Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[ringo747]

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?

You were the one that said that things have moved on. Why show such outdated information?

To your irrelevant questions I'd answer no, no and no.

 

[RDM]

You were the one that said that things have moved on. Why show such outdated information?

To your irrelevant questions I'd answer no, no and no.

Because the actual theory has so far seen to be correct and Darwin is the one that came up with it?

 

[d_brennen]

Because the actual theory has so far seen to be correct and Darwin is the one that came up with it?

Blam.

Alexander Fleming is the topic of much course work (or was in my day) for both science and history, doesn't mean medicine has stood still. Ringo?

 

[ringo747]

Because the actual theory has so far seen to be correct and Darwin is the one that came up with it?

Ok, but I was asked to shut up about Darwin!

 

[Urgannagru]

I know this is lazy of me Ringo, but this covers the most of the points we have used to explain issues with the Cambrian period. The reason I'm using it has many referances to sources, so if you feel unsure of the validity of the points you can check them out for yourself, but to say there is no explaination for the period is incorrect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

As others have said why do you feel that the theory being taught is out dated? As others have mentioned more evidence is used today such as genetic evidence and fossils showing transition and examples of how complex organs can develope which we're around when Darwin produced his initial work.

 

[ringo747]

I know this is lazy of me Ringo, but this covers the most of the points we have used to explain issues with the Cambrian period. The reason I'm using it has many referances to sources, so if you feel unsure of the validity of the points you can check them out for yourself, but to say there is no explaination for the period is incorrect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

As others have said why do you feel that the theory being taught is out dated? As others have mentioned more evidence is used today such as genetic evidence and fossils showing transition and examples of how complex organs can develope which we're around when Darwin produced his initial work.

Cheers, will have a read!

The mention of it being outdated came from the following d_brennan quote...

"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"

Edit: beware when Glaucus returns... you've had it now! I quote your article regarding the length of the explosion "five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate"

 

[Urgannagru]

Cheers, will have a read!

The mention of it being outdated came from the following d_brennan quote...

"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"

No worries, the site is pretty decent as a whole, some of it is similar what you'll get from us but most of it is referenced and can go into far more detail than what most of us will be able to give you.

Sorry the constant references to Darwins opinions made it seem like you thought the theory's development had started and ended with him.

 

[The Running Man]

You were the one that said that things have moved on. Why show such outdated information?

To your irrelevant questions I'd answer no, no and no.

Im guessing explaining DNA and pre cambrian soup to be quite difficult for lower school pupils.

The general concepts are correct in the assertion that one life form mutates, evolves and ultimately new life forms are formed through this process.

The name Darwin is synonymous as he was the intial proponent of this type of theory with some evidence to support his claim.

If you struggle to understand why people who use the word Darwin and evolution in the same sentence, dispute darwins theory not being 100% accurate then you must have some kind of mental block. Darwin gave us the building blocks for the theory. He killed off the notions that life begins from extcrement or any of the previous theories that were based upon much simpler observations...

Just like everyone talks about Edison with regards to electricity.. doesn't mean that Edison created the first bulb or proved everything that we know about electricity. He was just one of the main thought changers. However Edison didn't bring us electricity in the form we know it in today as AC, he wanted DC...

Doesn't stop people using the new Edison though, even though now we don't always use when he prescribed...

But that is so obvious its like I am spoonfeeding a child here.

Clearly you've read some source that says, 'attack DARWIN'..except we know that what he said is not 100% accurate. we get it, we know. However the theory area is still called Darwinism as a tribute to the man who brought the first real signs of these discoveries to every man.

 

[hola_adios]

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.

Enough information has been provided and a simple Google search will provide enough links to keep you studying for a few days. You hold onto words which are 150 years old? What type of joke is that? Do you still think the sun revolves around the Earth?

And yes I will class you as a fanatic of some sort since you decide to ignore evidence, and someone who do not want to assume reality ... so yes, I would class you as a deluded individual.

 

[Urgannagru]

"

Edit: beware when Glaucus returns... you've had it now! I quote your article regarding the length of the explosion "five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate"

You are more than welcome to but I feel I should warn you that using that quote like that may add fuel to the fire to the claims of you being dishonest when the quote you have taken it from was:

"The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden."

You have been warned.

 

[oli collett]

That pythagoras fella had some funny ideas, so howcome his 'theorum' is still taught in school today huh???

 

[ringo747]

Im guessing explaining DNA and pre cambrian soup to be quite difficult for lower school pupils.

The general concepts are correct in the assertion that one life form mutates, evolves and ultimately new life forms are formed through this process.

The name Darwin is synonymous as he was the intial proponent of this type of theory with some evidence to support his claim.

If you struggle to understand why people who use the word Darwin and evolution in the same sentence, dispute darwins theory not being 100% accurate then you must have some kind of mental block. Darwin gave us the building blocks for the theory. He killed off the notions that life begins from extcrement or any of the previous theories that were based upon much simpler observations...

Just like everyone talks about Edison with regards to electricity.. doesn't mean that Edison created the first bulb or proved everything that we know about electricity. He was just one of the main thought changers. However Edison didn't bring us electricity in the form we know it in today as AC, he wanted DC...

Doesn't stop people using the new Edison though, even though now we don't always use when he prescribed...

But that is so obvious its like I am spoonfeeding a child here.

Clearly you've read some source that says, 'attack DARWIN'..except we know that what he said is not 100% accurate. we get it, we know. However the theory area is still called Darwinism as a tribute to the man who brought the first real signs of these discoveries to every man.

Er, I was told by a pro-evolutionist in this thread to keep quiet about Darwin - it wasn't my suggestion!

 

[ringo747]

You are more than welcome to but I feel I should warn you that using that quote like that may add fuel to the fire to the claims of you being dishonest when the quote you have taken it from was:

"The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden."

You have been warned.

Absolutely, the article says that some say it may be 40 years, but when I suggested earlier that it may be as low as 5 million years I got the wrath of Glaucus.

Your linked article says that 5-10 is reasonable - that's all I'm saying!

 

[The Running Man]

Er, I was told by a pro-evolutionist in this thread to keep quiet about Darwin - it wasn't my suggestion!

Im just explaining why Darwin is mentioned along alongside evolution. but that doesn't mean that evolution begins and stops with Darwin, just like electricity, current lightbulks didn't stop with Edison.

That you even could have thought that the idea set out by Darwin (with incomplete information with final, absolute and completely binding) shows me that you didn't even try to understand the topic.

Otherwise no one would have had to point this out in the thread.

 

[The Running Man]

Absolutely, the article says that some say it may be 40 years, but when I suggested earlier that it may be as low as 5 million years I got the wrath of Glaucus.

Your linked article says that 5-10 is reasonable - that's all I'm saying!

But what exactly are you saying? are you saying the time span is too large, too small? Are you stating it as a misquoted observation for no purpose?

I've already asked this, but ill ask again. What does the Cambrian explosion mean to Theists, having already established in a multitude of sources that the bible stipulates that the earth is around 6000 years old?

I actually posted this numerous pages ago when I pointed out that the Cambrian event neither disproves evolution not does it mean there was a creator.

Infact if you stick to literal genesis, then the fact that we have any fossils from prior 6000 years ago (such as those from the Cambrian explosion) disproves the literal genesis story altogether, as it does not fit.

 

[Urgannagru]

But what exactly are you saying? are you saying the time span is too large, too small? Are you stating it as a misquoted observation for no purpose?

I've already asked this, but ill ask again. What does the Cambrian explosion mean to Theists, having already established in a multitude of sources that the bible stipulates that the earth is around 6000 years old?

I actually posted this numerous pages ago when I pointed out that the Cambrian event neither disproves evolution not does it mean there was a creator.

Infact if you stick to literal genesis, then the fact that we have any fossils from prior 6000 years ago (such as those from the Cambrian explosion) disproves the literal genesis story altogether, as it does not fit.

Sorry to take his side for a momment, but I haven't seen him mention anything about young earth theory, and the earth doesn't nessicarily need to be 6000 years old but creationist theory as some generation may not have been mentioned in the bible nor can we infer how long Adam and Eve could have been in Eden before the fall.
I know this is annoying because it's hard argue against when its so fragmented with groups with different beliefs and agendas. Best just to be careful when making pints not to but words in their mouths.

 

[Brookert]

Infact if you stick to literal genesis, then the fact that we have any fossils from prior 6000 years ago (such as those from the Cambrian explosion) disproves the literal genesis story altogether, as it does not fit.

Fossils were planted I tells ye! Planted by the Devil!

 

[The Running Man]

Sorry to take his side for a momment, but I haven't seen him mention anything about young earth theory, and the earth doesn't nessicarily need to be 6000 years old but creationist theory as some generation may not have been mentioned in the bible nor can we infer how long Adam and Eve could have been in Eden before the fall.
I know this is annoying because it's hard argue against when its so fragmented with groups with different beliefs and agendas. Best just to be careful when making pints not to but words in their mouths.

There are no sides as I see it, just different people believing different things and then some using evidence which disproves or at least severely disrupts their own view to use as evidence to disprove another view they don't agree with.

I find that, amusing.

 

[d_brennen]

Er, I was told by a pro-evolutionist in this thread to keep quiet about Darwin - it wasn't my suggestion!

If you are referring to me, I didn't quite mean keep quite about Darwin, nor did I say he or his theory was outdated. I was pointing out in the context of the Cambrian period, that quote which Creationists think is something it isn't, his information is 150+ years old. Thankfully science isn't a religion, so we've learnt a bit since then

 

[Urgannagru]

Absolutely, the article says that some say it may be 40 years, but when I suggested earlier that it may be as low as 5 million years I got the wrath of Glaucus.

Your linked article says that 5-10 is reasonable - that's all I'm saying!

Cool thats fair enough if he stated conclusively that 5 million years was impossible (I'm too lazy to go back through the thread to check whether this was said) but again I'd be careful to make this argument if he did not conclusively say this.

I just felt like I had to warn you incase you used that quote to innsinuate that, that was the only estimate and that it is too small a time scale for sinificant evolution to take place when in less that 2.5 the homo genus went from the ape-like Homo Habilis to Homo Sapien.