"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
GilbertGrape said:
Basically, the Cambrian Conundrum is a fossil-based problem for evolution.
You've failed again.Skipped yet another question.
I even made it as clear as possible that saying "there's a problem" without saying what the problem is is a waste of bandwidth.
Are you really that insular and self centred that you can't step outside of your persona for a minute and try to explain your viewpoint to others that really don't get where you are coming from?
Is it the fact you are unsure yourself and just copying the buzzwords from creationist arguments and avoiding giving answers?
I might be crystal clear in your head, but no one else has a clue as to what you are on about.
You have the stage here, and you've got a chance to put over your viewpoint, but just saying "it's a problem" will get you nowhere.
One of the greatest humbling traits of a scientist is the ability to accept they don't know everything.
There's no problem in you saying for example you didn't quite follow this Cambrian explosion argument, but you know where it is explained and can put a link to it, I'd be interested to see it.
TheEnd said:
GilbertGrape said:
Basically, the Cambrian Conundrum is a fossil-based problem for evolution.
You've failed again.Skipped yet another question.
I even made it as clear as possible that saying "there's a problem" without saying what the problem is is a waste of bandwidth.
Are you really that insular and self centred that you can't step outside of your persona for a minute and try to explain your viewpoint to others that really don't get where you are coming from?
Is it the fact you are unsure yourself and just copying the buzzwords from creationist arguments and avoiding giving answers?
I might be crystal clear in your head, but no one else has a clue as to what you are on about.
You have the stage here, and you've got a chance to put over your viewpoint, but just saying "it's a problem" will get you nowhere.
One of the greatest humbling traits of a scientist is the ability to accept they don't know everything.
There's no problem in you saying for example you didn't quite follow this Cambrian explosion argument, but you know where it is explained and can put a link to it, I'd be interested to see it.
As for the Cambrian explosion, that speaks for itself. All one has to do is research it. It's out there for those who look. I wont do it justice. Just putting it out there for those who may not be aware of how the Cambrian explosion leaves the theory of evolution wanting for evidence of it's own beliefs.
GilbertGrape said:
As for the Cambrian explosion, that speaks for itself. All one has to do is research it. It's out there for those who look. I wont do it justice. Just putting it out there for those who may not be aware of how the Cambrian explosion leaves the theory of evolution wanting for evidence of it's own beliefs.
Links or stfu.CommanderJameson said:
GilbertGrape said:
As for the Cambrian explosion, that speaks for itself. All one has to do is research it. It's out there for those who look. I wont do it justice. Just putting it out there for those who may not be aware of how the Cambrian explosion leaves the theory of evolution wanting for evidence of it's own beliefs.
Links or stfu.GilbertGrape said:
That appears to take me to a popular search engine, not an article about how the "cambrian explosion" refutes the theory of evolution by natural selection.You're making the claim, you f
king well research it.A very quick skim through the Wikipedia article on the Cambrian Explosion reveals that:
1. A stload of new species appeared over a period of 80 million years at the start of the Cambrian period, 530 million years ago
2. There isn't much in the way of fossil record prior to this period, so it's not clear why or how so many species appeared so (relatively) quickly
3. Lots of hypotheses have been put forward as to possible causes of the observed phenomena
4. Insufficient evidence has yet been discovered to conclusively support any particular hypothesis over the others
Clearly the only sensible conclusion to draw from all this is:
1. God did it all about 6000 years ago, and then made it look like it had all happened over 500 million years previously
1. A s
tload of new species appeared over a period of 80 million years at the start of the Cambrian period, 530 million years ago2. There isn't much in the way of fossil record prior to this period, so it's not clear why or how so many species appeared so (relatively) quickly
3. Lots of hypotheses have been put forward as to possible causes of the observed phenomena
4. Insufficient evidence has yet been discovered to conclusively support any particular hypothesis over the others
Clearly the only sensible conclusion to draw from all this is:
1. God did it all about 6000 years ago, and then made it look like it had all happened over 500 million years previously
IainT said:
As much as it's my right to reject it it's absolutely your right not to and I have no right to impose otherwise and I demand it be reciprocated. In my view this is where believers and atheists should meet: in secularism. Secularism is the only place that guarantees your religious freedoms and my freedom from religion. If, as a person of religion, you cannot join me there then there will be conflict. I will not bow before your altar without a fight.
