Evolution of religious bigotry

[fossten]

and it just seems that all is tolerated except christianity to you, because those are the things you pick out most. how do you feel towards me for being atheist? those are the things i have to deal with on occasion as well. as for your link, why would a bunch of nice christians want to rain down on a gay parade? and you wish to talk about intolerance? everybody is born in these countries with the same rights. (north america) you have the right of your belief, yet the gays don't have the right because of your beliefs?(not specifically you, you know what i mean?) it's funny how religions believe they are tolerant, but are usually less than excepting of progressive measures when they conflict with their belief. would you like the world of christianity to be like the world of islam? all christian, nothing else tolerated. if i remember history, that was the reason for distancing this continent from europe.

Well as usual you have everything turned around backwards and upside down. If we all have the same rights, then the Christians should not have been jailed, or the gays should also have been jailed. There was no equality of rights in that situation. Yes, the gays can say what they want, but so can the Christians. See? Equal. Same.

Tolerance can only go so far with religions. Why should a religion be forced to openly accept and endorse a lifestyle which its doctrines say is wrong? That is silly. What if someone's lifestyle involved sacrificing babies? Should a religion accept that behavior? What about polygamy? Should the Baptists accept the Mormons' beliefs and allow multiple marriages? Should a Christian pastor allow a NAMBLA member to be his children's church minister? This is absurd.

Please feel free to disprove the obvious claim that gays are protected and that Christians are being jailed for exercising their free speech. I can produce five articles supporting my position for every one that you find supporting yours.

As far as my feelings about you being an atheist, they are irrelevant. I do not believe you should be jailed for speaking your mind in public, and to date that is the difference between Christians and non Christians, as my article demonstrates. I do not believe you should be squashed from believing in evolution or teaching your kids about it. I do not believe that if a student wants to do a paper on evolution that he should be prevented from doing so. However - the woefully inadequate government school system systematically pushes God out of the schoolroom to the extent that students are punished for even mentioning God or an alternative explanation for the origin of life.

You really need to stop with the invective and ad hominem rhetoric. Calling someone else's beliefs "superstition" is akin to me calling athiests "freaking idiot nutjobs." If you're not going to offer PROOF of your claims of superstition, then please stop using such language. Opinion pieces do not hold up as proof. Your rhetoric doesn't foster a healthy, productive discussion, but rather lets me know that you are a closed-minded, babbling, intolerant fool because you do not have any respect for the people with whom you are discussing this subject. In short, if you can't do this respectfully without demeaning another's beliefs or opinions, then we are finished here.

 

[shagdrum]

i guess it comes down to this. the state is tolerant of peoples belief systems, but it won't be a party to furthering superstition. if people wish to believe in
whatever, there are places better suited than the public. these are the freedoms brought by the "christian" founders. to let the christian ideal of creation into public, then you must entertain all ideals of creation.

Where are you getting that?! There is no basis for that in the constitution. Where does your claim come from that the founders didn't want the state to "be a party to furthering superstition", and they thought "if people wish to believe in whatever [biblical creation?], there are places better suited than the public."? what is it's textual foundation?

evolution is the only one not of superstitious founding. it may not be 100% accurate, as it has only been studied for a short time. but it is based upon sound natural laws.

Interesting that you cite natural laws in this discussion, as the philosophical natural laws/rights this country was founded on were inherently recognized as coming from our creator God).

to put christianity back in public schooling, then all superstition must be entertained due to ethnic and cultural diversity. islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, even the many ideals of first nations people, and etc. it has to be looked at from a global view. and you can imagine what a headache this would be.

Why is that? Christianity is strongly mixed in with the traditions of this nation. Christianity specifically was given a special place by many of the Framers, and was the official religion (different denominations) of many states through the founding of this country.

Ethnic and cultural diversity only has a basis in political correctness; there is no constitutional basis for it, and exceedingly questionable legal basis for it, at best. It is in no way a requirement in the classroom. It does not provide a logical justification for looking at all other religious posibilities.

as for your link, why would a bunch of nice christians want to rain down on a gay parade? and you wish to talk about intolerance? everybody is born in these countries with the same rights. (north america) you have the right of your belief, yet the gays don't have the right because of your beliefs?(not specifically you, you know what i mean?)

Comparing religion (Christians) and gays is apples and oranges. Religion is specifically protected in the constitution, gays are not. "Protected classes" is inherently institutionalizing discrimination, which is the point of the article. The whole gay this isn't a "belief" like religion, that is a mischaracterization. Homosexuality is arguably a behaviorial choice, while Christianity is a religion (spiritual belief). Christianity views homosexuality as an act that is sinful (made by choice) and thus protest against it, as is their constitutional right under both the Free Speech, and Free [religious] Exercise parts of the 1st amendment. the Free Exercise Clause has no application to the gay community. So if anyone should be jailed, the justification for jailing gays is stronger then jailing Christians (though there really is no justification either way, really).

 

[shagdrum]

i was actually saying the breeding of dogs isn't a valid arguement.

I understand that. I was taking the logic in the argument you made and applying it to the bigger argument.

the sudden so- called cambrian explosion is based on available fossils. it doesn't mean that there may not have been more fossils in the older periods. their fossils may not have been preserved as well. this explosion is also over millions of years. it isn't over thousands of years. there is nothing surprising in it.

Yeah but an "explosion of diversity" (as they spell out in the fossilmuseum.net article) goes against evolution. Evolution is slow and would in no way "explode". Going from the relatively small number of species to a huge number of species, as depected in the Cambrian explosion, would have to suggest that the appearance of new species was somehow guided, if nothing else then to guide evolution and take out the trial and error aspect of it.

 

[hrmwrm]

a little something from my last link
"Whereas a literal interpretation of the Cambrian fossil record requires the near-simultaneous, ‘late arrival’ of nearly all metazoan phyla, recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis. Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies tend to vary considerably today – the science is new – but a consistent pattern emerges, nevertheless. These studies all conclude that the major animal groups became separated from one another hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian. Some studies (e.g. the classic Wray et al. 1996) place the age of the primary division of animals into protostomes and deuterostomes at around 1,200 Ma – much more than twice the age of the Cambrian Explosion."
"Early-Arrival Models
Darwin himself preferred the early-arrival explanation, noting that "before the lowest Silurian [the Cambrian system had not yet been recognised] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures" (Darwin 1859, p. 307).

Today we might regard Darwin’s views as wonderfully prescient, for numerous Precambrian fossils have now indeed been collected, and modern techniques – impossible in Darwin’s day – such as ‘molecular clock’ studies, strongly indicate metazoan evolutionary events having occurred deep within the Precambrian.
There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone, that bilaterian metazoans existed in the Vendian, and possibly early in the Vendian. Although some traces are simple, rather featureless, winding trails, "others display transverse rugae and contain pellets that can be interpreted as of fecal origin. The bilaterian nature of these traces is not in dispute. Furthermore, such traces must have been made by worms, some of which had lengths measured in centimetres, with through guts, which were capable of displacing sediment during some form of peristaltic locomotion, implying a system of body wall muscles antagonized by a hydrostatic skeleton. Such worms are more complex than flatworms, which cannot create such trails and do not leave fecal strings" (Valentine 1995, p. 90). "
not necessarily did the cambrian have an explosion. at first interpretation, this is how it seems. some seem to be a carry over of existing forms.

"An entirely independent line of study is reported in Lieberman 2003. Here, the results of a phylogenetic biogeographic analysis of Early Cambrian olenellid trilobites are calibrated by a tectonic event, the breakup of Pannotia at 600 to 550 Ma, providing evidence that "trilobites likely had evolved and begun to diversify minimally by between 550 to 600 Ma" (Lieberman 2003, p. 231).

