Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I take that back. You are deliberately ignorant and in denial of the truth.
Jog on

I would suggest that am not ignorant of the psychological workings which mimic the cosmos workings which confirms that secular science is not natures science.All sciences are interconnected.

I can only suggest you read something about which you hope to comment upon.
Tell me exactly where Darwin goes wrong in his books. I've given you directions where you have free access to them.

The point is that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it isn’t worth bothering with Sculptor1.The massive gaps that existed when Darwin first suggested the theory are still as massive.You can fill these gaps with your hopes if you wish but zero evidence in the geology records which should have billions upon billions of clear credible evidences of the minute state by stage evolutionary claims is proof enough that it isn’t a credible theory.

Yes. if you stick your head in a bucket of sand the evidence for most things will seem rather weak.

[Belindi]

I would suggest that am not ignorant of the psychological workings which mimic the cosmos workings which confirms that secular science is not natures science.All sciences are interconnected.

I can only suggest you read something about which you hope to comment upon.
Tell me exactly where Darwin goes wrong in his books. I've given you directions where you have free access to them.

The point is that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it isn’t worth bothering with Sculptor1.The massive gaps that existed when Darwin first suggested the theory are still as massive.You can fill these gaps with your hopes if you wish but zero evidence in the geology records which should have billions upon billions of clear credible evidences of the minute state by stage evolutionary claims is proof enough that it isn’t a credible theory.

Yes. if you stick your head in a bucket of sand the evidence for most things will seem rather weak.

Joshua, do you understand many animal and plant breeds have been artificially selected by breeders ?

[Pattern-chaser]

The point is that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it isn’t worth bothering with Sculptor1.The massive gaps that existed when Darwin first suggested the theory are still as massive.You can fill these gaps with your hopes if you wish but zero evidence in the geology records which should have billions upon billions of clear credible evidences of the minute state by stage evolutionary claims is proof enough that it isn’t a credible theory.

Of all those creatures that die, how many of them do you think die in such a situation that their bodies might be preserved, to some extent, by fossilisation? One in a thousand? One in a million? ... Even less? So the statistical sample offered by fossilisation captures only the tiniest proportion of extant animals. This neither confirms or denies evolution, but it does offer a reason why many alleged stages of evolution might be missed.

[Joshua10]

I can only suggest you read something about which you hope to comment upon.
Tell me exactly where Darwin goes wrong in his books. I've given you directions where you have free access to them.

The point is that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it isn’t worth bothering with Sculptor1.The massive gaps that existed when Darwin first suggested the theory are still as massive.You can fill these gaps with your hopes if you wish but zero evidence in the geology records which should have billions upon billions of clear credible evidences of the minute state by stage evolutionary claims is proof enough that it isn’t a credible theory.

Yes. if you stick your head in a bucket of sand the evidence for most things will seem rather weak.

Joshua, do you understand many animal and plant breeds have been artificially selected by breeders ?

Yes, but what is your point?

[Joshua10]

The point is that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it isn’t worth bothering with Sculptor1.The massive gaps that existed when Darwin first suggested the theory are still as massive.You can fill these gaps with your hopes if you wish but zero evidence in the geology records which should have billions upon billions of clear credible evidences of the minute state by stage evolutionary claims is proof enough that it isn’t a credible theory.

Of all those creatures that die, how many of them do you think die in such a situation that their bodies might be preserved, to some extent, by fossilisation? One in a thousand? One in a million? ... Even less? So the statistical sample offered by fossilisation captures only the tiniest proportion of extant animals. This neither confirms or denies evolution, but it does offer a reason why many alleged stages of evolution might be missed.

But that is my point.The enormous CAVERNS in the evolution theory can only be filled with assumptions so why are they teaching it in schools as a fact? Brainwashing I call that.

[Sy Borg]

This thread has been locked because the topic's subject matter is being ignored.

By all means let Sushan or me know by PM when you are ready to discuss the topic, and the thread can resume.

