• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

Sherlock Holmes said:
As I mentioned earlier there are indeed many observations that are consistent with the evolution hypothesis but consistent with is not evidence for, is not proof of.

In science a proposed explanation, hypothesis, theory stands or falls on whether observations emerge which are contrary to the empirical expectations of said explanation.

This is how the Copernican theory of the solar system with its circular orbits was eventually disproved, and later Newtonian gravitation and there are many more examples across the sciences.

It seems many evolution advocates are unaware of areas of observation that undermine evolution, very few ever seem to be aware of these.
Click to expand...
First, continued thanks for your contributions to this thread. You've single-handedly raised the level of discourse, and this is much appreciated by the thread-starter.

Now, I'm very interested in this question of evolution, but enjoy little facility in discussing it. My question to you is: Aren't plant breeding and animal breeding forms of evolution? I'm thinking specifically of our dogs and cats here. Isn't the difference between animal breeding and the full-blown theory of evolution the fact that in animal breeding a speedy evolution takes place within a species, but the full-blown theory of evolution asserts long-drawn out evolution across species?

I may not have expressed this precisely, but I think the general distinction comes across.
 
Angel said:
First, continued thanks for your contributions to this thread. You've single-handedly raised the level of discourse, and this is much appreciated by the thread-starter.
Click to expand...

You're very welcome.

Angel said:
Now, I'm very interested in this question of evolution, but enjoy little facility in discussing it. My question to you is: Aren't plant breeding and animal breeding forms of evolution? I'm thinking specifically of our dogs and cats here. Isn't the difference between animal breeding and the full-blown theory of evolution the fact that in animal breeding a speedy evolution takes place within a species, but the full-blown theory of evolution asserts long-drawn out evolution across species?
Click to expand...

Evolution - the purported process that gave rise to life on earth as we see it today - hinges on natural selection "survival of the fittest" and random genetic mutations, mutations to the information stored in DNA or RNA molecules (the information consists of the ordering, number and types of nucleotides).

I'd say plant and animal selective breeding are aspects of this because if humans themselves arose naturalistically (as evolution claims) then surely what they do is as natural as any other biological process?

There is no example though of selective breeding yielding new species despite the fact that selective breeding operates significantly faster than nature.

There is rather good evidence too that artificially induced mutations almost invariably lead to degradation, rarely if ever leading to a benefit let alone a benefit that can propagate.

Evolution is intellectually attractive, Darwin was a very gifted scientist and researcher and the evolution theory is on the surface very reasonable, this is one of the reasons it has become widely accepted by laymen who often know close to nothing about it.

But there are problems, very serious evidential problems with the theory; there are observations that frankly are completely inconsistent with the empirical expectations of evolution.

For example there is no evidence whatsoever (unless one is willing to stretch credulity to absurd lengths) that the fauna preserved in the Cambrian fossils, the hugely diverse phyla that comprise the Cambrian explosion, actually arose through evolution. None of the rather complex animal species has any credible ancestor fossils, almost all of today's phyla seem to have arisen within a few million years during the Cambrian explosion yet each seems to just appear, fully formed with no obvious evidence of gradual emergence, prior to them the fossil record reveals bacteria, worms and other very simple organisms.

What we would reasonably expect to see is missing, completely absent not just for some of the phyla but every single phylum, none of them have any credible ancestor fossils despite the fact that these ancestors simply had to have existed if evolution be true, this is the case too in every part of the earth that we find these fossils. If they did evolve then the same ancestors were not preserved and the same derivatives were preserved in an identical way no matter where on earth this was!

The diversity among the phyla too is very significant, very large morphological differences are observed (well that's why there referred to as phyla) yet apparently these appeared suddenly, almost instantaneously - this is not fancy, this is very reasonably what the evidence reveals, its is far more consistent with a sudden, dramatic appearance than it is with a gradual, slow, incremental process, but most biologists are not prepared to believe this evidence.

Evolution by definition cannot produce large scale adaptations and morphological diversity in short time periods.

The more one examines and explores the Cambrian explosion the more obvious it appears that these animals did not evolve, the naive claim that the requisite fossils of ancestors was simply not preserved yet this is untenable for several reasons.

Darwin had this to say about the Cambrian problem:

... it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some on crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. ...

... if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
The Philosopher's Handbook​

Q. What is God?
A. God is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi.

Q. What is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi?
A. Roughly, the necessary ground of all that exists.

Q. What is a "ground"?
A.

Raise your hands:
Click to expand...