In preserving evidence of bilaterians, the Vendian record provides constraints on the protostome-deuterostome (P-D) divergence. If Kimberella is indeed a mollusc, as suggested by Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997, or certain trace fossils recorded from the Ediacara Hills and Zimnie Gory are correctly interpreted as radula scratches, we have evidence for derived protostomes at 555 Ma. Similarly, if Arkarua adami (from the Pound Subgroup, South Australia; Gehling 1987) is correctly interpreted as an echinoderm, we have evidence for a derived deuterostome of similar age. In either case, it follows that the protostome-deuterostome split must have occurred well before 555 Ma, which is consistent with most ‘molecular clock’ studies.
The latter, however, mostly favour a P-D split far deeper in the Precambrian: some as early as 1,200 Ma (table 1). If correct, then the Cambrian explosion is clearly an artefact. "

"Conclusion
The abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record, during the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian ages of the Early Cambrian, has long been recognised and is now widely known to paleontologists and laymen alike, as the ‘Cambrian Explosion.’ However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian.

It is to be expected that morphologically diversity should lag behind genetic diversity. This is especially true of organisms which are morphologically simple to begin with. Bacteria and Archaea look very much alike and, prior to genetic sequencing, they were classified together even though their genes now tell us they are as different as elephants and pond scum – maybe more so.
This expectation is borne out by the generally much greater ages attributed to the divergences of all megascopic lineages by molecular clock methods than is revealed by the fossil record.
Representatives of different high level taxa diverge from one another very early in ontogeny. It is at least intuitively reasonable that the ancestral organisms which experienced the ‘homologous’ phylogenetic divergences, were very simple. For example, the last common protostome-deuterostome ancestor is unlikely to have been a morphologically complex animal. Moreover, once one of these ‘early’ mutations has occurred, it is soon ‘frozen’ in by subsequent internal coadaptation.
These realisations permit us to reconcile diverse observations, such as:
The very early evolution of life generally (> 3,500 Ma), and eukaryote life in particular (> 1,200 Ma);

Molecular and microfossil evidence for an ancient (~ 1,000 Ma) diversification of eukaryotes;

Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;

The apparently rapid origin of very many crown group metazoans in the ~35 million year interval from ~565 Ma to ~530 Ma (the misnamed Cambrian Explosion);

The observation that few fundamentally new metazoan body plans (some would say none) have arisen since. "

give science time. they'll dig deeper and find more answers. your view of the explosion is only one interpretation. evidence exists otherwise.

 

[hrmwrm]

fossten, if it's allowable in the law, yes, you should have to tolerate it. i tolerate religion, which is against my ideals. but it's allowed by law. and according to your article, the gays had a permit to hold their festival. the finale may have been wrong, but as i said, what was a group of christians doing at a gay parade?. i'm sure they weren't there for the festivities. some of your examples of toleration are just wrong. infanticide is illegal. and i wouldn't be so sure there isn't already a minister somewhere who is a nambla member. but that's life.

your feelings towards me as an atheist was to try and create the ideal to you of tolerance. to not believe is also against your teachings, but you accept it apparently. i'm not saying the christians should have been jailed, but the gays were within their right, permitted by the city, to hold their gathering. christians being there had nothing to do with free speech, but discrimination. the country has strong laws against it nowadays. rights for identifiable minorities has been going on for a long time, and will continue. accept it or accept the consequences for trying to fight against it.

 

[fossten]

i was actually saying the breeding of dogs isn't a valid arguement. sorry that wasn't clear. there are 8 recorded mass extinctions periods in my first source. pre-cambrian and verdian had 1 extinction each. cambrian had 4 scattered throughout it's time relation. ordivician had the second most largest extinction.

One of your 'mass extinctions' has now been rejected by scientists. I guess it's back to the drawing board. But I'll keep sticking with my superstition.

Scientists Report Doubts Over Key Theory of Evolutionary Extinction

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Researchers have recently “ruled out a hypothesis” that has been taught as dogma in schools, colleges and universities worldwide: the cause of the Permian extinction, allegedly “the mother of all mass extinctions.”

Geologists and paleontologists state in a recent article in Nature Geoscience that at the end of the Permian era—which they calculate occurred some 250 million years ago—“95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were wiped out.” Called the “Great Dying” by some researchers, it is difficult not to think of a cataclysmic event, such as a global flood (Genesis 6 – 9), when reading of such massive destruction.

Regardless, evolutionary scientists have taught for decades that this Permian extinction event was precipitated by gradual oxygen starvation of the world’s oceans. This supposedly led to a massive die-out of marine life due to “clouds of hydrogen sulphide” rising from the seas.

Now many scientists are stymied as to what caused this devastating event, but Flood geologists have an idea: massive flooding, possible asteroid activity, and large-scale volcanism. History records such a catastrophic event in Genesis 7:11.

Indeed, many scientists are coming closer to the truth when they rule out clouds of hydrogen sulphide and look approvingly at “an impact, or series of impacts, by an asteroid.” Granted, this is not the Flood, but such bombardments probably did occur at this time. In fact, many geologists now agree with creation scientists that earth did experience a worldwide cataclysmic event. Take note of this shift from a position that does not fit the facts to a more reasonable scientific understanding—sudden cataclysm(s) such as asteroids or even a “fierce period of volcanism,” which happens to fit historical accounts found in the biblical record.

Of course, researchers in creation science continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and little by little, Darwinian scientists committed to evolutionary dogma are beginning to confirm what we’ve been stating all along.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sherwin is Science Editor

Source: http://www.physorg.com/news125509388.html

 

[shagdrum]

fossten, if it's allowable in the law, yes, you should have to tolerate it.

That's an overly simplified statement, that is grossly inaccurate

christians being there had nothing to do with free speech, but discrimination.

More distortion. Christians have ever right to be there, they have free speech rights as well. You don't get to spin it so they don't. that is a very sloppy argument.

Discrimination is also a form of free speech. You can't outlaw that.

the country has strong laws against it nowadays.

dispite your distortion, you actually hit on the point of the article. Only acts should be criminalized, not thoughts. If I have a discriminatory view, that is my perogative and not the governments business. There is a movement in this country to criminalize thought that is successful in some areas, as noted in the article.

rights for identifiable minorities has been going on for a long time, and will continue. accept it or accept the consequences for trying to fight against it.

Depends on the minority, and depends on what type of right. I am left handed, which is a minority. no special laws for me. and NO minority should EVER be a "protected class". Minorities also need to be genetically so, in nature. That is highly questionable in the gay community. It is very likely a behavioral thing; a lifestyle choice. If you choose to become a minority, you are not entitled to any special rights.

 

[shagdrum]

Whereas a literal interpretation of the Cambrian fossil record requires the near-simultaneous, ‘late arrival’ of nearly all metazoan phyla, recent genetic evidence reveals a different pattern, sometimes known as the ‘slow burn’ or ‘early arrival’ hypothesis.

Genetics says nothing about evolution, only adaptation...

Age estimates derived from calibrated gene divergence studies tend to vary considerably today – the science is new – but a consistent pattern emerges, nevertheless.

Ahh, so a new science built around estimates is the basis for the evidence here?! The evidence is getting more and more shaky...

Today we might regard Darwin’s views as wonderfully prescient, for numerous Precambrian fossils have now indeed been collected, and modern techniques – impossible in Darwin’s day – such as ‘molecular clock’ studies, strongly indicate metazoan evolutionary events having occurred deep within the Precambrian.

So, the Cambrian Explosion, which one of your sources talks about, didn't happen? You are contradicting yourself, it seems...

There can be little doubt, on the basis of trace evidence alone, that bilaterian metazoans existed in the Vendian, and possibly early in the Vendian.

Conclusive evidence isn't based on "trace evidence alone"

Although some traces are simple, rather featureless, winding trails, "others display transverse rugae and contain pellets that can be interpreted as of fecal origin.

They are basing this on poop! They find fossilized poop, in which most, if not all genetic material has degraded to the point of being useless, if it is even still present.

This post is becoming less credible as conclusive proof of evolution as you move through it...

The bilaterian nature of these traces is not in dispute.

...suggesting less diversity

Furthermore, such traces must have been made by worms, some of which had lengths measured in centimetres, with through guts, which were capable of displacing sediment during some form of peristaltic locomotion, implying a system of body wall muscles antagonized by a hydrostatic skeleton

Also suggesting even less diversity as well as suggesting something other then evolution, as they are made by worms, which are all the same species. This is proving adaptation, not evolution.

not necessarily did the cambrian have an explosion. at first interpretation, this is how it seems. some seem to be a carry over of existing forms.

Again, contradicting another of your sources.

Also, "carry over of existing forms" is not evolution.

