Creationist Error #1: One can not believe Evolution and still remain devout in their faith.

[Guy Threepwood]

Your error is appealing to informational influence rather than the facts at hand:

It is interesting that you keep pointing out the times in history where informational influence was a factor in maintaining inaccurate beliefs, such as "canals on mars", which clearly demonstrate how the opinion of the masses is not a reliable source for determining fact from fiction; yet use informational influence to defend your position.

No the exact opposite; canals on Mars, static universe models, Piltdown Man, etc were the opinion of academic elite, the masses considered them silly and were correct

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your under so many wrong impression about all the sciences, evolution and God its amazing. Science is a tool its not for or against anything. Its not religion or religious and many religious people, want to know and understand the laws of nature and how nature works and that would be the Nature you believe your God created. Your quote from Dawkins certainly does nothing for your case to those who have actually studied the Cambrian explosion and no the dishonest way your using it.



"
An “explosion”?
The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.

The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion."

Evolution 101: The Big Issues



"
The Cambrian Explosion:

For most of the nearly 4 billion years that life has existed on Earth, evolution produced little beyond bacteria,plankton, and multi-celled algae. But beginning about 600 million years ago in the Precambrian, the fossil record speaks of more rapid change. First, there was the rise and fall of mysterious creatures of the Ediacaran fauna, named for the fossil site in Australia where they were first discovered. Some of these animals may have belonged to groups that survive today, but others don't seem at all related to animals we know.

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.

It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.

It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".

The best record of the Cambrian diversification is the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. Laid down in the middle-Cambrian, when the "explosion" had already been underway for several million years, this formation contains the first appearance in the fossil record of brachiopods, with clamlike shells, as well as trilobites, mollusks, echinoderms, and many odd animals that probably belong to extinct lineages. They include Opabinia, with five eyes and a nose like a fire hose, and Wiwaxia, an armored slug with two rows of upright scales.

The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.

Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans.

Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion


The Burgess Shale discovery was extremely important. The book is online there for you to read and learn.

Burgess Shale in British Columbia

"The Burgess Shale provides an amazing window into what the world looked like half-a-billion years ago. Understanding the contents of the Burgess Shale and the sequences of the Earth’s physical processes will help us to better understand how life has evolved and how it may continue to evolve."


Introduction | Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation

Your under so many wrong impression about all the sciences, evolution and God its amazing. Science is a tool its not for or against anything.

There is a distinction to be made between science the method we all know and love, and science the insitution, job, political agenda, ideology
science by nature deals in speculation, opinion, conjecture- scientists are human beings with desires, goals, corral all this into an academic and/or political institution- and you get conclusions looking for evidence.

many religious people, want to know and understand the laws of nature and how nature works and that would be the Nature you believe your God created.

we agree here - Nature is the executor of God's laws [Galileo]. Lemaitre, Planck and Einstein were also skeptics of atheism, that would be my point, being free of atheist dogma is certainly not a handicap when it comes to science the method,- but science the academic institution? certainly can and has been.

Your quote from Dawkins certainly does nothing for your case to those who have actually studied the Cambrian explosion and no the dishonest way your using it.

His quote not mine, I didn't put any words in his mouth, & I don't think he disputes the statement, nor do most scientists "The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists" as you say- and I'd think it would be misleading to characterize it otherwise.


"
An "explosion"?
The term "explosion" may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye.

a few million years is an explosion- a blink of an eye in geological time scales- I'd think that's why scientists coined the term, but within that period highly evolved species appeared instantaneously in the fossil record- with no apparent direct ancestors- and all over the globe- as if just planted there- Dawkins and I agree on this

It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.

It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them.

Again, the dog eating the homework does not earn an A+ especially when 'suspicion' is the primary 'scientific tool' used here

evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.

Now we agree! Now we get to the actual observation rather than the suspicion, the empirical scientific method rather than academic conjecture. the intelligent design argument over the evolutionist one

Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans.

of all the millions of species on Earth, a single one has our intelligence. By this observation alone we know that it's not the sort of thing 'evolution' tends to acheve. But I think this gets to the larger perspective-- that the creation event, the singularity 14 odd billion years ago, happened in such a way as to ultimately develop it's own conciousness to ponder itself with... bizarre fluke can never be ruled out, but perhaps there are less improbable explanations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No the exact opposite; canals on Mars, static universe models, Piltdown Man, etc were the opinion of academic elite, the masses considered them silly and were correct

Sources, please.

Also, it was the "academic elite" who discovered these things were false. Since you apparently aren't willing to trust them over the unqualified masses, how do you determine these things are wrong?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

we agree here - Nature is the executor of God's laws [Galileo]. Lemaitre, Planck and Einstein were also skeptics of atheism, that would be my point, being free of atheist dogma is certainly not a handicap when it comes to science the method,- but science the academic institution? certainly can and has been.

There is no such thing as "atheist dogma", and I challenge you to present a single case where atheism has demonstrably influenced scientific findings or claims.

His quote not mine, I didn't put any words in his mouth

Do you not understand what a quote mine is? A quote mine is when you take a sentence out of context in order to imply its meaning is different to what is intended. We're not saying he didn't say it - we're saying he didn't mean what you are implying, and he certainly does not agree with what you claim.

By the way, I'm still awaiting your retraction.

a few million years is an explosion- a blink of an eye in gelogical time scales- but within that period highly evolved species appeared instantaneously in the fossil record- with no apparent direct ancestors- and all over the globe. Dawkins and I agree on this

WRONG.

No species in the Cambrian explosion appear "instantaneously" and "with no apparent ancestors". That is an outright lie, and Dawkins does not agree with it. We have provided you with the context of his quote, which explains quite clearly that HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU and DIDN'T MEAN WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING HE DID. The fact that you persist in this blatant dishonesty just demonstrates what a dishonest person you are, and the lengths you're willing to go in order to protect your ideological opposition to evolution.

Again, the dog eating the homework does not earn an A+ especially when 'suspicion' is the primary 'scientific tool' used here

Except the dog didn't eat our homework. We have found THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. The fact that that they are so rare explains why there aren't millions upon millions, but the fact that we have found thousands of them IN SPITE of their rarity says a lot. And not a single one contradicts evolutionary theory.

Now we get to the actual observation rather than the suspicion, the empirical scientific method of observation rather than academic conjecture. - relitively minor changes.

If you believe science is only limited to the directly observable, then you have no idea what science is.

of all the millions of species on Earth, a single one has intelligence.

Wrong. Lots of species have intelligence to varying degrees. What you mean to say is "only humans are as intelligent as humans", which is about as valid as saying "only whales are as big as whales" or "only hedgehogs are as spiky as hedgehogs".

By this observation alone we know that it's not the sort of thing 'evolution' tends to acheve.

No "sort of thing" TENDS to be achieved by evolution. Every species on the planet has some unique facet of evolutionary inheritance.

But I think this gets to the larger perspective-- that the creation event, the singularity 14 odd billion years ago,

Since you apparently reject direct observation, how did you determine the age of the Universe?

happened in such a way as to ultimately develop it's own conciousness to ponder itself with... bizarre fluke can never be ruled out, but I think there are less improbable explanations.

How is it a fluke? What's so particular about life as a physical phenomenon?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no such thing as "atheist dogma", and I challenge you to present a single case where atheism has demonstrably influenced scientific findings or claims.

Hoyle v Lemaitre

If you believe science is only limited to the directly observable, then you have no idea what science is.

of course it's not limited to the observable, if anything the observable is off limits

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

Wrong. Lots of species have intelligence to varying degrees. What you mean to say is "only humans are as intelligent as humans", which is about as valid as saying "only whales are as big as whales" or "only hedgehogs are as spiky as hedgehogs".

I'm using the same definition of intelligence as SETI, you can argue it with them after arguing the Cambrian explosion with Dawkins

No "sort of thing" TENDS to be achieved by evolution. Every species on the planet has some unique facet of evolutionary inheritance.

many species have eyes and ears, but only one has the capacity to be aware of creation itself, consistent with being the primary intended beneficiaries of that creation

There is a little too much personal attack in your responses to keep you on 'unignore', there are plenty other folk who can debate the same opinions respectfully, makes for a more interesting debate to me. - just my opinion but that's what we're here for![/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, it's almost unbelievable. There is an old cargo ship of the time in Albany, set up on the beach as an exhibit - man, they slept on hammocks with a roof less than 5ft high. The Captains cabin was the size of a dunny.
Did you ever read about Stanley? If you like adventure stories about total nutjobs - he's the guy. Had me in fits.

