I used to teach adults, does that count? Look its very simple. Of course kids can ask questions, that is NOT the same as teaching the “controversy” that does not actually exist within science. If people what to raise SCIENTIFIC objections then they must do it in the academic arena.Charles, did you never learn punctuation from your school teacher parents?
More important have you ever taught school? Have you experienced children asking questions, and had to discriminate between questions the answering of which would be a legitimate use of time, and questions the answering of which would clearly be a waste of everyone’s time?
StAnastasia
Pascal’s wager says either God exists or God does not exist. It’s completely irrelevant as to which god he is speaking about. It’s a basic truth table. He either exists or He doesn’t. Those are the only two options.The claim was in regard to pascal’s wager. That IS NOT pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager is concerned with a specific god. So there is NOT 2 options.
I have a comment to make about this (and it’s one I’ve made before about theists and atheists discussing their respective views). Let’s assume that we cannot explain the Cambrian explosion… at all. That says nothing about whether God does or does not exist. It just says that we can’t explain it. There are still an infinite number of possible explanations that have not been considered that could describe it.Ok, I have a question how does one make sense of the Cambrian explosion with the idea of natural selection (descent with modification in slight successive favorable variations’)?
There is no issue with the cambrian explosion?Ok, I have a question how does one make sense of the Cambrian explosion with the idea of natural selection (descent with modification in slight successive favorable variations’)?
Ok so your not defining your god I.E. Yahweh? So i can get into heaven with out believing specifically in Yahweh?Pascal’s wager says either God exists or God does not exist. It’s completely irrelevant as to which god he is speaking about. It’s a basic truth table. He either exists or He doesn’t. Those are the only two options.
Within “God does exist”, there might be sub categories of varying gods… but this is irrelevant to his “wager”.
The Cambrian explosion “gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla” does not this discovery contradict Darwin’s understanding of modifications (as being slow and slight without any great or sudden modifications)? How did all these phyla (40 in all) appear simultaneously?What do you mean by “make sense of”? What is the problem you see with the Cambrian explosion?
Why would it matter if it contradicts Darwin? We don’t throw out later physics because it contradicts Newton. Do you not realize that Darwin died more than a century ago, and that evolutionary theory has progressed considerably beyond what Darwin thought? Remember, Darwin is not God or some unchanging biological magisterium.The Cambrian explosion “gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla” does not this discovery contradict Darwin’s understanding of modifications (as being slow and slight without any great or sudden modifications)? How did all these phyla (40 in all) appear simultaneously?
I am not assuming that the cambrian explosion cannot eventually be explained, however, the thread is entitled gaps in evolution, so I’m trying to understand how Darwin’s understanding of natural selection can make sense of the cambrian explosion? Can anyone provide me with an explanation?I have a comment to make about this (and it’s one I’ve made before about theists and atheists discussing their respective views). Let’s assume that we cannot explain the Cambrian explosion… at all. That says nothing about whether God does or does not exist. It just says that we can’t explain it. There are still an infinite number of possible explanations that have not been considered that could describe it.
To me, it’s the same thing as when atheists say “the earth is more than 10,000 years old, therefore evolution is right”. This says nothing about whether evolution is right or not. It just says that the theory that the earth is 10,000 years old (and any theories based on that) are incorrect.
The cambrian explosion took place over about 10 milllion yearsThe Cambrian explosion “gave rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla” does not this discovery contradict Darwin’s understanding of modifications (as being slow and slight without any great or sudden modifications)? How did all these phyla (40 in all) appear simultaneously?
And are you saying therefore that natural selection is no longer taught in schools in a way similar to what Darwin stated? Don’t schools still teach descent with modification (with slow and slight variations rather than great or sudden modifications)?Why would it matter if it contradicts Darwin? We don’t throw out later physics because it contradicts Newton. Do you not realize that Darwin died more than a century ago, and that evolutionary theory has progressed considerably beyond what Darwin thought? Remember, Darwin is not God or some unchanging biological magisterium.
I never made any mention of my god or anyone else’s. Pascal’s wager is a progression of logical statements. You tried to discredit it. I’m saying it’s completely logically sound.Ok so your not defining your god I.E. Yahweh? So i can get into heaven with out believing specifically in Yahweh?
Actually if you’d care to read the whole thread i discredited it as proof for god’s existence. Which it most certainly isn’t.I never made any mention of my god or anyone else’s. Pascal’s wager is a progression of logical statements. You tried to discredit it. I’m saying it’s completely logically sound.
Pascal’s wager says nothing about how to get into heaven, which god you should believe in or anything else. You said the statement “God either exists or doesn’t exist” is not mathematically viable. It is. I only ever commented on that statement.
Fair enough. I forgot how far this thread had deviated from the OP and the title. I jumped the gun and assumed you were hoping to prove ID by finding a hole in evolution (which you can’t do). My apologies… and thanks for bringing this back on topic.I am not assuming that the cambrian explosion cannot eventually be explained, however, the thread is entitled gaps in evolution, so I’m trying to understand how Darwin’s understanding of natural selection can make sense of the cambrian explosion? Can anyone provide me with an explanation?
It’s like you only answer your own questions and ignore what others say. You claimed the statement “God exists or God does not exist” is not mathematically viable. You are wrong. If you’d like to prove this, please go ahead.Actually if you’d care to read the whole thread i discredited it as proof for god’s existence. Which it most certainly isn’t.
No, the rates of evolution vary. And then there is punctuated equilibrium, which you can read about on Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibriumAnd are you saying therefore that natural selection is no longer taught in schools in a way similar to what Darwin stated? Don’t schools still teach descent with modification (with slow and slight variations rather than great or sudden modifications)?
Well it not a mathematical statement? In fact its not any sort of meaningful statement, but if it keeps you happy the “statement” is sound.It’s like you only answer your own questions and ignore what others say. You claimed the statement “God exists or God does not exist” is not mathematically viable. You are wrong. If you’d like to prove this, please go ahead.
*Note: We’re not talking about proof of God’s existence or anything else. We’re talking about that statement which you claimed is “not mathematically viable”. It’s unbelievable how much you struggle to stay on topic.
Are you sure it took place 10 million years ago? I’ve heard it mentioned that it was 500 million years ago (that’s a pretty big gap)? I’m pretty sure I’m correct.The cambrian explosion took place over about 10 milllion years
I’ve read the thread, but thanks for the reminder… again. Whether it was used as proof of the existence of God or not, that was never the intention of Pascal’s wager. It was never meant to prove that God exists.Well it not a mathematical statement? In fact its not any sort of meaningful statement, but if it keeps you happy the “statement” is sound.
Its still a terrible argument for the existence of god.
*Note pascal’s wager was brought up in THIS thread as a proof of the existence of Yahweh, so we ARE talking about the existence of Yahweh. Unless of course you jumped in 3/4’s of the way through the thread and started nitpicking.
Sorry i should have been clearer, not 10 million years ago. Over a time scale of 10 million years. Its made out to be some sort of blink of the eye event, it wasn’t.Are you sure it took place 10 million years ago? I’ve heard it mentioned that it was 500 million years ago (that’s a pretty big gap)? I’m pretty sure I’m correct.