"Conclusion
The abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record, during the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian ages of the Early Cambrian, has long been recognised and is now widely known to paleontologists and laymen alike, as the ‘Cambrian Explosion.’ However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian.

Just because life was diversified before the Cambrian Explosion, doesn't dispell the critique of evolution through the Cambrian Explosion. The "conclusion" doesn't dispute that the Cambrian Explosion happened, "...abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record". The fact that the Cambrian Explosion happened works against evolution.

It is to be expected that morphologically diversity should lag behind genetic diversity.

Again, genetics (and genetic diversity) say nothing about evolution, only adaptation.

This post confuses adaptation for evolution (possibly intentionally, to confuse the issue). It looks at genetics from questionable "trace" sources (poop) to infer diverity as a result of evolution. Genetics say nothing about evolution, only adaptation. A new species is needed to prove evolution, and that isn't shown in this post. Evolution is only claimed and implied here, without any proof.

All this article does show is that there was a very diverse population of worms (and possibly other species) before the Cambrian Explosion. Evolution is not show at all in the article.

As a side note, you need to break this down. Summarize the argument, ect. This was obviously written for scientists (I had to look up a large number of the terms). You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. If they can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down.

I assume you are not relying on the hard to read nature of this as part of your argument, as that would be a very underhanded and illogical tactic that wouldn't strengthen your argument, but would in fact hurt your credibility.

 

[hrmwrm]

i see you read the whole article from the link? then you would have some understanding. genetics is used for the diversity of differences. the fact of the worm traces in an older period than the cambrian. the trails, although scarce, are proof of earlier existence than cambrian. the diversity was there before. you are only spinning and confusing yourself shag. a large fossil record is not proof that everything happened at once. it only proves a large diversity at a given time.

using new tools to probe old mysteries is what science is about. you seem to be rather stuck in age old answers that don't answer anything. just pose the mystery and leave it at that. instead i prefer the new answers that narrow down the evidence rather than staying with ancient thought.(kind of like religion) keep hiding from new answers and you'll keep in your clouded ancient ways. and as long as you quote short, you can spin it how you like. take the whole section together, and it comes to a different understanding.

"The Tommotian and Atdabanian Ages (530 to 519 Ma)
The oldest known shelly fossils, simple tubes of the family Cloudinidae, first appear very near the end of the Proterozoic. Shelly fossils become more common and more diverse in the basal Cambrian – comprising the so-called ‘small shelly fauna’ – but this radiation is modest compared to the explosive diversification of the late Early Cambrian, a phenomenon which has come to be known as the Cambrian Explosion.
For a very long time, non-shelly fossils were unknown or poorly understood, the metazoan status of the Ediacarans was famously a matter of debate, and other lines of evidence had yet to be discovered. Thus, as far as anybody could be sure, the shelly fossil record was a literal record of metazoan evolution, and it seemed to be telling us that in the late Early Cambrian animals diversified explosively from almost nothing to approximately the full range of basic archetypes known today, in as little as 10 million years.
However, "[t]he presence of true, though soft-bodied, triploblasts is now documented by worm burrows, by radular markings and body impressions of early mollusks, and by phosphatised embryos, of Vendian age" (Seilacher et al. 1998, p. 80). Some, such as Kimberella and Parvancorina, can even be tentatively assigned to extant phyla. Nevertheless, although recent discoveries have greatly extended the record of sponges and bilateral animals, the earliest unequivocal paleontological evidence of metazoan life is no more than 600 Ma (Bromham et al. 1998, p. 12386). "


read careful again. better yet, read the link in whole, since i quoted only parts.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
the cambrian explosion is a view of then available evidence. maybe it contradicts the explosion, but it doesn't contradict evolution.

 

[hrmwrm]

One of your 'mass extinctions' has now been rejected by scientists. I guess it's back to the drawing board. But I'll keep sticking with my superstition.

Scientists Report Doubts Over Key Theory of Evolutionary Extinction

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Researchers have recently “ruled out a hypothesis” that has been taught as dogma in schools, colleges and universities worldwide: the cause of the Permian extinction, allegedly “the mother of all mass extinctions.”

