Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Obliquinaut]

Sub, of the billions of land and marine fossils found by man there have been zero locals and fossil sequences which prove evolution occurred.

Again, this is no matter to brush under the rug - Evolutionists lack the most important evidence to verify that Evolution occurred. Observation across this vast Earth show zero transition fossils.

The human family tree:

(Smithsonian)

The Evolutionary Development of Whales: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Reptiles -->Birds: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

(SOURCE: War for Science: December 2009)


Tiktaalik transitional fossil: Fossil reveals transitional link from fins to feet

(Source: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/02e...of-evolution-fossils-14-638.jpg?cb=1386837141)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The human family tree:

(Smithsonian)

The Evolutionary Development of Whales: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Reptiles -->Birds: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

(SOURCE: War for Science: December 2009)


Tiktaalik transitional fossil: Fossil reveals transitional link from fins to feet

(Source: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/02e...of-evolution-fossils-14-638.jpg?cb=1386837141)

I predict that he will use this defense:

Creationists have to use that quite often. They can't afford to let themselves learn what is and what is not evidence, they can't afford to learn what transitional fossils are, they can't even afford to let themselves learn how evolution works in the first place.

Self enforced ignorance is there only "winning" strategy.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello TM.

You asked, how can the universe be the evidence for God's existence.

The universe and everything within is the real evidence, that not only that God exists but also that God created the universe.

God must be the first cause for the existence of the universe.

Otherwise we have a mathematical contradiction, an initial state before the universe with no energy, to a universe with a near infinite amount of energy. That is impossible, no wonder science makes no claim about anything before the Big Bang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello TM.

You asked, how can the universe be the evidence for God's existence.

God must be the first cause for the existence of the universe.

Otherwise we have a mathematical contradiction, an initial state before the universe with no energy, to a universe with a near infinite amount of energy. That is impossible, no wonder science makes no claim about anything before the Big Bang.

An unsupported assertion is rather meaningless in a debate.

Why must God be the "first cause"? The fact that we do not know what the first cause is is not a valid reason to posit a god.

Also you do not seem to understand the energy of the universe. It is nowhere near "infinite". It may seem very large but when measured the total energy of the universe appears to be zero.

Have you watched "A Universe From Nothing"? The concepts are well explained for the lay person in that video. I could link it if you wish. It is not the work of Krauss, he merely explains it every well. The concepts behind it was the work of many physicists.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hello Astrophile.

I accept that fossils are authentic relics of past natural phenomenon, though fossil deposits are very rare events. I use the word, 'natural', with a degree of caution as I do not support any claim of a natural causation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Astrophile.

I accept that fossils are authentic relics of past natural phenomenon, though fossil deposits are very rare events. I use the word, 'natural', with a degree of caution as I do not support any claim of a natural causation.

Fossils are quite wide spread and common. What is rare is the fossilization of any one individual or even species at times.

The fossil record clearly supports the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution only. How do you explain that?

 

[klutedavid]

An unsupported assertion is rather meaningless in a debate.

Why must God be the "first cause"? The fact that we do not know what the first cause is is not a valid reason to posit a god.

Also you do not seem to understand the energy of the universe. It is nowhere near "infinite". It may seem very large but when measured the total energy of the universe appears to be zero.

Have you watched "A Universe From Nothing"? The concepts are well explained for the lay person in that video. I could link it if you wish. It is not the work of Krauss, he merely explains it every well. The concepts behind it was the work of many physicists.

Hello SZ.

You said that, we do not know the first cause?

So why would you assume in the first instance a natural causation?

 

[klutedavid]

Fossils are quite wide spread and common. What is rare is the fossilization of any one individual or even species at times.

The fossil record clearly supports the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution only. How do you explain that?

Hello SZ.

Only hard bodied species are observed in the fossil record, soft bodied species do not leave fossil evidence.

The fossil record records the sudden appearance of a variety of species, you need a magic wand to see an evolution of any species.

For example, the dragon fly suddenly appears in the fossil record, no evidence of any earlier dragon fly prototype.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

You said that, we do not know the first cause?

So why would you assume in the first instance a natural causation?

Because that is the null hypothesis and the starting point. One does not believe in something until it has been supported by evidence.

An obvious example is that one does not believe that pixies made the universe because there is no evidence that they did so. The fact that there is no evidence that they did not make the universe cannot be used to claim that pixies did it.

Your argument was a classic argument from ignorance "we don't know therefore god".

There is a huge problem with using that argument. One is left with the "god of the gaps". If an explanation is found what happens to the "god" that supposedly made the universe?

I am not saying that your God is refuted, but the fact that we don't know how the universe began is clearly not evidence for him.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I predict that he will use this defense:


Creationists have to use that quite often. They can't afford to let themselves learn what is and what is not evidence, they can't afford to learn what transitional fossils are, they can't even afford to let themselves learn how evolution works in the first place.

Self enforced ignorance is there only "winning" strategy.

I just wish Heissonear would respond with a critique how these examples are somehow not transitional fossils.

That's the problem I see with so many creationist debates:

1. If the science side agrees that nothing can be known with 100% certainty and that some things are still unknown we get beaten with that by the Creationist

2. If a creationist makes a claim that is countered they never use it to alter their debate. It is simply repeated as if no one ever pointed to the counter.

 

[klutedavid]

An unsupported assertion is rather meaningless in a debate.

Why must God be the "first cause"? The fact that we do not know what the first cause is is not a valid reason to posit a god.

Also you do not seem to understand the energy of the universe. It is nowhere near "infinite". It may seem very large but when measured the total energy of the universe appears to be zero.

Have you watched "A Universe From Nothing"? The concepts are well explained for the lay person in that video. I could link it if you wish. It is not the work of Krauss, he merely explains it every well. The concepts behind it was the work of many physicists.

Hello SZ.

Where there is a state of zero energy, there cannot then be a state of some degree of energy. Otherwise a perfect vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, zero never means zero.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Only hard bodied species are observed in the fossil record, soft bodied species do not leave fossil evidence.

This is incorrect. Some soft-bodied fossils are found.

Indeed there's even ichnofossils (traces and burrows left by animals). There's a LOT preserved in the rock record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Only hard bodied species are observed in the fossil record, soft bodied species do not leave fossil evidence.

The fossil record records the sudden appearance of a variety of species, you need a magic wand to see an evolution of any species.

For example, the dragon fly suddenly appears in the fossil record, no evidence of any earlier dragon fly prototype.

Not quite true. There are Precambrian fossils. There are just not as many. And even the appearance of hard bodied life is far from "sudden". Geologically it is, but not in our time frame. The earliest Cambrian fossils were Small Shelly Fauna. Some as small as just a few millimeters in length. Again what one would expect if life evolved:

Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia

And let's not forget the Ediacaran:

Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

Life did not magically appear over night. It still took millions upon millions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Where there is a state of zero energy, there cannot then be a state of some degree of energy. Otherwise a perfect vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, zero never means zero.

Sorry, but your physics education is lacking. There is no such thing as "empty space". Quantum physics introduced the concept of virtual particles. Oddly enough they are real.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You said that, we do not know the first cause?

So why would you assume in the first instance a natural causation?

Here's the big questions that come up with the "First Uncaused Cause" argument for God:

1. Why is God "uncaused"? That is simply special pleading. The argument is constructed with a "God is uncaused because we say He is."

2. If one postulates a first uncaused cause (which is problematic for reason #1), how does it then follow that that first uncaused cause is specifically "God" with all the specifications that the Judeo Christian God carries (doesn't want his early followers to eat shellfish, manifested Himself in the form of a man in a small Roman colony by the Mediterranean 2017 years ago with a very specific plan for human salvation)--as opposed to all the other many, many, many other gods proposed throughout history

 

[klutedavid]

Because that is the null hypothesis and the starting point. One does not believe in something until it has been supported by evidence.

An obvious example is that one does not believe that pixies made the universe because there is no evidence that they did so. The fact that there is no evidence that they did not make the universe cannot be used to claim that pixies did it.

Your argument was a classic argument from ignorance "we don't know therefore god".

There is a huge problem with using that argument. One is left with the "god of the gaps". If an explanation is found what happens to the "god" that supposedly made the universe?

I am not saying that your God is refuted, but the fact that we don't know how the universe began is clearly not evidence for him.

Hello SZ.

Thanks for your reply.

If you say that we don't know how the universe began, then don't say that it had natural causation. Your accusation of ignorance applies to you also.

Your claiming that energy exists without a cause for it's existence.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If you say that we don't know how the universe began, then don't say that it had natural causation. Your accusation of ignorance applies to you also.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This article explains how virtual photons have been observed in an experiment. The Casimir effect was first predicted in 1948. It has been confirmed in more than one way. Here is a visual experiment that confirmed it:

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Thanks for your reply.

If you say that we don't know how the universe began, then don't say that it had natural causation. Your accusation of ignorance applies to you also.

Your claiming that energy exists without a cause for it's existence.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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