Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[DampDog]

He doesn't understand any of what he is saying nor is he trying to understand what we say or the sources provided which leads to fruitless posting.

+1..

I've been quietly following this thread from the start, and it's obvious that those who believe in "Creationism" have a set view based of how they have been told how the universe works. A religious dogma that varies dependant on their chosen religion. Which is odd, I would have thought if there is really only one "God" they would all be singing from the same hymn sheet so to speak.

While I believe in the theory of evolution and for me it has to be a "theory" because it is still evolving in it's own right. I am sure over time a full understanding of the "Cambrain Explosion" will come about and many more things that have yet to be discovered. That for me is the crux of the matter, science looks for answers, it throws it's theories, evidence and methods open to the greater community for review and is prepared to change or be modified by new discoveries. It simply says that as of this moment, this is our best evidence that we can test to confirm out theory.

A few hundred years ago the the "Church" had us believe that the earth was the centre of everything, that the sun revolved around the earth. Now we know that the earth is all but a spec of dust in a huge universe. My favourite quote is

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
― Arthur C. Clarke

I have no doubt at all that if life started here it will have begun somewhere else.

Imo random progression is a better way to think of evolution, it doesn't "have a plan" to make better stronger, faster animals. It simply creates changes. Now if those changes give whatever animal an advantage they prosper, if those changes disadvantage the animal they may become extinc, or dependant on enviroment find another niche. The beauty of evolution is it's very, very simple, it simply takes time. Of course if you think the earth is only 6000 years old you've probably got a few more problems to get your head round than just evolution.

 

[Somnambulist]

Transitioning to what? The main animal types surely have fairly large differences. You'd expect a scale with minute differences between each level. It doesn't appear to be the case.

You need to study biological classification and taxonomic ranking and how small differences up the tree/back in time lead to much bigger ones further down it. It's quite fascinating.

It's an oversimplification but different species have common ancestry within their genus, which have common ancestry within their family, which again have common ancestry within their order, then their class, their phylum, domain and then you're at what constitutes life itself.

A very simple back track would be species like lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars belonging to the genus Panthera. Another genus would be the Lynx, of which various lynx species and wildcats fall into. So both these... geni (is that the word?) share common ancestry. According to wiki there are currently eight geni within the family of Felidae containing a total of 41 species which currently live right now.

So the family of Felidae shares common ancestry with other families in it's order - that being Carnivora, which contains all carnivorous mammals. If you want to go from a cat to a bear, then you have to go back to their order to find where the branches meet.

All these mammals shared a common ancestor themselves within their class, which is mammals in general. Other classes are things like birds, reptiles, amphibians and bony fish. So a frog and an eagle both share a common ancestor, it's just you have to go very far back to when vertebrates were (probably) becoming more land-adapted to find it.

There's super-orders and sub-phylums and things and it all gets very complicated, but small changes further up the tree lead to large differences down it, e.g. the skeleton system of all vertebrates is veeeeery similar, it's just the proportions are different based upon it's requirements:

Something like a bats is closer to humans than bird are, since bats are in the same class as us (mammals) but not the same order, where as birds are a different class altogether, but as we're all vertebrates, the overall system is the same in terms of spinal cord, skeleton, organs etc.

Another pretty picture explaining this:

You can look at images of phylogenic trees as well, it's pretty cool. I wish there was some interactive one where you could zoom at at a meta level then at a macro level - a full phylogenic tree image would be er... a bit big!

 

[RDM]

So why have we not seen any new animal types since the cambrian explosion discoveries? Are you forgotten that some of these animals still exist today.

The first mammals were approx. 210m years ago, well after the Cambrian period. Does that count as a new type? Birds around 120m years ago, does that count as a new type?

 

[ringo747]

They did my research tells me. My searching for what caused this also helped me to understand why. Of course you could have searched for that too but never mind.

The answer is that they do not currently have the complete answer only theories based upon evidence that is still being studied and discovered.

You can read one theory here

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418131429.htm

Others talk of the great snowball I.e a time after a massive glacial event when s thaw is occurring. This isn't currently seen as the most likely whole answer but the conditions will have enabled the evolution to occur.

I certainly don't know much about the Cambrian, but it does seem to have happened in such a rapid space of time in the grand scheme of things.

The main issue I see with the discoveries is that it appears that there is a top-down approach rather than a bottom up approach. It seems that massive change took place followed by smaller refinements.

It seems that many in this thread assume that DNA is the only thing that is important. Does DNA provide all the new information that is needed to produce a new organism? Can you build a totally new body form from only mutations in DNA?

 

[Castiel]

The theory might not be but what about his observation that "the major groups of animals, divisions appeared suddenly in the fossil record"?

He just stated that Darwin was operating on the available data and what could be infered from it. To him it appeared that the Fossil Record suddenly appeared, that doesn't mean that his interpretation of the Data was entirely correct. However I fail tom see how evolution impacts on a belief in God in any case and what the point is of countering something that has so much evidence and demonstrable logic to support it. All this talk of "transitional species" is pretty pointless as transitional doesnt imply incomplete or not a species in itself, for example a fish (if we presume that the starting point is a fish) to a man (the presumptive end point) would include each species that came in between those two arbitrary points. These would presumably include other fish, amphibians, mammals and so on, each being a complete and distinct form of life in and of themselves, yet still maintaining the evolution of form from that Fish to the Man. I fail to see why this is any less believable or logical than some literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 or the premise of Intelligent Design. There is nothing inherent in Natural Selection that precludes a Universal Creator so why create an argument out of nothing and that ultimately requires some pretty extensive assumptions that were countered almost as soon as Christianity was born, even before Evolution and almost 1800 years before Darwin, Genesis was considered allegorical and not a literal history of creation.

 

[The Running Man]

But which part is allegorical ?

 

[ringo747]

The first mammals were approx. 210m years ago, well after the Cambrian period. Does that count as a new type? Birds around 120m years ago, does that count as a new type?

No. When I quoted Darwin himself it mentioned phyla.

 

[Castiel]

But which part is allegorical ?

Part of what?

 

[The Running Man]

Genesis, the old testament etc

 

[Castiel]

Genesis, the old testament etc

Not all the Bible is allegorical, the Bible is not a single text but a "library" of texts called a Canon which are designed to help Christians form and maintain their faith. It includes parables, allegory, history, letters, testaments and so on......

In this instance I was referring specifically to Genesis 1 & 2 rather than the entire Bible. So basically the "In the beginning...."part.

For an exapmnle of what I am explaining, in Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas says;

"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world."

Aquinas argued that God did not create things (The World, Life Etc.) in their final state, but with the potential to develop as he (God) intended...a summation of evolution if you will. Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th Century, so quite some time before Darwin and his method of Natural Selection. Another person who believed that the World was created with the capacity to develop and evolve was Augustine of Hippo (De Genesi ad litteram) who lived in the 4th Century and was instrumental in the Canon of the Christian Bible. Even before this Origen Adamantius also beleived that Genesis was allegorical in nature and was not compatible with a literalist view of Scripture, he lived in the 1st Century.

 

[The Running Man]

I'm with Aquinas, there could have been a creator. The theory fits in the sulimulation theory too, just with a scientific god not a holy one. Except I believe the creator created the universe that could allow the possibility of life to exist.

 

[Jason2]

All the atheists on here get paltalk and join the "Atheist v Theist" room.

Pure comedy cold. Some atheist sitting in a bra. What's that all about? Is it one of you guys? LOL

 

[m4rk84]

I'm with Aquinas, there could have been a creator. The theory fits in the sulimulation theory too, just with a scientific god not a holy one. Except I believe the creator created the universe that could allow the possibility of life to exist.

It's one of an unlimited amount of possibilities as to how the universe came to be. Exclaiming there could have been a creator is obvious and the same as saying there could have been anything.

Exclaiming it is what you now believe just because it offers an unproven explanation to a problem is as naive as when our ancestors preached that a god made the sun rise each morning.

It's also dangerous because it now gives you an excuse to stop searching for the truth.

 

[Jason2]

Mark84, why do keep confusing Christianity with Pantheism? You really need to look up the difference.

 

[m4rk84]

Mark84, why do keep confusing Christianity with Pantheism? You really need to look up the difference.

I don't? You should really reread what I am saying.

 

[Jason2]

Yes, you do. No Christian has ever believed God makes the sun rise. That's a pantheist viewpoint. We believe God created the universe. That's a big, big difference. He exists outside of the universe.

 

[m4rk84]

Yes, you do. No Christian has ever believed God makes the sun rise. That's a pantheist viewpoint. We believe God created the universe. That's a big, big difference. He exists outside of the universe.

I never said any Christian ever believed that god made the sun rise?

I said some of our ancestors believed a god (not your god) made the sun rise.

 

[The Running Man]

Not all the Bible is allegorical, the Bible is not a single text but a "library" of texts called a Canon which are designed to help Christians form and maintain their faith. It includes parables, allegory, history, letters, testaments and so on......

In this instance I was referring specifically to Genesis 1 & 2 rather than the entire Bible. So basically the "In the beginning...."part.

For an exapmnle of what I am explaining, in Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas says;

"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world."

Aquinas argued that God did not create things (The World, Life Etc.) in their final state, but with the potential to develop as he (God) intended...a summation of evolution if you will. Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th Century, so quite some time before Darwin and his method of Natural Selection. Another person who believed that the World was created with the capacity to develop and evolve was Augustine of Hippo (De Genesi ad litteram) who lived in the 4th Century and was instrumental in the Canon of the Christian Bible. Even before this Origen Adamantius also beleived that Genesis was allegorical in nature and was not compatible with a literalist view of Scripture, he lived in the 1st Century.

I think the other issue with your argument is that christians cannot believe that genesis is allegorical. Most writings seem to use evidence from the NT to assert that jesus referred back to genesis and the OT as a factual resource. Therefore, it stands that if jesus said it was true, then to a Christian it must also be true.

 

[Jason2]

I never said any Christian ever believed that god made the sun rise?

I said some of our ancestors believed a god (not your god) made the sun rise.

Again, it's a pantheist viewpoint. It doesn't concern Christianity so stop trying mix them together in your vain attempt to disprove God.

 

[The Running Man]

Yes, you do. No Christian has ever believed God makes the sun rise. That's a pantheist viewpoint. We believe God created the universe. That's a big, big difference. He exists outside of the universe.

And that god enabled evolution to happen via the mechanics of the universe he created?

Or did he only interfere with humans and not the earths rotation around the sun.