Geologists and paleontologists state in a recent article in Nature Geoscience that at the end of the Permian era—which they calculate occurred some 250 million years ago—“95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were wiped out.” Called the “Great Dying” by some researchers, it is difficult not to think of a cataclysmic event, such as a global flood (Genesis 6 – 9), when reading of such massive destruction.

Regardless, evolutionary scientists have taught for decades that this Permian extinction event was precipitated by gradual oxygen starvation of the world’s oceans. This supposedly led to a massive die-out of marine life due to “clouds of hydrogen sulphide” rising from the seas.

Now many scientists are stymied as to what caused this devastating event, but Flood geologists have an idea: massive flooding, possible asteroid activity, and large-scale volcanism. History records such a catastrophic event in Genesis 7:11.

Indeed, many scientists are coming closer to the truth when they rule out clouds of hydrogen sulphide and look approvingly at “an impact, or series of impacts, by an asteroid.” Granted, this is not the Flood, but such bombardments probably did occur at this time. In fact, many geologists now agree with creation scientists that earth did experience a worldwide cataclysmic event. Take note of this shift from a position that does not fit the facts to a more reasonable scientific understanding—sudden cataclysm(s) such as asteroids or even a “fierce period of volcanism,” which happens to fit historical accounts found in the biblical record.

Of course, researchers in creation science continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and little by little, Darwinian scientists committed to evolutionary dogma are beginning to confirm what we’ve been stating all along.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sherwin is Science Editor

Source: http://www.physorg.com/news125509388.html

an asteroid and volcanism is hardly forty days and nights of rain. and an asteroid is a far cry from a supernatural being causing this rain. there are many theories on what caused it.here are a few.
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/permcause.html

but then, this was 250,000,000 years ago, before modern man and noah. nice try at a biblical correlation though. would of been more believable if man wasn't present. you stick with your superstition then.

 

[fossten]

but then, this was 250,000,000 years ago, before modern man and noah. nice try at a biblical correlation though. would of been more believable if man wasn't present. you stick with your superstition then.

Your logic is unbelievable. At least men were around 6,000 years ago to record history. There's no chance whatsoever that anyone witnessed the things that you claim happened, yet you stick with your superstition.

 

[hrmwrm]

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it. evidence exists, and dating this evidence is not questionable to the degree you would to fit the bible. of course the errancy is greater at more distant dating. but even if you allow %10, it hardly comes out at a 6000yr old earth. life has existed in some form since about 3.8 billion years. higher life couldn't start to exist until less than 1 billion years ago when oxygen became high enough to sustain it. as long as you keep finding things that strengthen your faith, hey, all the power to ya. find all the reverse logic and babble you can. i hope it's enough to carry these beliefs beyond the next century, but i doubt it.

 

[shagdrum]

i see you read the whole article from the link? then you would have some understanding. genetics is used for the diversity of differences. the fact of the worm traces in an older period than the cambrian. the trails, although scarce, are proof of earlier existence than cambrian. the diversity was there before. you are only spinning and confusing yourself shag. a large fossil record is not proof that everything happened at once. it only proves a large diversity at a given time.

What? It seems you may not fully understand what you are posting. Everything I said was consistent with what was posted and wasn't spin, as you try to imply, and you know it.

The argument is that evidence suggest that there was more diversity then previously thought before the Cambrian Explosion, and that can explain the huge explosion of diversity in the Cambrian period because it really wasn't such a huge thing.

The problem is, the evidence still says nothing about evolution. All the evidence shows is adaptation, which it implies is evolution.

It is also based on questionable evidence. New, unproven techiques with questionable accuracy (new techniques based on "estimates"). The study also bases the info on fossilized dung where much of the genetic material is highly degraded, and a lot of admitted "trace evidence". All this (mixed with the fact that it is only one study) suggests that these findings aren't near as conclusive as you are trying to imply by posting it here.

It also makes some pretty big intellectual leaps and assumptions. Because we can find evidence of a more diverse population of worms in the pre-cambrian period then we originally thought, that shows that there was much more diversity across the board and that lessens the possibility that there was an "explosion" of diversity in the Cambrian period.

It also never shows anything that can be viewed as evidence of evolution, which is the whole point of this debate. Only adaptation is every shown (and questionably, at that).

