Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.


(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.

Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.

Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.

Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.

Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?


Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

Because the critical consensus is that it's an instant classic.

Because it's breaking through into the mainstream more than any martial arts film I can think of since Ong Bak.

Because it is awesome.

Some quotes from reviews:

David Fear -- Time Out: And in terms of beautifully coordinated film violence—the kind involving flying fists and feet, whizzing blades and ballistic superbattles—Gareth Evans’s insta-classic Indonesian crime flick is leagues above every kinetic bullet-ballet and martial arts epic of the past decade. Whether this 31-year-old Welsh director will eventually be mentioned in the same breath as legendary chaos orchestrators like Sam Peckinpah or John Woo remains to be seen. For now, Evans can take pride in the fact that he’s set the bar for cinemayhem impossibly high.

Andrew O'Hehir -- Salon: “The Raid” is a witty, pulse-pounding instant midnight classic, an immediate sensation at the Sundance and Toronto festivals that should appeal to cinema buffs, action freaks and a pretty large mainstream audience besides. It offers some of the best Asian martial-arts choreography of recent years and an electric, claustrophobic puzzle-palace atmosphere that’ll leave you wrung out and buzzed.

Ty Burr -- Boston Globe: Not yet 30, Evans is a master of visceral tension and release. “The Raid’’ repeatedly slows down, gathers force, and rushes forward using all the elements of filmmaking at a director’s disposal: editing’s ability to expand and contract time; the camera’s gift for revealing information through motion and light; a good musical score (by Joseph Trapanese and Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda) that can cue audiences to respond or just play with their heads. At times, “The Raid’’ feels like pure cinema.

Nordling -- Ain't it Cool: Then, there are the action sequences, which are so exquisitely orchestrated that they build like a symphonic suite of pain and kickassocity. This movie builds and builds, each fight even bigger than the one before it. I can't imagine an audience that won't be on their feet for some of them - and the action choreography is damn near perfect, with cinematography to match. Sure, there's some shakycam, but it's only to build the intensity because Uwais and director Gareth Evans have planned each fight so well that it's never confusing, not once. The geography is flawless. The film wisely lays out the building early on, so that you unconsciously understand where everyone is in the building and even in the same room. I haven't seen such confident action direction since John Woo unleashed the doves in THE KILLER and, yeah, HARD BOILED.

I just looked over his list of films again and suddenly realised that he's probably made some of the most defining films of my life, how the hell can you argue with these puppies:

Terminator 1 and 2. Terminator 2? That film just literally ruled most of the 90's for quotes and praise. Still popular today.
Aliens. Need i say more? This film is the DEFINITION of action and suspense to me.
The Abyss. My dad (my hero at that age) built it up for months to me as a kid, finally saw it and fell in love. Beautiful film.
True Lies. Probably my favourite arnie film. I was obsessed with arnie and action and spies and detectives at that age. Tom Arnold was amazing. Ages well. Oh and Tia Carrera.
Titanic. HUGE film. I'd never felt the phenomenon of a film becoming an instant world-wide hit before. I don't think one day went by in 1997 where i didn't hear titanic mentioned on tv.

Pretty amazing! Only rival for success rate for me is christopher nolan.

Must have thought the pumpkin was a rival's egg.

>> ^dag:

promote. Rivals Billy Squire in raw masculinity.


They probably got so much tail acting like this that it started to rub off on em.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

*promote. Rivals Billy Squire in raw masculinity.

>> ^rychan:

I'm sure there's _some_ truth to his hypothesis -- consent is easier to establish when there is language.
But clearly consent _can_ be established without language.
Also, don't go all "myth of the noble savage" on us and think that the animal kingdom isn't full of rape. Ducks are so rapey that that it has significantly impacted their reproductive structures:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070501_duck.htm


Yeah, ducks are lothesome rapists of the worst kind. But the genital arms race they've gotten into is interesting because it's completely abnormal. What is generally adaptive is for females to choose their mates. For each rapey duck there are a thousand other species of birds where males compete to be chosen by being more attractive, strong, or useful than their rivals.

>> ^Efflixi:

Wait a sec... that thing is from 1993? Almost 20 years ago? What do we have today to rival that?


Where did he find that thing!???! Must have dug it up with some dinosaur skeletons. Fucking Ancient.

Wait a sec... that thing is from 1993? Almost 20 years ago? What do we have today to rival that?

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/voters-prefer-newt-gingrichs-adultery-to-open-marriage

Not sure why you find a disconnect between anything I have said, so I don't know how to clarify. Perhaps we can discuss this on our profile page? If you can be more specific about what doesn't add up? I think I am logically consistent.



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bareboards2:
Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.
First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

>> ^bareboards2:

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

A man can believe one thing, and be tolerant of others... as well as have faith that people, if given the choice, will eventually do the right thing... even if though that is different for everyone, the most fit and fair system has a chance to emerge




..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul



-------------------- So how does this translate to the issues:

Defense of Marriage Act: allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government

I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.
---

In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”
------
Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office.

Eric Dondero, a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


So who else did the newsletters? Lou Rockwell isn't of interest to me, MURRAY ROTHBARD is.

I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he (Rothbard) also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously)

Someone did the newsletters... in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

The blunted point of this video: religion is about faithfully following and constraining curiosity, while science is about aggressively questioning and holding nothing sacred.

Science is also about atheistic materialism. The idea of the supernatural cause is rejected apriori:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

Religion itself serves no purpose. Going to church, partaking in sacraments, putting on a public face of piety, these are the dead works of men. The heart of Christianity is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, to know God intimately and experientially. It is not religion but relationship.

A point I would add is that in human societies there may be a time and a place for each, but they will still each question the value of the other.

At the outset, they were friends to one another. The idea of an orderly Universe based on universal laws is a Christian idea, and so is the idea that we can suss out those ideas by investigating secondary causes. Science really got its start in Christian europe. Though they are portrayed as rivals now, it is truly a false dichotomy. I think John Lennox explains this best:



What we should be talking about then is the individual common ground, in your own head, between these two things. You describe a more Unitarian God, responsible for creating/upholding the laws of a changing Universe, and nothing else. I might describe a God with far less impact or far greater impact on human lives here on Earth (...or hundreds of Gods along a God power-spectrum). I might also specify some particular stories about how I know my God to be the true God.

At their essence, I don't think there is any conflict. Religion tells us about who the Creator is while science tries to explain how He did it. The bible isn't a book about science, although it contains some scientific principles. It is a book that describes what God wants from us, why He created us. Science shows us His marvels, it tells us why the stars shine so brightly, it reveals their secret power.

The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith.

On the other side is Science, where neither bullshit nor treasured dogma are valued once proven wrong. Your world is composed of atoms, which we've taken pictures of, and we've landed robots on another planet... but where we wonder what the meaning of any of this is, and how long its going to be before we screw it up.

The idea that science is an objective enterprise is a myth. This isn't about the best evidence.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

Max Planck

If you want to challenge the status quo, you need the support of the status quo. It's a closed system. You're not getting any grants or getting published unless you're towing the line on the conventional wisdom of the day. Check out some of the finds that modern science conveniently ignores..



Evidence starts around 10:00 or so

Also check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Exploding-Myth-Conventional-Wisdom-Scientific/dp/1904275303

>> ^bamdrew: