.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 04, 2012, 04:25:57 PM
Of course, there is nothing wrong with science-fantasy, or alternative history, as exciting and interesting genres. In fact, I enjoy both. However, the ALIEN saga steered clear of such trappings, and kept all it's horror elements firmly grounded (more or less) within a scientifically self-consistent natural universe. I guess I was "hoping" that PROMETHEUS maintained this direction.
... the Alien films had some ridiculous deviations from science, and maybe even from scientific possibilities. I don't know why the idea of alien visitation prior to our current civilisation has everyone so out of whack. I think most are equating Prometheus' take with shows and wackos like Ancient Aliens. I know Scott cited Von Daniken but crikey, so did Dan O'Bannon. I don't think this movie is for the tin-foil hatters.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 04, 2012, 06:31:49 PM
... the Alien films had some ridiculous deviations from science, and maybe even from scientific possibilities. I don't know why the idea of alien visitation prior to our current civilisation has everyone so out of whack. I think most are equating Prometheus' take with shows and wackos like Ancient Aliens. I know Scott cited Von Daniken but crikey, so did Dan O'Bannon. I don't think this movie is for the tin-foil hatters.
Most of those far flung bits were about the things we don't know. What's being discussed here is what we do know. We do have a pretty damned good idea where the human race came from, and more or less when it came to be.
The Alien is a "don't know." We can only speculate upon it, because it's something completely out of our experience. It's depicted in a way that most of the time seems entirely plausible.
The Nostromo, though a bit retro-futuristic, was a pretty solid speculation on what a battered space tug might be like if the technology existed to do it. Same for hyper sleep and things like that.
The derelict/Jockey, too are both outside of our experience.
Our own history, though, is entirely something that anyone who isn't lazy can go and read about and discover the scientific answers to these questions. It really does come down to laziness I think.
I think that's really what the other posters are driving at. We do know certain things, and the films of the science fiction should do their best to represent those elements. When we're talking speculative ideas, and things like that, then fine, go all out... But this is supposed to be a serious science fiction film. They're comparing themselves to 2001 for God's sake. The first "real" piece of science fiction story telling in decades is what they're pushing this as in that recent article. So, they need to have their A-game on in that regard.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 03, 2012, 08:42:14 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 03, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
It's grown so large it would be a mess to merge the topics. The posts would be scattered, etc. It's fine as it is. I enjoy both threads :) Smaller or emergent 'gripe' threads will be merged before they go all hydra.
Someone's a masochist. ;D
i dont know how some people can get away with sexual jokes or bad words and some dont in this forum
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 12:39:26 AM
i dont know how some people can get away with sexual jokes or bad words and some dont in this forum
::)
Masochist isn't strictly sexual.
Sadomasochist is. Learn your terminology before you talk rubbish.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 05, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 12:39:26 AM
i dont know how some people can get away with sexual jokes or bad words and some dont in this forum
::)
Masochist isn't strictly sexual. Sadomasochist is. Learn your terminology before you talk rubbish.
well that would take the fun out of the internet wouldn't it?
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Apr 05, 2012, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 05, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 12:39:26 AM
i dont know how some people can get away with sexual jokes or bad words and some dont in this forum
::)
Masochist isn't strictly sexual. Sadomasochist is. Learn your terminology before you talk rubbish.
well that would take the fun out of the internet wouldn't it?
yes thats the internet way... people share opinions.. but spell gay and some start yelling like elizabet shaw character ;D and also get ur reply erased???!! wtf?? :)
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 04:59:04 AM
but spell gay and some start yelling like elizabet shaw character ;D and also get ur reply erased???!! wtf?? :)
It's not saying "gay"--it's using "gay" as a slur. I don't know why that concept should be difficult to grasp. ::)
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 05, 2012, 05:02:16 AM
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 04:59:04 AM
but spell gay and some start yelling like elizabet shaw character ;D and also get ur reply erased???!! wtf?? :)
It's not saying "gay"--it's using "gay" as a slur. I don't know why that concept should be difficult to grasp. ::)
nobody used it as that. not for me. a gay chair is a kind of description for an aesthetic form. have lot of gay friends who would describe it just like that. face it. is a damn gay chair.. nothing specific for a person, at least not like the words you use (stupid/rubbish) for a rant/reply.
this is the first rule of this forum
- Be Nice & Respecful. Be nice to other members. While a forum is for debating issues, just plain insulting people will not be tolerated.
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 05:14:45 AM
this is the first rule of this forum
- Be Nice & Respecful. Be nice to other members. While a forum is for debating issues, just plain insulting people will not be tolerated.
Using the name of a specific group of people to derogatorily describe something is not "nice" or "respectful." Good lord, are you ignorant. Reported, moving on. ::)
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 05:14:45 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 05, 2012, 05:02:16 AM
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 04:59:04 AM
but spell gay and some start yelling like elizabet shaw character ;D and also get ur reply erased???!! wtf?? :)
It's not saying "gay"--it's using "gay" as a slur. I don't know why that concept should be difficult to grasp. ::)
nobody used it as that. not for me. a gay chair is a kind of description for an aesthetic form. have lot of gay friends who would describe it just like that. face it. is a damn gay chair.. nothing specific for a person, at least not like the words you use (stupid/rubbish) for a rant/reply.
this is the first rule of this forum
- Be Nice & Respecful. Be nice to other members. While a forum is for debating issues, just plain insulting people will not be tolerated.
I think 'camp' would be a less offensive adjective in this instance for our more politically correct members.
thanks SM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 05, 2012, 05:21:01 AM
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 05:14:45 AM
this is the first rule of this forum
- Be Nice & Respecful. Be nice to other members. While a forum is for debating issues, just plain insulting people will not be tolerated.
Using the name of a specific group of people to derogatorily describe something is not "nice" or "respectful." Good lord, are you ignorant. Reported, moving on. ::)
again, if you feel being derogatory rather than other feeling (like proud)is your problem. Alien is one of the subtle homosexual rapering movies of all time....
anyway gay a group of people?? and what are masochists?? whos the ignorant and insulting here? you act rude with who you think is derogating you.
just calm down ur vibes we are cool and nobodody is bringin stupid like words other than you.
The masochists of the world certainly don't feel offended. Back to the topic at hand.
Re: Evolution
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn549%2Fsmarty9000%2Fprometheus3%2FReEvolution.jpg&hash=0f3e02d0e4b00316913f60c14f95d3b9a45f7bc9)
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 05, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
Re: Evolution
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn549%2Fsmarty9000%2Fprometheus3%2FReEvolution.jpg&hash=0f3e02d0e4b00316913f60c14f95d3b9a45f7bc9)
;D
Just noticed this. Fantastic!
why did yoü photoshop 2 jockeys together? to prove similarity?
i don't get it D:
Quote from: 180924609 on Apr 05, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
Re: Evolution
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn549%2Fsmarty9000%2Fprometheus3%2FReEvolution.jpg&hash=0f3e02d0e4b00316913f60c14f95d3b9a45f7bc9)
Top notch. :)
I almost thought it was a new screenshot.
Proterozoic Park?
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 05, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 05, 2012, 12:39:26 AM
i dont know how some people can get away with sexual jokes or bad words and some dont in this forum
::)
Masochist isn't strictly sexual. Sadomasochist is. Learn your terminology before you talk rubbish.
Technically sadomasochist isn't strictly sexual, although it does refer to a person finding enjoyment or pleasure on some level in hurting themselves and others. Doesn't have to be overtly sexual though, beyond the freudian sense.
Proterozoic Park.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn549%2Fsmarty9000%2Fprometheus4%2FProterozoicPark.jpg&hash=c1000ebf6c32eca73853668f82e812901a685020)
TWO WORDS MY DUDE......SPACE TAPIR
I'm not actually blaming Lindelof for this, he's quite clearly the money man, thick skinned millionairre fall guy with nothing to lose.
I blame SPAIHTS.
The ancient asstronaut sh1t was clearly the key to all of this mess. I bet thats what caught Ridley's ear at the initial pitch and got him excited, in a big-time psuedo-science way. "eee, 2001 on steroids, f**kin great!"
What I find most insulting is that the story they have Sellotaped/ScotchTaped onto the side of ALIEN is completely devoid of any logic or sense or science. Throws away all the cool Giger stuff that made ALIEN so iconic in the first place, and just has a totally shit story. And shit forgetable monsters.
Still, Spaihts can at least console himself that if his movie career fails he can at least spend the rest if his career photographing his top international bird instead.