Ground, as you seem to be using it, is a made up philosophical concept with no basis in physical reality. It is make believe.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You're very welcome.



Evolution - the purported process that gave rise to life on earth as we see it today - hinges on natural selection "survival of the fittest" and random genetic mutations, mutations to the information stored in DNA or RNA molecules (the information consists of the ordering, number and types of nucleotides).

I'd say plant and animal selective breeding are aspects of this because if humans themselves arose naturalistically (as evolution claims) then surely what they do is as natural as any other biological process?

There is no example though of selective breeding yielding new species despite the fact that selective breeding operates significantly faster than nature.

There is rather good evidence too that artificially induced mutations almost invariably lead to degradation, rarely if ever leading to a benefit let alone a benefit that can propagate.

Evolution is intellectually attractive, Darwin was a very gifted scientist and researcher and the evolution theory is on the surface very reasonable, this is one of the reasons it has become widely accepted by laymen who often know close to nothing about it.

But there are problems, very serious evidential problems with the theory; there are observations that frankly are completely inconsistent with the empirical expectations of evolution.

For example there is no evidence whatsoever (unless one is willing to stretch credulity to absurd lengths) that the fauna preserved in the Cambrian fossils, the hugely diverse phyla that comprise the Cambrian explosion, actually arose through evolution. None of the rather complex animal species has any credible ancestor fossils, almost all of today's phyla seem to have arisen within a few million years during the Cambrian explosion yet each seems to just appear, fully formed with no obvious evidence of gradual emergence, prior to them the fossil record reveals bacteria, worms and other very simple organisms.

What we would reasonably expect to see is missing, completely absent not just for some of the phyla but every single phylum, none of them have any credible ancestor fossils despite the fact that these ancestors simply had to have existed if evolution be true, this is the case too in every part of the earth that we find these fossils. If they did evolve then the same ancestors were not preserved and the same derivatives were preserved in an identical way no matter where on earth this was!

The diversity among the phyla too is very significant, very large morphological differences are observed (well that's why there referred to as phyla) yet apparently these appeared suddenly, almost instantaneously - this is not fancy, this is very reasonably what the evidence reveals, its is far more consistent with a sudden, dramatic appearance than it is with a gradual, slow, incremental process, but most biologists are not prepared to believe this evidence.

Evolution by definition cannot produce large scale adaptations and morphological diversity in short time periods.

The more one examines and explores the Cambrian explosion the more obvious it appears that these animals did not evolve, the naive claim that the requisite fossils of ancestors was simply not preserved yet this is untenable for several reasons.

Darwin had this to say about the Cambrian problem:
Click to expand...

Read and learn.

Misconceptions about evolution
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
That's a lie, unless you really didn't actually know that and "axiom" is an "assumption" which is possible.

Let's recap:

I posted this:



You responded:



I responded:



You responded:



I responded:



You responded:



I responded:



You responded:



I responded:



and



You responded:



and



I responded:



You finally responded by lying:



I expect at least honesty when I discuss something with someone, you won't provide even that courtesy so we cannot have a meaningful discussion about this and it's very clear that is not something you are interested in anyway.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

An axiom is not an assumption.
 
devildavid said:
An axiom is not an assumption.
Click to expand...
Axioms are assumptions.

What's an Axiom
Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...'' They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof.
Click to expand...
What's an Axiom
 
devildavid said:
Ground, as you seem to be using it, is a made up philosophical concept with no basis in physical reality. It is make believe.
Click to expand...
How do I seem to be using it? -- that was the question. Or are you making believe you know?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Evolution - the purported process that gave rise to life on earth as we see it today - hinges on natural selection "survival of the fittest" and random genetic mutations, mutations to the information stored in DNA or RNA molecules (the information consists of the ordering, number and types of nucleotides).

I'd say plant and animal selective breeding are aspects of this because if humans themselves arose naturalistically (as evolution claims) then surely what they do is as natural as any other biological process?

There is no example though of selective breeding yielding new species despite the fact that selective breeding operates significantly faster than nature.

There is rather good evidence too that artificially induced mutations almost invariably lead to degradation, rarely if ever leading to a benefit let alone a benefit that can propagate.

Evolution is intellectually attractive, Darwin was a very gifted scientist and researcher and the evolution theory is on the surface very reasonable, this is one of the reasons it has become widely accepted by laymen who often know close to nothing about it.

