Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[RobotXander]

The Cross was adopted by the Roman Catholic church about 600 years after the death of Christ. No doubt as part of Pagan Christianisation (the cross was a pagan symbol)

 

[Amleto]

Oh my goodness! You are explaining micro-evolution once again. Are you just unable comprehend the difference between micro and macro evolution? Or are you just ignorant?

oh my goodness, who is ignorant?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm
and there's plenty more where that came from...

 

[Somnambulist]

Going from a wolf to a pug... given enough time you could breed that to something more akin to a rodent, then to something like an otter, back to something like a seal, to a dolphin... hey presto, land based mammal to marine based mammal. Doing that would take a long time though. This is why microbial life is often used as an example in action because it can reproduce quick enough to see big changes.

To go back to our nearest ancestor... I think the example used was your mother holding her mother's hand and she her mothers... you'd have to have 23 miles of mothers lined up hand in hand before you got to an area where homo sapien and homo erectus or whatever the direct ancestor start blurring (which is the important bit - going from species to species is a slow blur not a chicken and egg thing).

The thing is, if you look at how biological classification works, from life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species, you can see how close together some things are (lions and tigers etc) and how far apart others are (chicken and tuna - I'm hungry so this was the first thing that popped in my head). This then makes it easy to see why some things are able to reproduce semi-successfully (ligers, mules) and some things can't even though they look similar, why life in Australia is so different, why you have things like hippos that have legs but spend most of their time in water, things that need to breathe air but live underweater etc etc.

Nothing explains why we have such a diversity of life on this planet better.

 

[Scrutinize]

No offence but I question the reliability of your posts when you say stuff like "still [only] a theory". Laymen mixing the scientific use of the word and the colloquial use of it makes my **** boil.

So please enlighten me on the evidence where Evolution is no longer considered a theory?

Scientific theories do not 'become facts' as achieving theory or law status is the highest level you can. There are no absolute truths in science but having your theory recognised is as close to 'fact' as you can get. A scientific theory is not just a 'best guess' or educated assumption, that is a hypothesis.

Some theories, laws and models are easier to observe, test and prove than others.

Furthermore your accusation that scientific theories somehow achieve a new level called 'fact' when scientists want to earn a bit of cash is just laughable. For a start Richard Dawkins hasn't even authored any scientific theories, he merely studies and speak about other people's. he is making his money from selling books and public speaking, generally driven by religious (rather than biological) debate, he makes little in comparison from studying science or coming up with theories (which again he hasn't done anyway).

Absolutely, Dawkins re-sells other peoples theories as fact and that his view and interpretation of the evidence is right.

 

[Urgannagru]

No, there is no comparison. There is nothing before God that would make us dream of a creator. Yet for santa claus, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny, there are similar comparisons. Santa claus came about because of kind Christian who gave away presents, the tooth fairy because of angels ect ect.

God is something which all cultures have subscribed to.

I'd have to argue the point that there is something else before god that you could use as inspiration as a creator, that is familiar to everyone.
Everyone has a mother from which they were created and in most cases I'd imagine people would be familiar with this concept before coming across the concept of a god creator. I can imagine there being a train of thought in times gone by along the lines of "If a being created me, surely one must created the first person.".
I'd imagine this line of thought explains why mother godesses (like Gaia) or so common in early religions.

 

[Sankari]

The Cross was adopted by the Roman Catholic church about 600 years after the death of Christ.

Erm... no. Christians were using the cross as early as the 3rd Century AD. It became popular in the 4th.

No doubt as part of Pagan Christianisation

Wrong again.

(the cross was a pagan symbol)

Of what? Christians used the cross because Jesus was believed to have been crucified. Simple as that.

 

[estebanrey]

So please enlighten me on the evidence where Evolution is no longer considered a theory?

That's not what I was saying. I was pointing out that the word 'theory' in the scientific sense is not the same as the word 'theory' in the everyday sense.

Evolution IS a scientific theory, but the word 'theory' in that sentence is closer to meaning 'fact' than it is to meaning ' educated guess' which is what a lot of people think when they see the word 'theory'.

Some theories, laws and models are easier to observe, test and prove than others.

Um, so? Evolution is very ease to prove and has been done so many times.

Furthermore, and to re-iterate, you do not get official 'theory' status in science unless your evidence is nigh on water-tight and has the consensus of the rest of the scientific community who in turn would have all tested your theory and tried to prove it wrong many times.

Absolutely, Dawkins re-sells other peoples theories as fact and that his view and interpretation of the evidence is right.

Unlike the millions of world's vicars, priests, imans that preach the holy word as being only a myth? Isn't a priest just making money out of the word of few Jews written a couple of millenia ago and passing it off as fact?

