PT Midichlorians-why is this so badly bashed?

Interesting comment. Esp in light of that the word "want" is never used in the sentence you quoted.

Want and Need are not the same thing.

To me, ANH didn't need a detailed explanation of how the DS power generation works. ESB didn't need a number of exactly how cold it is on Hoth.
RotJ did "need" to answer the question "Is Vader really Luke's father." Which it did. If it hadn't, then I think it is pretty safe to say that people would have commented on that and probably in a negative way.
Also to me, RotS did need to straighten out the question marks about Sifo-Dyas, which it did not do.
That, I think, is a flaw in the film. A subplot is just dropped without resolution. It seems that Lucas did intend to have more about Sifo-Dyas but put it in some book instead. That is his choice. But to me, a film should be able to stand on it's own and not put plot relevant details in some book.

In the Watchmen film, there is a rather gory scene where a guys arms are sawed off and there is a lot of blood. I didn't need that scene and I didn't think it added anything meaningful to the movie.
To me, it was gore for the sake of gore.

Entitled? Where did that come from?
I simply said that I didn't need an detailed "scientific" explanation of how Force sensitivity works.
I didn't need the gory scene in Watchmen. I didn't need the extensive scenes of torture of one person in the Game of Thrones series.
It has nothing to do with want or any kind of entitlement. I simply found those scenes unnecessary and in the case of Watchmen and Game of Thrones, I found those scenes unpleasant and hard to sit through.
I am simply giving my reaction to those scenes. I short I am expressing my opinion.

If a scene is redundant, that it is repeating something the audience already knows, then some could find it unnecessary. If a scene explains something that some think didn't need explanation, they can also find the scene unnecessary. If they find the explanation to be flawed as well then they might find the concept bad.

Lucas as the storyteller can tell his story anyway he wishes. He could film his shoes for two hours and call that Star Wars. That is his right. Just as I can speak my opinion that I found that rather boring.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

I'm aware of the difference. The point still stands.

Sifo-Dyas was covered in the film. A detailed explanation wasn't needed for something blatently obvious.

It is necessary if there's a story to tell. That's what you and others overlook.

 

A bit off-topic:

The scene in the novel was gory as well. That was the purpose, to show that Big Figure had no problem in killing his allies (in a nasty way) to reach his goal.

 

Oh, you're one of those.

Evolution *is* a fact -- in the same way that gravity is a fact.

The word "theory" in science has a different, and more sophisticated, meaning than its use in popular culture and everyday life.

It refers to predictive, testable models of nature, with real explanatory power. Unlike its much looser definition outside of science, where the word "theory" is synonymous with guess-work or conjecture.

And the theory of evolution -- the conceptual model for why life has the form it does and how speciation occurs -- is backed by mountains of evidence, covering a range of scientific disciplines.

Your faith in scripture is just that: faith. Science works along different principles.

 

Some may choose to believe that but it doesn't make it so.

 

Midichlorians weren't just thrown in there to explain how the Force worked...in TPM, it had a dual purpose of supporting the theme of lifeforms depending on one another and also to explain how Anakin was so powerful...and later in ROTS to tempt Anakin to the Dark Side...

 

I never really had a problem with the concept...I think people mistook it as the midichlorians ARE The Force...which they are not...they are just the vehicle for someone being sensitive to The Force...

 

LOL.

I still wish I could read your take, though.

The Bible's claims aren't even testable to begin with.

That's why I find it grating -- even galling -- when people cite it as something that evolution, or any scientific theory, might be in danger of "contradicting".

Here, in 2014, in the age of computers and genetic engineering, we still have vast swathes of people who preference ancient literature over scientific fact, based only on their parochial fantasies (normally as a result of childhood inculcation) for what they'd rather be true and/or have been programmed into believing.

The resistance to science and reason in this world is, frankly, shocking; if not particularly surprising. I profoundly agree with George Lucas, in one of his best statements (in my opinion), that we need to become more knowledge-based, and less emotional-based, in our thinking and our doing.

 

not to get into a theological debate with you Cryogenic, considering "I'm one of those" (which I might want have a chat with a moderator about) since your tone was one of disdain, it is still a theory, and could (if the thread was about the issue) point to credible sources that have a rather different view, and shockingly not from schools of faith BUT from scientists about the formation of the earth and it' inhabitants.