But there are problems, very serious evidential problems with the theory; there are observations that frankly are completely inconsistent with the empirical expectations of evolution.

For example there is no evidence whatsoever (unless one is willing to stretch credulity to absurd lengths) that the fauna preserved in the Cambrian fossils, the hugely diverse phyla that comprise the Cambrian explosion, actually arose through evolution. None of the rather complex animal species has any credible ancestor fossils, almost all of today's phyla seem to have arisen within a few million years during the Cambrian explosion yet each seems to just appear, fully formed with no obvious evidence of gradual emergence, prior to them the fossil record reveals bacteria, worms and other very simple organisms.

What we would reasonably expect to see is missing, completely absent not just for some of the phyla but every single phylum, none of them have any credible ancestor fossils despite the fact that these ancestors simply had to have existed if evolution be true, this is the case too in every part of the earth that we find these fossils. If they did evolve then the same ancestors were not preserved and the same derivatives were preserved in an identical way no matter where on earth this was!

The diversity among the phyla too is very significant, very large morphological differences are observed (well that's why there referred to as phyla) yet apparently these appeared suddenly, almost instantaneously - this is not fancy, this is very reasonably what the evidence reveals, its is far more consistent with a sudden, dramatic appearance than it is with a gradual, slow, incremental process, but most biologists are not prepared to believe this evidence.

Evolution by definition cannot produce large scale adaptations and morphological diversity in short time periods.

The more one examines and explores the Cambrian explosion the more obvious it appears that these animals did not evolve, the naive claim that the requisite fossils of ancestors was simply not preserved yet this is untenable for several reasons.

Darwin had this to say about the Cambrian problem:
Click to expand...
Thank you for the highly informative reply. The Cambrian explosion, like the Big Bang, appears to be a ne plus ultra for natural science. Your reply so excited me that I googled "Pre-Cambrian fossils" and found this:

New Precambrian Fossils Are Not Cambrian Ancestors
The presence of embryos in the Precambrian didn’t solve the Cambrian explosion problem then, and it doesn’t now. In fact, they make the problem worse, because they show that the Precambrian strata were perfectly capable of preserving transitional forms, had they existed.
Click to expand...
New Precambrian Fossils Are Not Cambrian Ancestors | Evolution News

If I read this article aright, there should be a fossil record for the Cambrian explosion, but there isn't. Curiouser and curiouser.
 
Angel said:
Sez devildavid.

So you don't know.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't know. Yet you are the only one who has brought up the philosophical concept. I just pointed out what it is and how it is made up and not observed in physical reality.
 
devildavid said:
Apparently, you don't know. Yet you are the only one who has brought up the philosophical concept. I just pointed out what it is and how it is made up and not observed in physical reality.
Click to expand...
You cannot tell us what it is you're dismissing as philosophical claptrap. You're doing the Internet Skeptical Dodge -- a dance you all do so well.
 
Angel said:
You cannot tell us what it is you're dismissing as philosophical claptrap. You're doing the Internet Skeptical Dodge -- a dance you all do so well.
Click to expand...

I am accurately referring to a philosophical concept that you brought up and calling it what it is. Something that philosophy made up. A mere concept; not an observed part of physical reality.
 
devildavid said:
I am accurately referring to a philosophical concept that you brought up and calling it what it is. Something that philosophy made up. A mere concept; not an observed part of physical reality.
Click to expand...
I brought it up and asked if you knew what it meant. You don't know what it means. You dismiss it without knowing what it means. Typical Internet Skepticism.
 
Angel said:
I brought it up and asked if you knew what it meant. You don't know what it means. You dismiss it without knowing what it means. Typical Internet Skepticism.
Click to expand...

I dismiss your unquestioning belief in philosophical concepts.
 
Angel said:
Thank you for the highly informative reply. The Cambrian explosion, like the Big Bang, appears to be a ne plus ultra for natural science. Your reply so excited me that I googled "Pre-Cambrian fossils" and found this:

New Precambrian Fossils Are Not Cambrian Ancestors

New Precambrian Fossils Are Not Cambrian Ancestors | Evolution News

If I read this article aright, there should be a fossil record for the Cambrian explosion, but there isn't. Curiouser and curiouser.
Click to expand...

Evolution News is not about evolution or news. It is pure propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom