BBC - David Attenborough - First Life - 2. Conquest (4/4)

[ilovelani69]

Bravo!!!

[NightPetalCatDemon]

David Attenborough should do a program about the evolution of cats

[jdr21222]

I WANT TO SEE MORE!

[BladesOfMunch]

There are few hosts as sincere as Sir David Attenborough. I have always enjoyed the content he covers, but I also enjoy sharing his delight to nature. Nature is, after all, spectacular – more so down to its finest details, when you understand the mechanisms that gave diversity. On that note, I have never seen such intricate and beautiful trilobite fossils prior to this documentary!

[10rosegarden14]

BBC rules!

[ThePeyet]

BBC is the badass of the documentaries...

[mnagmobile]

HA HA HA!! David is giving the middle finger at 8:07 !

[hongzai1993]

@mnagmobile which we human beings might think is perhaps the most important of all... hah

[111E982a]

Poor AgApE010

[Delision]

@vvIOvvIOIIIIIIIOIIII How hypocritical. They'll gladly accept Attenborough's authority on every subject in the documentary except (conveniently) for the one that directly opposes their preconceived notions. I don't blame the BBC, I blame the people with this hypocritical view whose influence forced the BBC to appeal to them.

[filipwouters1]

Thank You for uploading this splendid series! Thank You sir David Attenborough for adding yet another jewel in the crown of Life.

[MaxJNorman]

I cannot think of a single reason to trust the bible over any other book.

For what reason does anyone trust with absolute faith what is in the bible over what is in any other holy book? or for that matter any other book?

Is there any reason why I should believe that the Bible is what it says it is?

[kowalityjesus]

so beautiful

[userwl2850]

no other country in the world can match the bbc, sure we have to pay for the licence but it,s worth every penny when we have sir david making documentaries like these. it,s this kind of work that puts the nails in the coffins of religion. thankyou god2signorance.

[EthanNin0]

@userwl2850 It's a shame they got Oprah to narrate Planet Earth: Life in the US. The way she mangled and simplified the naturalistic concepts nearly made the series unwatchable.

[jjoneil73]

@userwl2850 Couldn't agree more!!

[AgApE010]

@userwl2850

-

That is rubbish. Science has nothing to do with religion, just like religion has nothing to do with science. Religion makes supernatural claims, science makes natural ones. Therefore, you cannot draw supernatural conclusions ("God doesn't exist," "this religion's theology is false," etc) from a natural theory like Evolution.

But with everything else I agree. BBC is the best when it comes to documentaries.

[eshed888]

@AgApE010 that is NOT "rubbish" religion makes scientific claims, age of the earth and the way life originated.

for example.

[AgApE010]

@eshed888

-

Does it now? What in Christian theology is a scientific claim?

[AgApE010]

@eshed888

Few Bible scholars interpret Genesis literally. In any case, it is not making a scientific claim. "God made man" is not a scientific claim for the same reason I outlined in my previous comment.

The Bible doesn't speak on the Age of the Earth.

[spacecadet35]

@AgApE010 Of course it does. According to the Christian Bible, the Great Flood occurred 1657 years after the Earth was "created". Christ was born 42 generations after the flood, say 840 years later. This means the Earth is Earth is about 4,000-5,000 years old according to Christian Tradition. I will go with the figure given by science thank you.

[AgApE010]

@spacecadet35

The Bible says none of those things. It mentions a Flood, but there's no real exegetical grounds for interpreting it as a literal occurrence. And the geneaologies are not made for dating the Earth.

Why are you so bent on trying to make the Bible say things it doesn't say? Chill out with the anti-religion BS. You're an atheist. We get it...

[spacecadet35]

@AgApE010 I can understand why you don't want the Christian Bible to say such things, but it does. Any one who is literate can check this for themselves. If people want to ignore parts of their "Holy Book" because it is uncomfortable, then I feel entitled to ignore ALL of their Holy Book. I don't have to be theist or atheist to do this.

[AgApE010]

@spacecadet35

Yeah, the problem is you're speaking from ignorance. I'm sure you haven't read any books of exegesis, especially not of the Old Testament in particular. But leading scholars agree with what I said.

[spacecadet35]

@AgApE010 I know about exegesis. It is usually used to justify an already chosen position, much like you are doing now. But trying to find meaning in a book with little, if any, foundation in reality is not proof of anything. The fact that one has to 'interpret' the meanings of the book shows its absolute valueness.

[AgApE010]

@spacecadet35

You interpret everything you read. You just interpreted my comment.

Now stop trolling and leave room for people to post relevant comments. If you want to know my position, read Bruce Waltke's books. If you can refute Harvard's greatest Old Testament scholar on his points, submit it to a journal and make yourself some money.

Cheers.

[spacecadet35]

@AgApE010 You mean the same Bruce Waltke that had to resign his position at the Reformed Theological Seminary because of his extremist views. I think your argument sums up the difference between Evolution Theory and Creation Theory. The first says look at the evidence and make up your own mind. The second says my proof is listen o this guy. It is nice that Attenburough shows evidence and let's us think for ourselves. This is a nice documentary.

[AgApE010]

@spacecadet35

Waltke's "extremist view" was Evolution. And I, too, am an Evolutionist, not a Creationist.

Now don't you feel stupid?

[Delision]

@AgApE010 It's just anti-religion, not BS. Atheists would be glad to leave you alone but the plain fact is that the religious cannot suffer a non-believer to continue to not believe, they will always (if they are true to their teachings) proselytize at best and at worst simply impose it -- surely you can see how frustrating this is to someone who wants nothing to do with it? Go be a christian, that's fine, just don't pass laws that prevent gay people from marrying or that demonize sexuality.

[SubRosaSpear]

@Delision If you weren't religious why would you want to marry?

Marriage is the bonding of a man and a woman before God. If you aren't religious then there is no point in marrying.

[zhalfirim]

@SubRosaSpear If that were true we wouldn't need marriage contracts. There are many legal implications.

[SubRosaSpear]

@zhalfirim The legal sides are largely so that married people don't exploit each other, now it is seen as ''normal'' for all people, but they are ignorant to the fact they are doing it for God.

[zhalfirim]

@SubRosaSpear Maybe you're ignorant of the fact that they don't do it for God?

[SubRosaSpear]

@zhalfirim I fully understand that, but it is a flawed idea, especially if they get married in a Church.

[themasqueradingcow91]

@SubRosaSpear Marriage is a sign of love. Doesn't have to be for God.

[SmithSmithery]

@userwl2850 It's really worth the tax you guys pay for this kind of programming.

[SubRosaSpear]

@userwl2850 This doesn't disprove religion, specifically Christianity in any way whatsoever. Genesis 1 shows an early representation or evolution, although it may not be detailed, there is no reason for it to be.