Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[klutedavid]

The argument is always accepted that scientists don't know the precipitating cause of the universe. But by the same metric religious people also do not know.

The only difference is the scientist hypothesizes a cause, the religious claims a known cause.

Hello Obliquinaut.

Science offers no causation, because the initial instance of the Big Bang occurred before physical laws came into play.

 

[klutedavid]

By the way, I never said that energy exists without a cause. I even told you the cause.

Hello SZ.

Energy cannot exist without a first cause.

Your claiming natural causation, simply because your claiming that events have natural causes. The history of the universe is a simple series of natural causes, thus there must be an initial first cause, a singularity?

So what caused the singularity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

klutedavid, you really should watch this video:

I know, an hour is a long time to watch something that you will probably disagree with. But the physics is all very sound. It will help you to understand what scientists are talking about when they speak of the universe as a whole.

 

[klutedavid]

You are not understanding. The only evidence out there is for a natural causation. That we cannot fully answer the question is not evidence for a god.

You are the one that should not be claiming a divine cause since you do not have any evidence at all.

You see, I am aware of what we know and don't know. I am merely not repeating your errors.

Hello SZ.

You are my evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Energy cannot exist without a first cause.

Your claiming natural causation, simply because your claiming that events have natural causes. The history of the universe is a simple series of natural causes, thus there must be an initial first cause, a singularity?

So what caused the singularity?

That is simply not true. It seems that way to you, but the quantum world is quite different from the macro world.

Did you check out the article that I gave you? You are making assertions once again. When you make a claim you need to be able to support them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

You are my evidence for the existence of God.

Sorry, but you do not appear to understand the nature of evidence.

What evidence would refute your God?

 

[klutedavid]

klutedavid, you really should watch this video:

I know, an hour is a long time to watch something that you will probably disagree with. But the physics is all very sound. It will help you to understand what scientists are talking about when they speak of the universe as a whole.

Hello SZ.

Science claims that no physical laws acted at the initiation of the Big Bang. Hence, science is not qualified to discuss the singularity, especially not the physical sciences. Mere scientific speculation.

 

[Heissonear]

If it is true that 'life forms appear in the fossil record abruptly', where do you think that the first fossilised member of a species came from? I assume that you accept that fossils are the remains of animals and plants that were once alive, that you don't think that they were planted in the rocks by God or the Devil to test our faith or to deceive us.

Like so many before you - you are trying to interpret why there are fossils within the sedimentary layers of the Earth.

And over time all you have been able to acquire is interpretations of men?

By Design the reason may be beyond natural man, and belief become the bases rather than naturalistic (nature-based) knowledge.

Evolution is based on faith.

Did Jesus while on Earth approach peoples belief system rather than intellect? Did He try to open up and mature peoples faith in knowing God?

A life beyond the natural we all possess?

Could or has there been people who have turned their inner ear away from Him, and only walk naturalistic in what they know and do?

By Design God did not setup things where natural man can be the source of truth and the one we can or should listen to and follow.

By His Intelligence and within His Design there is a day when each of us are to awake unto Him. And the Rivers of Living Waters be a reality, a matter beyond the naturally acquired.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Obliquinaut.

Science offers no causation, because the initial instance of the Big Bang occurred before physical laws came into play.

Not quite. We don't understand the laws that may have come into play at that time.

A god could have been involved. No one is denying that. But no one has found any evidence for a god yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Science claims that no physical laws acted at the initiation of the Big Bang. Hence, science is not qualified to discuss the singularity, especially not the physical sciences. Mere scientific speculation.

Totally wrong. Again, please support such claims with some sort of evidence.

And please, do not make false claims against others that you cannot support.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry, but you do not appear to understand the nature of evidence.

What evidence would refute your God?

Hello SZ.

There does not exist a refutation of God, He is the principal cause.

I do understand what is claimed to be evidence by the scientific community.

I am not actually making the claim, God did that Himself.

I am simply pointing out that science is not qualified to speak of a first cause.

 

[klutedavid]

Not quite. We don't understand the laws that may have come into play at that time.

A god could have been involved. No one is denying that. But no one has found any evidence for a god yet.

Hello SZ.

You cannot be serious, no evidence for God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

There does not exist a refutation of God, He is the principal cause.

Then you do not have any evidence for a god.

I do understand what is claimed to be evidence by the scientific community.

Yes, that is rather obvious.

I am not actually making the claim, God did that Himself.

No, he never did such a thing. You are rather confused.

I am simply pointing out that science is not qualified to speak of a first cause.

Not yet. But then neither are you. Science is advancing in its knowledge. You seem to be stuck in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

You cannot be serious, no evidence for God?

Nope, no evidence for a god is to be found.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Science offers no causation, because the initial instance of the Big Bang occurred before physical laws came into play.

Incorrect. Science hypothesizes a variety of scenarios from "eternal existence" and M-theory to big bang/inflation/deflation/repeat.

But again, it is completely hypothetical and my indeed be a meaningless or impossible-to-know question.

This does not mean that simply proposing "God" is any more meaningful. At least we have evidence for the Big Bang. As to what came before that it seems almost impossible to say with confidence (certainly at this time).

 

[Obliquinaut]

You cannot be serious, no evidence for God?

I, too, have failed to find evidence for God that I find compelling.

 

[Obliquinaut]

There does not exist a refutation of God, He is the principal cause.

1) there is no need to prove a negative (ie no logical reason to have to "refute" God)
2) The claim that God is a "principal cause" is simply a statement without any inherent support.

I am simply pointing out that science is not qualified to speak of a first cause.

Neither is religion. But religion takes it upon itself to make claims about it ex cathedra.

 

[Heissonear]

Thanks for confirming that you do not understand how science is done.

No single fossil can ever "prove" evolution. But when one looks at the patter of fossilized life there is only one conclusion that one can draw:

Life is the product of evolution.

ALL creationists explanations have been refuted. Quite often by creationists themselves since they tend to be self contradicting.

And there are countless transitional fossils. Your statement only underscores the fact that you do not understand what a transitional fossil is. Please give me your definition of a "transitional fossil". I can give you the proper definition of it and tell you how we know that there are transitional fossils, but since you made your claim first you put the burden of proof upon you.

And no, you never "learned" such facts.

I am betting that you simply run away from your unsupported assertions. You can't win a debate by doing so, you can only make yourself look bad.

Re-read. The post specifies transition fossils. A sequence of succession.

Why did you not observe this? And sweep this issue under the rug again?

There are zero transition fossils. Evolutionists try to avoid this, and void this vast world observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

klutedavid, in the world of science for a concept to have evidence for it one must first describe it as a testable hypothesis. That means that one has to think of a reasonably testable way to see if your concept is wrong. One cannot really ever prove an idea "right". One can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but absolute proof is possible only in mathematics. If your concept is not testable it is also almost certainly to be of no use. Scientists are not too fond of untestable claims since they never pan out.

 

[klutedavid]

Totally wrong. Again, please support such claims with some sort of evidence.

And please, do not make false claims against others that you cannot support.

Hello SZ.

Your still my evidence for the existence of God.

Inflation and baryogenesis
Main articles: Cosmic inflation and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.
(wikipedia)

My accusation of speculation by the scientific community are justified.

 

[pitabread]

There are zero transition fossils.

Of course there are: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Also: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1