Your whole point in posting that (that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't an "explosion" as there was already much more diversity they originally thought in the pre cambrian) is hardly conclusively proven. At best, a little doubt is cast on the Pre-Cabrian explosion by this study, but one study, no matter how accurate, cannot disprove something like the Cambrian Explosion (which this study really doesn't try to do, by its own admission). More studies and much more evidence is needed to logically disprove the Cambrian Explosion. The study really only suggests a reasonable diverse population of worms, likely in the pre-cambrian. The rest is mere speculation and inference based on assumptions and leaps in reasoning.

using new tools to probe old mysteries is what science is about. you seem to be rather stuck in age old answers that don't answer anything. just pose the mystery and leave it at that.

So new methods must not be questioned?! That's hardly logical. A new method of study (techniques, ect) has to be proven reliable before it can be view as having any credibility. It must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. It's not like unproven and/or unreliable techniques haven't distorted findings before, leading to faulty or false conclusions, or been used before to intentionally spin the evidence and distort the issue (Computer models and global warming).

instead i prefer the new answers that narrow down the evidence rather than staying with ancient thought.(kind of like religion) keep hiding from new answers and you'll keep in your clouded ancient ways. and as long as you quote short, you can spin it how you like. take the whole section together, and it comes to a different understanding.

You prefer? So you are dictated by your own bias? You should not "prefer" any technique or answers over others. Otherwise you compromise your intellectual honesty in any search for the truth. You go where the info leads, not where you want it to lead; a uninterested search for the truth.

When it comes to old techniques vs new; old techniques are proven and consistent; giving a known degree of reliability that has been proven. New techniques don't have that, so logically must be viewed as unreliable until proven otherwise. If they are proven to be consistently more reliable then old techniques, then they eventually replace the old technique. When it comes to new vs old (in almost anything), the burden of proof always logically lies with the new, not the other way around, as you are trying to spin it. It's called the precautionary principle.

You are trying to spin logical, disinterested, critical thinking as "non-progressive" which is an ad homenem, underhanded rhetorical tactic.

Again, You need to make the argument easy to read to your audience. Break it down, summarize it in your own words, etc. If your audience can't understand the argument, then it is irrelevant, and suggests that you may not understand it and thus cannot break it down (which is becoming more and more likely in my mind).

 

[shagdrum]

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it

Superstition is not, by definition, supernatural.

Here is one of your favorite sources :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

• Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.

Superstition can be spiritually based, but doesn't have to be. "Science" can be superstitious. Prime example; Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

 

[fossten]

science is hardly superstition. there is nothing supernatural about it. evidence exists, and dating this evidence is not questionable to the degree you would to fit the bible. of course the errancy is greater at more distant dating. but even if you allow %10, it hardly comes out at a 6000yr old earth. life has existed in some form since about 3.8 billion years. higher life couldn't start to exist until less than 1 billion years ago when oxygen became high enough to sustain it. as long as you keep finding things that strengthen your faith, hey, all the power to ya. find all the reverse logic and babble you can. i hope it's enough to carry these beliefs beyond the next century, but i doubt it.

Science is observation and experimentation, not evolution. Until science actually OBSERVES and/or EXPERIMENTS one species changing into another, evolution is nothing but a wild guess. Until "evolutionary science" actually finds a missing link between species that supposedly evolved into one another, evolution is unproven and unlikely. Believing that a bird evolved into a reptile is not backed up by science, fossil evidence or otherwise.

The burden is on you to make your case. Still waiting for the proof that your "superstition" is true.

 

[shagdrum]

Science is observation and experimentation, not evolution. Until science actually OBSERVES and/or EXPERIMENTS one species changing into another, evolution is nothing but a wild guess. Until "evolutionary science" actually finds a missing link between species that supposedly evolved into one another, evolution is unproven and unlikely. Believing that a bird evolved into a reptile is not backed up by science, fossil evidence or otherwise.

The burden is on you to make your case. Still waiting for the proof that your "superstition" is true.

That pretty well sums it up...

 

[fossten]

Florida schools must teach evolution, despite public opinion

The Florida State Board of Education now requires the explicit teaching of evolution in public science classes, with a last minute addition of the phrase "the scientific theory of" in an apparent but failed effort to pacify its opponents. The 4 to 3 vote allows for the first time the word "evolution" in the school standards, though the concept of descent with modification over millions of years was already being taught under different wording.

The Orlando Sentinel reported on February 20, 2008 that, after months of controversy over the new standards, opponents of the decision plan to petition the state Legislature to pass protections for teachers who offer alternative origins explanations in the classroom.

The Associated Press reported that evolution supporters believe the academic freedom proposal is a "wedge designed to open the door for injecting religious arguments into science studies," suggesting the irony that "academic freedom" is only available within a limited sphere of minority opinion.

According to a recent poll by the St. Petersburg Times, almost two thirds of 702 registered voters surveyed in Florida were unconvinced of evolution.

Of those two thirds, "|29| percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible," the report stated.

It is this body of constituents that proponents of evolutionary theory apparently fear most and have tried to discredit by casting the debate as "science versus faith" and "scientists versus everyone else."

"People are going to have to be carried kicking and screaming over the threshold |to accept evolution|," Florida State University professor Michael Ruse told the Times. [BINGO!] He likened the fight over evolution to the civil rights movement.

The Florida decision will most likely have rippling effects in school districts around the country.

***

What more evidence do you need that evolution is being forced on people!

 

[TheDude]

From the Los Angeles Times

Evolution of religious bigotry

The cowardice and intolerance of slapping a Darwin fish on your car bumper.

Jonah Goldberg

April 1, 2008

Ijust watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, which takes a hard-line stance against Muslim immigration.

Released on the Internet on Thursday, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are just some of the powerful images from "Fitna," an Arabic word that means "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch government didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual motions of theatrical hand-wringing, heaping all of their anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke nearly no English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liquor, one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for "Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish symbol is "updated" with little feet coming off the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

1) Why does the auther think that Turkish Christian is a different Christian?

2) This guy needs to pull the stick out. Angry over a silly little picture, what is he, a Muslim?

 

[fossten]

1) Why does the auther think that Turkish Christian is a different Christian?

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?

2) This guy needs to pull the stick out. Angry over a silly little picture, what is he, a Muslim?

Uh, no. Muslims threaten to lop your head off if you put up a pic of Mohammed. Christians don't do that. He's merely expressing his displeasure through, you know, WORDS.

 

[Kbob]

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?

I took it to mean that the Turk was a Christian. And the Turk assumed the author was a Christian because he was American, even though as we all know, not all Americans are Christian. But the Turkish man obviously didn't know that. And I think that is very interesting.

 

[TheDude]

He doesn't say. All he says is "or so he thought." He may have been implying that many people think they are Christians who are not, or he may have been implying that a subsequent conversation with the guy identified him as not really a Christian. Who knows?


Uh, no. Muslims threaten to lop your head off if you put up a pic of Mohammed. Christians don't do that. He's merely expressing his displeasure through, you know, WORDS.

I'll have to place that in my "unsolved" chest.

And I'm expressing how foolish I think he is for being angered by such a thing, "through, you know, WORDS."

 

[Kbob]

And I'm expressing how foolish I think he is for being angered by such a thing, "through, you know, WORDS."

I don't think there's anything foolish about being angered by a double standard.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The whole idea of the wall of separation has nothing to do with our Constitution but comes from a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. They had written to Jefferson to get assurance that the government would not establish a state religion such as the Church of England, which dominated all the people of England.

Whats wrong with those statements?

 

[TheDude]

I don't think there's anything foolish about being angered by a double standard.

The Darwin-Fish is a joke, a fun jab.

 

[Kbob]

The Darwin-Fish is a joke, a fun jab.

I'm not saying I'm offended by it, because I'm not. But again the purpose of the article was to show the double standard in our society.

From the article: "similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims."

Also from the article: "It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger."

People aren't worried about their safety by displaying a Darwin fish. But where's the satire against Islam? Why is it not as prevelant? Again, because of the double standard, as illustrated in the article. Either people don't want to "offend" Muslims, or they're scared to face the "well-deserved anger" of Muslims.