The difference being Dawkins has evidence to back up his claims and has tested the theories he espouses to confirm them being true.

 

[Jason2]

We need more men of God like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMG_PVaJoI

Cuts right into your very core.

 

[aardvark]

For a start Richard Dawkins hasn't even authored any scientific theories, he merely studies and speak about other people's. he is making his money from selling books and public speaking, generally driven by religious (rather than biological) debate, he makes little in comparison from studying science or coming up with theories (which again he hasn't done anyway).

not true - he has written a 'reasonable' amount of papers, but most of his work goes into his books, which are highly respected and contributed greatly to science.

 

[Jason2]

Dawkins should stay in biology instead of trying to involve himself in moral matters. Everything about the bloke enrages me. He must be laughing at the atheist mugs who have made him a millionaire using other people's ideas.

 

[twist3d0n3]

Dawkins should stay in biology instead of trying to involve himself in moral matters. Everything about the bloke enrages me. He must be laughing at the atheist mugs who have made him a millionaire using other people's ideas.

much like all the dudes who run the churches of the world

 

[ChroniC]

No, there is no comparison. There is nothing before God that would make us dream of a creator. Yet for santa claus, the tooth fairy, and the easter bunny, there are similar comparisons. Santa claus came about because of kind Christian who gave away presents, the tooth fairy because of angels ect ect.

God is something which all cultures have subscribed to.

Wrong, all gods lead back to the life giver. THE SUN. It gave light, it gave crops, it gave warmth. It is the start of a day and the end, it is the reason early man thought there was a heaven.

 

[Spook187]

Dawkins should stay in biology instead of trying to involve himself in moral matters. Everything about the bloke enrages me. He must be laughing at the atheist mugs who have made him a millionaire using other people's ideas.

Rubbish, look at the way the church gets it's money, not much different is it.

 

[estebanrey]

not true - he has written a 'reasonable' amount of papers, but most of his work goes into his books, which are highly respected and contributed greatly to science.

I said he hasn't authored any Scientific THEORIES, which he hasn't that I'm aware of.

Again I fear you're another person who doesn't know what theory means when pre-fixed by the word 'science'. He's probably written lots of hypothesis sure, but I'm unaware of any scientific THEORIES he's created.

 

[aardvark]

I said he hasn't authored any Scientific THEORIES, which he hasn't that I'm aware of.

Again I fear you're another person who doesn't know what theory means when pre-fixed by the word 'science'. He's probably written lots of hypothesis sure, but I'm unaware of any scientific THEORIES he's created.

thanks for patronising me - i am a scientist as it happens, at the top of my field with a 1st class degree, a PhD and 15 years of research, and numerous papers and patents behind me - i know what a scientist does, it appears that you do not.

 

[RDM]

So please enlighten me on the evidence where Evolution is no longer considered a theory?

What do you mean by theory? Because a "scientific theory" is considerably more robust than "an idea". As far as Evolution goes it is a robust scientific theory that has not been disproven.

Do you doubt plate tectonics, general relativity and quantam mechanics? Because evolution is a theory in the same way that they are theories.

 

[estebanrey]

thanks for patronising me - i am a scientist as it happens, at the top of my field with a 1st class degree, a PhD and 15 years of research, and numerous papers and patents behind me - i know what a scientist does, it appears that you do not.

Well I'm not psychic and when I said he hadn't written any scientific theories you replied saying "not true". So either he has, in which case I'd genuinely be interested in them, or you mis-understood what 'scientific theory' meant, especially as you then tried to qualify your remark but claiming he's written "lots of papers", which whilst true isn't the same and authoring a scientific theory.

 

[aardvark]

Well I'm not psychic and when I said he hadn't written any scientific theories you replied saying "not true". So either he has, in which case I'd genuinely be interested in them, or you mis-understood what 'scientific theory' meant, especially as you then tried to qualify your remark but claiming he's written "lots of papers", which whilst true isn't the same and authoring a scientific theory.

new theories are presented in most scientific papers, he certainly made many in his books - i'm not sure what you mean by 'scientific theory'? he has made hundreds, so have i, every scientist does.

 

[m4rk84]

This thread again!

I won't bother putting as much effort into this one as my last religious thread however can we just all clarify the term "Scientific theory" it's extremely annoying when people don't understand the term.

A Scientific Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Evolution is a Scientific theory, it is backed up by an untold amount of comprehensive, peer reviewed evidence. It is not just an idea.

 

[Jason2]

How do atheists know what they say is true if we are just a bunch of atoms flying around the brain creating the illusion of "the self"? Surely everything we see if nothing more than a mere illusion?