Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I am waiting for Disney to buy the rights to evolution. Should be interesting what they do with it.

Exactly where the concept belongs. . .

One joke deserves another.

You're lookin' good, Edgar.
I don't dare post my ugly maw.

That pic flatters me, which is why I like it.

neo, Even a child like you will be able to understand evolution after Disney makes their presentation. They know how to reach children.

Do we have yet another evolution denier in our midsts? I was not certain about what stance youve taken in the debate neo. So now Im at least , we can see from where many of your arguments stem, eh?

SPENDI-I did play a card on the fooball pools this week and yes I got less than a cash return I expected but I did collect 25 bucks for picking the spreads.

As I said before, you overthink some things and underthink others. The DAllas and Giant situation is one that adds another dimension to the picks because they have more of an incentive backed by fairly good teams (when not injured). Tennessee has been a good spreead bet all season and the spread last week made the San Diego pick a gimmee. So, Since betting pools are illegal in most states ande would be similarly illegal on line unless "virtual bucks" were used exclusively. I dont like virtual bucks or pool games with no stakes.

We all know that the Chargers were a "gimmee" now.

What is required fm is that you put your picks up BEFORE the games.

Who came up with the connection to evolution, the challenges to teach it, and football scores? It seems the critic of those who are perhaps just a hair's breadth off topic is determined to keep this thread alive with the trials-and-tribulations of the gambler, while stingily only crediting the performance of Dr. Atomic as only having sets from the Met.

As far as Disney, here's a review of the critically acclaimed documentary "Earth," from "answersingenesis.com" :



It’s rare that a movie produced by Discovery and BBC Films about the natural world doesn’t contain any mention of molecules-to-man evolution or millions of years of history. In fact, it’s almost as if the production companies are joined at the hip with the false view of history, taking every opportunity to promote the idea that the earth is not a product of God’s handiwork.

And yet, with the movie Earth (a trimmed-down version of the documentary series Planet Earth), they demonstrate it can be done. As far as I could tell, there was no mention of “evolution” or “millions of years of history.” And, amazingly enough, the narration starts off with the revelation that the Earth is “just the right distance from the sun” and its “crucial tilt” results in the “rhythm of the seasons” experienced around our globe.

Earth isn’t without an agenda, however. As we watch a family of polar bears frolic playfully on the ice, the narrator (James Earl Jones) intones with the all-too-familiar slogan, “the planet is warming, and the ice is melting earlier than ever.” Later he follows up with, “the rain forests are starting to dry up” and the “deserts are getting bigger every year.” The “save the polar bears” message is clear. While we do have a biblical mandate to take care of all creatures, which includes caring for polar bears and their habitat, alarmism in regards to global warming is tenuous at best and unscientific at least.

As reviewers have pointed out, the photography is stunning, the script is a bit weak, and the score has moments of brilliance. Although it is rated G, some of the predator/prey scenes in Earth can be quite disturbing for younger (and even older) viewers. The death of animals by starvation, exposure, or the mouth of another is portrayed as a natural, and even beautiful, part of the cycle of life. With skillful editing and narration, the movie plays up the tendency for predators to attack the weak and the small. This can be painful to watch"as it should be, since we know that the world is now cursed because of our sin, and, consequently, death (and all its corollaries, suffering, pain, disease) is an intrusion into the original, “very good” world God created. And where do such scenes lead us when thinking about a god who would use and approve of such cruel processes? Thankfully, this is certainly not the caring God we read about in the Bible (Genesis 1:29"30; Luke 12:6). These scenes serve as a sad, poignant reminder of how sin"our sin, yours and mine"has affected the paradise that once was (Genesis 1-3; Romans 8).

As always, use your own discernment and judgment when deciding whether to take your family to see this or any movie.

I did. because spendi presented the perfect lesson in opportunistic adaptation. ie, Seasonal pressures imposed a response to teams whose records up to that point were lackluster. Evolution 's like that, it can sit and wait with the first offensive line until their strengths are called into action in a specific environment.

Why'd ya ask?

I did by bucking the spread.

I gave this to my Sister and her husband for Christmas as she thinks she is Catholic and purposefully because it is Disney and doesn't approach evolution:

'Earth'
MOVIE REVIEW
Disney answers the call of the wild.
April 22, 2009|KENNETH TURAN, FILM CRITIC

It would be Pollyannaish to pretend that the documentary "Earth" is without its problems, but the bottom line is, difficulties be damned, it shouldn't be missed. What it does well is so remarkable that by the time the credits roll you likely won't want it to end.

The Walt Disney Co. is hoping people feel that way because it has got a lot invested in this documentary from a corporate point of view, so much so that it has promised to plant a tree in honor of every moviegoer who goes to see it. Hoping to recapture the audience it had in the 1950s with its "True-Life Adventures" films, Disney is using this doc to launch an entire new label, Disneynature, devoted to the call of the wild.

If the notion of eye-popping, state-of-the-art nature photography sounds familiar, that's because this film is the direct descendant of "Planet Earth," the astonishing 11-hour BBC series that went to more than 200 locations in 64 countries, played widely on the Discovery Channel and sold millions of DVDs.

In fact, though the framework and focus of the theatrical feature are different from the TV series, an estimated 60% of "Earth" footage has already been seen at home. Although this is not ideal, the reality is that so much of that footage is so compelling that it's a pleasure to see it again on a theatrical-size screen.

Yes, fans of the series will remember the great white shark leaping completely out of the water with a seal in its mouth, as well as aerial shots of caribou without number on their annual migration. There are vistas magnificent enough to give you vertigo, glimpses of a world that human beings rarely see, and experiencing them for a second time is hardly a hardship.

In keeping with the Disney approach, the nature photography this time around, co-directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield and shot by some 60 cameramen, is focused on the trials of three animal families.

Up in the Arctic, a mother polar bear and her two cubs make an appearance and look for food in the barren snows. In Africa's considerably warmer Kalahari Desert, elephants fight off drought as they head for the promised lushness of the Okavango Delta. And, under the sea, a humpback whale and her calf navigate the 4,000-mile migration that is the longest of any for a marine mammal.

Though these three family groupings get star billing, "Earth" has room for other animals as well, including several kinds of birds, baboons for comic relief and all those caribou.

My wife got me the Blu Ray version of the Earth Series that was narrated by Siguerney Weaver and seen on uuuuuuuuh, <Im gonna say DSCOVERY, this past year. I watched one episode on the Tipuis of Venezuela. GAWD, it was great photography in High Def. (NOW I WANT EVEN HIGHER DEF)

I knew you were the culprit but PS XXX has yet to know he ate the bait with relish.

I was unable to find a football guru in the huge journalistic media predictions for the Titans/Chargers game who thought the Chargers were going to win. Therefore, those who claim someone is tooting their horn because of some total upset forgets the classic line of the football guru who announces before the weekend of big games, "No upsets are expected."

As far as an analogy to evolution, it's fun to toy with and there are many other analogies, or metaphors, which can be playful -- it might even cause a tangent by a Brit with a passing interest in U.S. football and starts skipping off the track like a runaway train.

My wife watches tv about ten hours a day, so I got her the Samsung LED 40" for our family room. It's got 3,000,000 to 1 contrast ratio, and the picture is the best one can get off a tv. I've noticed that the camera they use to take the picture makes a big difference on clarity, and found that some shows use different cameras during their take with different clarity. I highly recommend the Samsung LED tv.

You obviously don't understand how rjb's game should be played in order to come out on top. That's because you don't really understand evolution as fm politely pointed out.

The predictions in the Titans/Chargers game in rjb's standings was almost 2 to 1 for the Chargers. I was in the minority.

It is a possibility that home field on Christmas Day is a disadvantage because the home players are nearer to the temptations of family celebrations at such times. I ignored that factor but it looked to me like the Titans were not at the peak of fitness.

Pro sport is a nice analogy for evolution.

One team in isolation might have a little bit of resemblance to evolution, but you're talking nonsense when you include other teams in the mx.

You never did understand science; observed phenomena can be repeated, but football teams cannot retain their win/loss stats forever.

The highest pixel technology is 1080p which also progressively scans the image across the screen, unlike 1080i which is an interlacing. I've stated elsewhere that it's difficult to tell the difference until you get into 42" and larger and closer-than-normal viewing distance (which there is more than one "formula" to consider). "Planet Earth," which is, I will give full credit, the original TV series on Discovery from the BBC (damn, so are most quality documentaries) and comprises most of Disney's "Earth," was shot in digital video (not film) in full 1080p and they started production not that long after the digital cameras were even available (at least, for less than the price sufficient to buy the Hope Diamond).

The highest pixel technology is 1080p which also progressively scans the image across the screen, unlike 1080i which is an interlacing. I've stated elsewhere that it's difficult to tell the difference until you get into 42" and larger and closer-than-normal viewing distance (which there is more than one "formula" to consider). "Planet Earth," which is, I will give full credit, the original TV series on Discovery from the BBC (damn, so are most quality documentaries) and comprises most of Disney's "Earth," was shot in digital video (not film) in full 1080p and they started production not that long after the digital cameras were even available (at least, for less than the price sufficient to buy the Hope Diamond).

So if you have a hi-def TV from more than four years ago, it might have been 1080i. If you want to sit about four feet from the picture and have 20/20 vision, it might be worth replacing your set. At least, I think I remember you had a newer TV.

Yeah, is the NFL or the AFL closer to evolution?

As far as college football, I think Pete Carroll probably thinks he is suffering a de-evolution -- well, until the Emerald Bowl. Except for the suspicions running all over the Internet that the officials in San Francisco were calling in favor of USC, one particular out-of-bounds catch. If evolution were anything like football, we'd all look like one of the aliens in "Avatar."

A football game is planned and then bad things can happen -- sounds more like religion than science.