Don't be ridiculous "theories of electricity and gravity" are not in dispute, just the nature of how they work could be challenged in a future age

science is forever changing it's stance on things hence "theory"


and anyway, can we "being in the year 2014" accept people believe different things without being jeered or mocked for it?

 

"LOL" believe what you like

I'm done with this conversation

 

Very good.

Along the same lines, I find it interesting that the terms "evolutionist" and "Darwinian" are widespread as negative put-downs, but you never see equivalent labels like "gravitationist" or "Maxwellian" -- per your listed phenomena -- doing the rounds.

A further fallacy here concerns the fact that the profound interconnectedness of life on Earth was noticed and scrupulously catalogued a century before Darwin, by Carl Linnaeus. Religiously-motivated pundits have a massive problem even if they disavow Darwin (and Alfred Russel Wallace) and the entire theory of evolution, as well as the litany of evidence that has since been collected in support of the theory. Can they offer a better explanation for why all known lifeforms, including the entire animal kingdom, fit into a hierarchical family tree structure?

That's right. Threaten to turn me into an authority and censor me the moment trouble appears to be brewing -- how very religious of you.

You offered a personal line of argumentation for your token admonition ("as someone..."), and I responded to your discourse in kind.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The theory of evolution concerns the means by which life on Earth propagates itself -- not how life began or how the Earth was formed.

Non-evolutionary theories have almost no support whatsoever in any scientific field. Very few scientists are impressed by the claims of bamboozled faith-heads.

Science updates and corrects itself as new evidence comes in and is properly weighed.

Scientific theories are reconciled with the weave of nature by careful amendment where and when appropriate; they aren't just tossed aside when a gap or an error is either discovered or filled in.

Evolution is supported by mountains and mountains of evidence. It will never be overthrown. This misunderstanding is similar to saying that because the value of pi is not exactly 3.141, the number I've just given is way-off. It isn't.

Scientific theories are inductive; they are ever-finer approximations of the world with gradually-shrinking error bars.

Beliefs should scale with evidence.

And I haven't been mocking or jeering at anyone.

 

Who made you all high and mighty, Cryo? Why do you have such a hard time letting others believe what they wish without forcing so-called "facts" into their face?

And before you get on my back, I'm not slamming your beliefs in evolution or anything else. Everyone is entitled their personal opinions and beliefs. But I do think you should at least have the decency to not insult and belittle others for what they believe.

 

I didn't say should. I said they're entitled to believe what they wish no matter how ridiculous it may seem to someone else. I may not believe Star Wars is real but I'm also not going to ridicule those who do and throw things in their face that I think contradicts their beliefs. People can have calm discussions about differences in belief without blatantly telling the other that they're wrong, which is what's going on here.

 

Ad hominem and a red herring.

You should actually be putting your second question to the religious people of this world, including millions of American citizens, who believe that evolution is a heresy and should not be taught to their children; some of whom are very politically-active in bringing about the realization of this desire.

Show me the evidence that I've been insulting and belittling people just now.

I presume you have some, since you've appeared out of nowhere and are acting like you understand my motives.

 

Show me the evidence that I've been insulting and belittling people just now.

I presume you have some, since you've appeared out of nowhere and are acting like you understand my motives.

_______________________________

The whole tone you've taken about religion and the Bible. You've insinuated that the Bible isn't credible and the particular tone of "Oh you're one of those people" was particularly insulting, perhaps unintentionally, but that's the way it came across. For those who are religious, the Bible is fact to them. It may not be to you, but again, that's the difference in opinion.

And while I'm at it, I apologize myself for being so hostile. You have my sincere apologies for what it's worth.

 

Shira, I have spoken to the mods on this issue,

don't let yourself be wound up.

 

I've insinuated that the Bible isn't credible? Well, it isn't.

Not as a scientific text. If you want to learn about the mechanism behind the diversity of life, you don't read The Bible. You read "On The Origin Of Species".

And then you visit a natural history museum, and you can also visit a zoo, go on a nature hike, read the latest scientific papers, and even have your genome sequenced.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, someone else has already decided to continue where you left off...

Or maybe the person you're addressing is an adult who doesn't need you to report things on their behalf?

And if you're personally bothered, then...

Sheesh, grow a spine.

 

Actually, The_Riddler's a good friend of mine and I value his advice and opinion. Which I gratefully took in this instance and I don't appreciate your tone. But as he suggested, I'll be leaving this conversation now.