Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

estebanrey · 4 Feb 2013 at 15:49

When science find out new information, it holds it's hands up and disregards and/or updates the old information with what we know now.

When theists find out new information (via science) which conflicts with the literal explanation in their Holy Book they leave it in and just write if off as a "a metaphor".

That's why I laugh when theists bring up things like the Cambrian Explosion. Even if they can (stupidly) convince themselves it disproves evolution, the pre-requiste to that must be them accepting it happened. In which case that utterly disproves the Bible's claims that the Earth is 6000 years old all the animals and humans were magic'd into existence by a snap of God's fingers.

Stretch · 4 Feb 2013 at 15:51

deuse said:
science is your belief system http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

"I have demonstrated that a scientific belief system is differentiable from a religious one because it minimizes faith, has a greater explanatory power, and is open to belief revision"

So because science and religion are both "belief systems" (which they're not) one is no more credible than the other?

Spook187 · 4 Feb 2013 at 15:52

estebanrey said:
In which case that utterly disproves the Bible's claims that the Earth is 6000 years old all the animals and humans were magic'd into existence by a snap of God's fingers.

I already asked Jason2 this and he never replied.

gettothechopper · 4 Feb 2013 at 15:55

Spook187 said:
I already asked Jason2 this and he never replied.

he is too busy calling a recently dead soldier a mass murder in another thread :rolleyes:

ringo747 · 4 Feb 2013 at 15:55

hola_adios said:
This is a fallacy, the cambrian/pre-cambrian argument is just used by religious fanatics who have studied little, so please at least inform yourself about issues which have been refuted countless times. We might not a full picture, but it is much more of what you offer.

What is a fallacy? I was asking a question not making a statement. What makes you think I'm a religious fanatic? Mr Darwin himself states that the cambrian finds were "inexplicable". Hardly a religious fantatic was he.

The reason why I am asking questions is to inform myself. Your post would have been a little more valuable if you had attempted to help others explain something about the topic. I'm not claiming to 'offer' anything here so I don't know what you are on about. Sorry.

Robosapien · 4 Feb 2013 at 15:57

Shayper said:
No. natural selection preserves everything that is passed on to the next generation. This requires a next generation to be propagated. So even if something has no discernable effect, it is passed on. Over time, said effect may cause a benefit, which helps to further propagate generations.

You keep inferring intelligent design into evolution. If you stop doing that, you may understand.

You're on form today!

The Running Man · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:07

ringo747 said:
What is a fallacy? I was asking a question not making a statement. What makes you think I'm a religious fanatic? Mr Darwin himself states that the cambrian finds were "inexplicable". Hardly a religious fantatic was he.

The reason why I am asking questions is to inform myself. Your post would have been a little more valuable if you had attempted to help others explain something about the topic. I'm not claiming to 'offer' anything here so I don't know what you are on about. Sorry.

Who here is a qualified researcher? Your best bet is to search yourself. I have provided numerous resources for your benefit but you just ignore them.

Stretch · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:12

The Running Man said:
Who here is a qualified researcher? Your best bet is to search yourself. I have provided numerous resources for your benefit but you just ignore them.

It's not just him who "ignores" them is it. Pretty much everyone without a vested interests (i.e. everyone outside the religious community) finds they have no credibility.

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:13

ringo747 said:
What is a fallacy? I was asking a question not making a statement. What makes you think I'm a religious fanatic? Mr Darwin himself states that the cambrian finds were "inexplicable". Hardly a religious fantatic was he.

The reason why I am asking questions is to inform myself. Your post would have been a little more valuable if you had attempted to help others explain something about the topic. I'm not claiming to 'offer' anything here so I don't know what you are on about. Sorry.

Taking his words out of context again. Like normal.
He even explained how the results could be. Ie soft bodily creature, incomplete fossil records etc.
But let's ignore everything else he said and take one line out of context.

ringo747 · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:18

Glaucus said:
Taking his words out of context again. Like normal.
He even explained how the results could be. Ie soft bodily creature, incomplete fossil records etc.
But let's ignore everything else he said and take one line out of context.

Not out of context at all I'm afraid. I didn't suggest that he didn't offer his own explanation.

"The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:20

You are using it out of context. You are using it in a way, that isn't comparable with what he said. As seen by that fall line, and even worse if you read on.

All your arguments so far, have been common misconceptions and lies, that if you read any half arsed attempt at a debunking site, you would know this.
Nothing but fallacies.

ringo747 · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:22

Glaucus said:
You are using it out of context. You are using it in a way, that isn't comparable with what he said. As seen by that fall line, and even worse if you read on.

Do you expect me to include all his writings in the post or what? My post was directed to another poster who claimed that only religious fanatics doubt the cambrian. My quotation simple showed that Darwin himself acknowledged the alternative view.

I love the way you talk about lies! You seem to know this is all 'truth' in the first place. It is only lies if the truth has been firmly established.

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:23

ringo747 said:
Do you expect me to include all his writings in the post or what? My post was directed to another poster who claimed that only religious fanatics doubt the cambrian. My quotation simple showed that Darwin himself acknowledged the alternative view.

Notat all, but I don't expect you to use it in the way you have been. That is 100% taking out of context and using it to imply something he never said. It's hardly acknoledging the opposite view. It's acknowledging a lack of data and something to further reserch.

However you 100% have been miss using it and including a cut down version to imply something it was never meant to.

RDM · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:24

Glaucus said:
You are using it out of context. You are using it in a way, that isn't comparable with what he said. As seen by that fall line, and even worse if you read on.

All your arguments so far, have been common misconceptions and lies, that if you read any half arsed attempt at a debunking site, you would know this.
Nothing but fallacies.

Even more amusing was using a Gould quote to try and disprove Evolution.

Not sure why he is so hung up on what Darwin said as there has been 150 years of research done since Origin of Species which has added to the body of evidence for evolution and none which has disproven it.

ringo747 · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:29

Glaucus said:
Notat all, but I don't expect you to use it in the way you have been. That is 100% taking out of context and using it to imply something he never said. It's hardly acknoledging the opposite view. It's acknowledging a lack of data and something to further reserch.

However you 100% have been miss using it and including a cut down version to imply something it was never meant to.

Acknowledging a lack of data? Sorry what? It was the Cambrian data that this quotation was referring to!

RDM said:
Even more amusing was using a Gould quote to try and disprove Evolution.

Not sure why he is so hung up on what Darwin said as there has been 150 years of research done since Origin of Species which has added to the body of evidence for evolution and none which has disproven it.

I'm hung up on what he said because it is still taught in schools today. If things have moved on so much then why haven't the textbooks been updated?

d_brennen · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:29

Can put Darwin to bed please? It was 150+ years ago, Darwin only thought the Earth to be 400 or so million years old, such was his understanding then :confused:

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:31

ringo747 said:
Acknowledging a lack of data? Sorry what? It was the Cambrian data that this quotation was referring to!

?

Lack of data before.
So it's very much relevant seeing as he pointed this out himself.

Why not read this.
http://www.skepdic.com/cambrian.html

A half arsed debunking site.
Just like CT, you listen to crap websites, that have lied to you and I bet you know it. But can't bare adjusting your views.

Especially this paragraph.

The creationists and ID advocates are anti-scientific propagandists. They assume that no amount of scientific investigation will ever produce more data of relevance to understanding the processes of evolution that have taken place over the past several billion years on this planet. In short, their only interest in science is to find areas where scientists see problems to be investigated and declare that the problems can't be solved except by appealing to a magical being who can do anything that's needed to make the data fit with somebody's understanding of the Bible

ringo747 · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:34

d_brennen said:
Can put Darwin to bed please? It was 150+ years ago, Darwin only thought the Earth to be 400 or so million years old, such was his understanding then

Why would we put it to bed if it is still relevant apparently?

Glaucus said:
Lack of data before.
So it's very much relevant seeing as he pointed this out himself.

Why not read this.
http://www.skepdic.com/cambrian.html

A half arsed debunking site.
Just like CT, you listen to crap websites, that have lied to you and I bet you know it. But can't bare adjusting your views.

Especially this paragraph.

Lack of data before what exactly? You must have some good insight into what I look up. My views? I haven't given my views, I've simply questioned the views of others but it seems that doing so has led to a terribly sad hostility.

Edit: your last paragraph doesn't describe me I'm glad to say.

RDM · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:35

ringo747 said:
I'm hung up on what he said because it is still taught in schools today. If things have moved on so much then why haven't the textbooks been updated?

Because the general theory has so far seen to be correct, do you actually think that Evolution as taught in schools today uses "Origin of Species" as a textbook? DNA isn't mentioned in Origin of Species, does that mean you don't think that is part of the theory of evolution too?

Do you think Newtons Laws of Motion are taught using Principia Mathmatica?

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2013 at 16:36

It's easy to tell what you've looked at, that crap website I posted, goes through pretty much every point you've brought up.

Before what, what do you think? Perhaps the point in time we've been talking about. Something that in the last 50odd years has been revealed in much more detail than in darwins life.

In 1950, when Ledyard Stebbins' Variation and Evolution in Plants (1) first appeared, the known history of life—the familiar progression from spore-producing to seed-producing to flowering plants, from marine invertebrates to fish, amphibians, then reptiles, birds, and mammals—extended only to the beginning of the Cambrian Period of the Phanerozoic Eon, roughly 550 million years ago. Now, after a half-century of discoveries, life's history looks strikingly different—an immense early fossil record, unknown and assumed unknowable, has been uncovered to reveal an evolutionary progression dominated by microbes that stretches seven times farther into the geologic past than previously was known. This essay is an abbreviated history of how and by whom the known antiquity of life has been steadily extended, and of lessons learned in this still ongoing hunt for life's beginnings

Read this as well.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full

Again long list of references for further reading, like this
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/...CE7BA3E03AA27C76?gitCommit=4.13.20-5-ga6ad01a