The Mysterious Origins of Man

[Kilik]

This award-winning documentary hosted by Charleton Heston first aired on primetime NBC in 1996. Almost 30 million viewers tuned in the first time it was broadcast despite strong competition from other networks on the same night
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4848668803639628771&q=mysterious+origins+of+man

Article about it
http://www.alternativescience.com/mysterio...gins-of-man.htm (http://www.alternativescience.com/mysterious-origins-of-man.htm)
Article on the flaws of Darwinism
http://www.alternativescience.com/faq_or_fiction.htm

[Dragar]

It is unlikely that any film such as Mysterious Origins of Man would ever be shown in Britain, where Darwinism is such a strictly observed taboo subject that no science programme has ever been shown or is ever likely to be shown questioning any aspect of the Darwinian theory.

He's right; we don't have programs about Creationism. We do have shows about creationists from time to time, and all have a good giggle at the crazy people.

[Leesifer]

Yep! Darwin is even on our £10 notes. You just can't get away from him over here.

[Ari]

I can't wait to see what is next,
"I predict Kilik will eventually make a post about the moon landing being a hoax"
If I am right, it proves I have psychic powers, if I am wrong, please ignore it like I never said it. :)

It does bring an interesting question, "The American people are incapable of evaluating scientific arguments and evidence for themselves." is that true?
I would say often it is, based on the money many fraud "cure all" salesmen are taking in as well as the distrust of real medicine. Many in the american public evaluate evidence through purely emotional, and selfish channels based on a poor grasp of science, the world, and the evidence. I think Kilik and Yguy are two great examples of that.

[Kilik]

I can't wait to see what is next,
"I predict Kilik will eventually make a post about the moon landing being a hoax"
If I am right, it proves I have psychic powers, if I am wrong, please ignore it like I never said it. :)

It does bring an interesting question, "The American people are incapable of evaluating scientific arguments and evidence for themselves." is that true?
I would say often it is, based on the money many fraud "cure all" salesmen are taking in as well as the distrust of real medicine. Many in the american public evaluate evidence through purely emotional, and selfish channels based on a poor grasp of science, the world, and the evidence. I think Kilik and Yguy are two great examples of that.

You can make a claim about me, but can't seem to explain how it is so, or explain what you're talking about.

Bottom line is that evolution is baseless and an outdated theory that needs to be, and will be, gradually dropped

[D. Scarlatti]

Bottom line is that evolution is baseless and an outdated theory that needs to be, and will be, gradually dropped

In favor of what?

[Ari]

You are right, evolution is a completely baseless theory (sweeps evidence under rug).
All them holes in such a theory, like the second law of thermodynamics which proves evolution is false. :D

So, I'm curious, how many books and papers on biological evolution have you read that were written by mainstream scientists?

[Kilik]

So, I'm curious, how many books and papers on biological evolution have you read that were written by mainstream scientists?

I dunno, maye 1 or 2. However, that isn't a legitimte source becasue it would be very biased and would be trying to promote the false "theory" of evolution, anyway it can. You need an unbiased source.

[D. Scarlatti]

You need an unbiased source.

:ironymeter:

[Ari]

So, I'm curious, how many books and papers on biological evolution have you read that were written by mainstream scientists?

I dunno, maye 1 or 2. However, that isn't a legitimte source becasue it would be very biased and would be trying to promote the false "theory" of evolution, anyway it can. You need an unbiased source.

1 or 2 what? Books? Papers? Can you name them?

Of course a paper supporting evolution would try to support evolution, quality logic there.

Why is theory is quotes? (edit: oh yeah I forgot you view theory differently than most scientists)
Explain an unbiased source please.

[yguy]

It does bring an interesting question, "The American people are incapable of evaluating scientific arguments and evidence for themselves." is that true?

Please. Most scientists, American or otherwise, are not capable of evaluating arguments for broad-based theories like evolution or string theory. There's too much minutiae involved for one person to have command of all of it, so most scientists necessarily end up relying on the judgment of others.

[Ari]

And it would be my assertion that since the american public lacks a grasp of the basics and makes decisions based on emotion, that they have trouble determining who they should believe and thus end up getting taken by frauds.

Some of it seems to be the view of a class difference between the "smart" scientists and the "dumb" average guy, and people seem to be so proud to stick it to the man, as it were, they fall right into traps set by frauds (there is a very big reason frauds often start with "x things they don't want you to know.")

[livius drusus]

The discussion on banknotes has been split to here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10166).

[lpetrich]

talkorigins.org, an excellet evolution/creation resource, has a nice short article on NBC's "The Mysterious Origins of Man" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html)

It essentially advocates that humanity has had a long history in a very old Universe; the film cited the Paluxy tracks as evidence of human-dinosaur coexistence.

This is a traditional Hindu view; this movie was produced by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), a.k.a. the Hare Krishnas.