I'll definitely check that out, who was he?

I loved all the Hornblower books but the true stories are great-

I might have already recommended these but- 'In the Heart of the Sea' (Whaleship Essex) and 'Batavia's Graveyard' (off western Australia in the 1600s.) are two of my favorites- both horrific stories but fascinating what people lived through, always makes you appreciate what you have!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No the exact opposite; canals on Mars, static universe models, Piltdown Man, etc were the opinion of academic elite, the masses considered them silly and were correct

"Piltdown Man" was a hoax that failed to convince many academicians of the day. The Canals on Mars were disbelieved by many astronomers with detailed books published in the early 1900's describing why the canals were optical illusions and the reasons why complex life was impossible on Mars. It is also interesting to note on your "Static Universe" quip that Albert Einstein himself admitted he was wrong and described his model of the universe as his "biggest blunder". Assuming that Discovery Institute's list of names of scientists who doubt Darwin's ToE is a true and accurate list (which it is not; a clever hoax in its own right), those who sign that document comprise about .023% of the world's population of scientists. The most you can do to contradict ToE is yell "conspiracy" but can provide no evidence of such a conspiracy; nor can you cite any scientific law or finding that contradicts ToE. ID and Creationism are the true hoaxes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hoyle v Lemaitre

That is an example of two people whose conjectures opposed each other; their claims were not dependent on their theistic or atheistic world views. I'll ask again: present one example of atheism influencing scientific findings or claims.

of course it's not limited to the observable, if anything the observable is off limits

So you really DON'T understand science, then.

I'm using the same definition of intelligence as SETI, you can argue it with them after arguing the Cambrian explosion with Dawkins

I notice you have avoided addressing my accusation of your dishonesty. I have nothing to argue about with Dawkins, because he understands that the Cambrian explosion was not a sudden appearance of phyla without any apparent ancestors.

I will not let you get away with your dishonesty. Retract the quote mine immediately.

many species have eyes and ears, but only one has the capacity to be aware of creation itself, consistent with being the primary intended beneficiaries of that creation

Baseless assumption.

There is a little too much personal attack in your responses to keep you on 'unignore', there are plenty other folk who can debate the same opinions respectfully, makes for a more interesting debate to me. - just my opinion but that's what we're here for!

Calling you dishonest when I point out that you have done something dishonest is NOT a personal attack. But if you wish, I will happily ask other posters to demand you retract your quote mine, and will continue to insist they bring it up at every available opportunity. If you wish to run and hide from me though, you're welcome to do so.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Piltdown Man" was a hoax that failed to convince many academicians of the day. The Canals on Mars were disbelieved by many astronomers with detailed books published in the early 1900's describing why the canals were optical illusions and the reasons why complex life was impossible on Mars. It is also interesting to note on your "Static Universe" quip that Albert Einstein himself admitted he was wrong and described his model of the universe as his "biggest blunder". Assuming that Discovery Institute's list of names of scientists who doubt Darwin's ToE is a true and accurate list (which it is not; a clever hoax in its own right), those who sign that document comprise about .023% of the world's population of scientists. The most you can do to contradict ToE is yell "conspiracy" but can provide no evidence of such a conspiracy; nor can you cite any scientific law or finding that contradicts ToE. ID and Creationism are the true hoaxes.

It convinced most (academics, not people) and formed the basis of man's evolution for decades.

Consensus and science are not the same, Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre would all strongly advise you against that assumption, since they represented the .023%

Conspiracy implies deceit- before I became skeptical of evolution I was convinced of it's truth, and I think everybody who believes it is also. Similarly with creationism, we all want to know the truth, we all believe in something, we have no proof either way.

So I think it's OK, very healthy in fact for people to believe different things, as long as we acknowledge belief, the element of faith in our convictions, then we are open to changing them based on evidence, scientific method,- not academic consensus or perceptions of dishonesty or intellectual superiority.


Classical physics was unanimously believed to account for the physical world. The laws were considered so water-tight they were 'immutable'! This false belief persisted longer than evolution and was supported with far more direct evidence.
Only the 'ignorant masses' believed the world operated on far deeper more mysterious and unpredictable forces.

Likewise today, the vast majority of humanity are skeptical of evolution, while accepting far more complex principles involved in subatomic physics, because the latter is simply better supported by actual evidence rather than academic consensus and state education.

 

[Bunyip]

I'll definitely check that out, who was he?

I loved all the Hornblower books but the true stories are great-

I might have already recommended these but- 'In the Heart of the Sea' (Whaleship Essex) and 'Batavia's Graveyard' (off western Australia in the 1600s.) are two of my favorites- both horrific stories but fascinating what people lived through, always makes you appreciate what you have!

Stanley was the guy who went across Africa to find Dr Livingston. So Henry M. Stanley 'Through the Dark Continent'.
And yeah, the Batavia story used to give me nightmares as a kid.
Cheers mate.

 

[Sapiens]

I'll definitely check that out, who was he?

I loved all the Hornblower books but the true stories are great-

I might have already recommended these but- 'In the Heart of the Sea' (Whaleship Essex) and 'Batavia's Graveyard' (off western Australia in the 1600s.) are two of my favorites- both horrific stories but fascinating what people lived through, always makes you appreciate what you have!

If you liked Hornblower try Alexander Kent's Bolitho series and Bernard Cornwell's Richard Sharpe Series.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you liked Hornblower try Alexander Kent's Bolitho series and Bernard Cornwell's Richard Sharpe Series.

Thanks- I found the first Bolitho in a library sale last year and never read it, will dig it up- I'm not familiar with Sharpe so thanks for the tip, I never tire of those swashbuckling stories!

Kenneth Roberts wrote some good historical-fiction- American adventures also, mostly based on land, but Boon Island is a great non fiction shipwreck/survival story-

should maybe start a new thread, I forgot what we were arguing about?!

 

[Sapiens]

Oh ... then for great writing and a chuckle there's always FLASHMAN by George McDonald Fraser. His WWII memoirs are also amongst the best ever written.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh ... then for great writing and a chuckle there's always FLASHMAN by George McDonald Fraser. His WWII memoirs are also amongst the best ever written.

God yes, the Flashman books are brilliant. A wonderful way to learn about history. Loved the idea of inventing an utter toad of a man and placing him in various real historical situations.

 

[Sapiens]

No the exact opposite; canals on Mars, static universe models, Piltdown Man, etc were the opinion of academic elite, the masses considered them silly and were correct

Actually, as far as Piltdown was concerned you've got that quite backward. A few academicians supported it, most were highly suspicious, but the public loved it because it proved the that white man was superior.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, as far as Piltdown was concerned you've got that quite backward. A few academicians supported it, most were highly suspicious, but the public loved it because it proved the that white man was superior.

Do you have to cloud the issue with facts and accurate information?

 

[Tumah]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

This may be true in religions without doctrine, or where one does not believe in a Divine origin to his religious doctrine. However, there are religions out there including mine, where this is not the case. Therefore, in Orthodox Judaism, one cannot remain devout in faith and believe in evolution without doctrinal proof.

 

[Bunyip]

This may be true in religions without doctrine, or where one does not believe in a Divine origin to his religious doctrine. However, there are religions out there including mine, where this is not the case. Therefore, in Orthodox Judaism, one cannot remain devout in faith and believe in evolution without doctrinal proof.

Could you explain why please?

 

[Tumah]

Could you explain why please?

Because religions without Divinely inspired doctrine are not bound to any specific beliefs. If they don't believe that their god specifically told them X, they are free to believe Y or Z. If they believe their G-d did tell them X, then they are bound to believe X.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

ID has many legs to stand on. It's a mistake to dismiss ID because of religions. ID and religion are day and night. Science gets all of its knowledge from ID. Evolution and life has always gotten its fuel from ID. Doesn't make either of them false. Most of religion is false, but religion isn't ID.

ID is litteraly derived from Christian based creationism.

But please list a few of those legs it stands on.