This is probably the most sensible post on this thread. Unfortunately, there are so many, even in government, that don't understand what secularism means (or do know, but misuse to get attention/support).Gaspode said:
Clearly the only sensible conclusion to draw from all this is:
1. God did it all about 6000 years ago, and then made it look like it had all happened over 500 million years previously
Ah, the prankster god.1. God did it all about 6000 years ago, and then made it look like it had all happened over 500 million years previously
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jim_HBj7Bdk
standards said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When someone suffers from OCD, then superstition informs their whole way of life. It takes them 3 hours tom leave the house whilst they go thru their rituals.
On the other hand, someone can have faith but it have little effect on their life. They go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals, they tick CofE on the census and they pray when they're in bother, but apart from that they never give it much thought.
Which would you say was worse?On the other hand, someone can have faith but it have little effect on their life. They go to church for christenings, weddings and funerals, they tick CofE on the census and they pray when they're in bother, but apart from that they never give it much thought.
If evolution isn't happening, something would have to be actively stopping it from happening in just the same way that you have to stop a ball from rolling down a hill. Once you understand the basic behaviour of any system, it's pretty obvious how that system will change over time if left to its own devices. Gravity pulls the ball towards the cente of the Earth, ergo a ball will tend to roll down a hill.
Organisms pass their characteristics from one generation to the next in a process susceptible to mutation (you can see this down a microscope). Organisms compete for resources with each other (you can see this by looking out the window). Those two observations mean that evolution will tend to take place, unless something else is actively intervening to stop it.
The fossil record is fascinating if you're trying to track how evolution has actually unfolded, but it is not necessary to turn to the fossil recod to show that evolution is the obvious outcome of the two simple rules above.
Organisms pass their characteristics from one generation to the next in a process susceptible to mutation (you can see this down a microscope). Organisms compete for resources with each other (you can see this by looking out the window). Those two observations mean that evolution will tend to take place, unless something else is actively intervening to stop it.
The fossil record is fascinating if you're trying to track how evolution has actually unfolded, but it is not necessary to turn to the fossil recod to show that evolution is the obvious outcome of the two simple rules above.
GilbertGrape said:
Basically, the Cambrian Conundrum is a fossil-based problem for evolution.
"The blind watchmaker" and "Climbing mount improbable" don't change evidence. Smoke and mirrors, presenting theories to hide an already flawed theory.
No it isn't. The Cambrian explosion is simply a period where the atmosphere garnered enough of the correct gasses, etc, that enabled larger, more complex organisms to Rise. There is no mystery surrounding the Cambrian explosion. "The blind watchmaker" and "Climbing mount improbable" don't change evidence. Smoke and mirrors, presenting theories to hide an already flawed theory.
Let me turn this around a litte on you. If you think the Cambrian explosion is an issue for science, where does it lie in the scheme of things with your religious outlook? Find me a human fossil before the Cambrian explosion, (or a bunny, etc), and we can talk about God creating everything as is.
You still haven't answered what your definition os macro evolution is, or why you think it has not been observed.
Ignorance... Posting under the name Gilbert Grape since flu king school.
GilbertGrape said:
TheHeretic said:
Ignorance... Posting under the name Gilbert Grape since flu king school.
^ Call me ignorant then, I don't get it..What is your definition of macro evolution?
Why do you think it has not been observed?
Debating with most of the believers on here is enjoyable. I may disagree with their opinions, I may even agree with some, but overall, i respect their choices and appreciate if not comprehend their view on a deity.
However, with people like GG, it's like hitting your head against a brick wall. He probably thinks an apple falls to the ground because god pulls it down. I suspect most in the bible belt in the US are the same or worse. Politicians like Santorum must be rubbing their hands together, waiting for their chance to destroy freedom and liberty in the name of blind ignorance.
However, with people like GG, it's like hitting your head against a brick wall. He probably thinks an apple falls to the ground because god pulls it down. I suspect most in the bible belt in the US are the same or worse. Politicians like Santorum must be rubbing their hands together, waiting for their chance to destroy freedom and liberty in the name of blind ignorance.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff