Last Updated on Tue, Mar 28, 2017 1:06:04 AM

[00:47] ManAlive!~don@ JOIN #Scripture
[00:47] tomathyst> :they evolved during that extreme amount of time.
[00:47] tomathyst> :then the cambrian explosion occurred.
[00:47] Deanr`> :tomathyst: where's the transcendent fossil record? how is it we suddenly have complex organism development in such a short time, when the very premise of evolution is slow change over long periods of time?
[00:48] Deanr`> :sorry, transcient
[00:49] tomathyst> :yes, because the earlier forms left very few fossils because they were basically jelly. there ARE fossils of life long before the cambrian
[00:49] Deanr`> :there are no transcient fossils. That's the entire problem.
[00:49] tomathyst> :we're lucky to even SEE the cambrian explosion because they were mostly very soft-bodied still.
[00:49] tomathyst> :wrong. that's the problem.
[00:50] tomathyst> :Christian fundamentalists are always claiming lack of fossils as if that's some sort of proof.
[00:50] Deanr`> :you have fossils that are far less complex previously. Then, wham... you have numerous complex fossils.
[00:51] tomathyst> :Fossils are incredibly rare to occur, especially way back then.
[00:51] Deanr`> :tomathyst: we're talking about the Cambrian explosion. Darwin himself said that this was a problem.
[00:51] tomathyst> :Yep because wham, life developed some new methods of survival and there was a huge 'arms race'.
[00:52] Deanr`> :hence, the recently published book "Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer
[00:52] tomathyst> :Darwin is no god. He didn't know much about evolution compared to what's known now.
[00:52] tomathyst> :lol
[00:52] Deanr`> :tomathyst: no, but he recognized the problem of the Cambrien Explosion
[00:52] tomathyst> :Darwin is inconsequential now.
[00:53] tomathyst> :You think it's a problem. I don't.
[00:53] Deanr`> :have you read Darwin's Doubt?
[00:53] tomathyst> :no
[00:53] tomathyst> :Is Stephen Meyer a christian apologist?
[00:54] Deanr`> :he's a biologist. Here, look at the recommendations by other scientists:
[00:54] Deanr`> :the ones that flash on the screen
[00:55] tomathyst> :ok i stopped at the subtitle, sorry
[00:55] tomathyst> :i read science books, not christian apologist books.
[00:55] Deanr`> :well read the recommendations that flash up. these are other biologists and professors who teach at prestigious universities.
[00:56] Deanr`> :in other words, this has received considerable peer review
[00:56] tomathyst> :sorry, i really don't care what they have to say. they might all be christian apologist biologists for all i know.
[00:57] Deanr`> :tomathyst: hmm... so what's blocking you from considering this?
[00:58] tomathyst> :because being a christian apologist makes it extremely likely that the book and all the research and findings behind it are biased. Biased books aren't really science books, they are arguments.
[00:58] Deanr`> :tomathyst: well they are attempting to make the case for ID
[00:59] tomathyst> :yes i see
[00:59] tomathyst> :i say let them!
[01:00] Deanr`> :tomathyst: so of course, they are biased to arguing for ID. Aren't you begging the question for your view by not considering very educated and well qualified scientists who produce coherent and well thought out arguments and evidence for their views?
[01:01] Deanr`> :not only that, but views that have received considered peer review
[01:01] tomathyst> :i see no problem with sticking to pure science.
[01:01] Deanr`> :tomathyst: what is pure science in your mind?
[01:02] tomathyst> :scientific observation and theory that is: not biased toward a shepherd culture's creation myths. I am simply not interested in reading such stuff.
[01:02] Deanr`> :tomathyst: btw, Stephen Meyer was the main guy in that video. :)
[01:03] tomathyst> :ah ok
[01:03] tomathyst> :I think his whole thing is simply an argument of incredulity.
[01:04] Deanr`> :tomathyst; but how do you know if you won't read or view their arguments?
[01:04] tomathyst> :
[01:05] tomathyst> :that is about arguments of incredulity
[01:05] tomathyst> :it's less than 1/2 page.
[01:05] Deanr`> :tomathyst: again, why do you believe this when you haven't read the material?
[01:05] tomathyst> :because of the second line in the title
[01:06] tomathyst> :it totally gives it away