[Belindi]

The point is that the evidence for evolution is so weak that it isn’t worth bothering with Sculptor1.The massive gaps that existed when Darwin first suggested the theory are still as massive.You can fill these gaps with your hopes if you wish but zero evidence in the geology records which should have billions upon billions of clear credible evidences of the minute state by stage evolutionary claims is proof enough that it isn’t a credible theory.

Yes. if you stick your head in a bucket of sand the evidence for most things will seem rather weak.

Joshua, do you understand many animal and plant breeds have been artificially selected by breeders ?

Yes, but what is your point?

The reason I asked is I wondered if you understand biological selection , or if it's the natural version of selection you don't understand.

Darwin cross bred fancy pigeons, in his garden, to find out if he could get specific biologically transferable traits from the crossbreeds. He found he could do so. Later on he found finches in the Galapagos Islands had adapted their beaks to the foods on the islands, all by themselves , with no human intervention.
I expect your theory can explain this adaptation among Galapagos finches however I wondered if you understand your theory well enough to do so.

[Joshua10]

Humans don’t evolve at all,have never evolved and never will evolve.Don’t confuse monkey bones with human bones.

[Joshua10]

There is absolutely no definitive evidence for evolution whatsoever.Only scientists interpretations of what they HOPE has happened which originates from their belief systems and no where else.

[Belindi]

Humans don’t evolve at all,have never evolved and never will evolve.Don’t confuse monkey bones with human bones.

Joshua, are you a Christian?

If so you must believe that the human species evolved culturally after the insights and wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth, and the subsequent work of Jesus' disciples especially Paul.

[Joshua10]

Humans don’t evolve at all,have never evolved and never will evolve.Don’t confuse monkey bones with human bones.

Joshua, are you a Christian?

If so you must believe that the human species evolved culturally after the insights and wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth, and the subsequent work of Jesus' disciples especially Paul.

Is that evolution or revelation (Awareness) though?

I am familiar with christian scriptures and it’s claims and logic are very interesting.I would suggest that its claims about all that is was and will be are all of God and we have zero input into the workings of it.

Therefore my interpretation of these scriptures is that everything was originally created perfectly by God and all the mess that has subsequently resulted can only be sorted by God and has been sorted by God already.

It would appear to me anyway that these scriptures claim that we can do nothing at all to contribute to it other than accept or reject what is on offer.

I do get the need for rules.Even the biological machine sees the need for rules.Which rules though?

These scriptures also make the claim that a belief in a God is not enough because even the devil believes.Logically that makes sense as well.

[Sy Borg]

The reason I asked is I wondered if you understand biological selection, or if it's the natural version of selection you don't understand.

All of the above, it appears. He is just another creationist, pretending to disprove sciences that he doesn't understand even in the slightest.

What are they teaching kids at school? Have they stopped teaching natural selection in science classes? It's extraordinary in this day and age that people default to the myths of millennia ago over, as if all that has been learned is worthless.

Let's hope economists stop referring to people as "rational agents", because that is only a subset of the whole. Many are at least as driven by emotions as they are by reason, and some will attempt to justify their preconceived ideas with post-hoc speculations.

Putting aside creationism, flat-Earthism, Reptilian infiltration, alien abductions, demonic possession, miracles, the electric universe, Moon landing denial and other naive distractions, we humans are physically evolving slowly due to medicine, hygiene and the relatively stable environments we create. Culturally and technologically, of course, we are famously change at a rapid pace.

[Belindi]

Humans don’t evolve at all,have never evolved and never will evolve.Don’t confuse monkey bones with human bones.

Joshua, are you a Christian?

If so you must believe that the human species evolved culturally after the insights and wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth, and the subsequent work of Jesus' disciples especially Paul.

Is that evolution or revelation (Awareness) though?

I am familiar with christian scriptures and it’s claims and logic are very interesting.I would suggest that its claims about all that is was and will be are all of God and we have zero input into the workings of it.

Therefore my interpretation of these scriptures is that everything was originally created perfectly by God and all the mess that has subsequently resulted can only be sorted by God and has been sorted by God already.

It would appear to me anyway that these scriptures claim that we can do nothing at all to contribute to it other than accept or reject what is on offer.

I do get the need for rules.Even the biological machine sees the need for rules.Which rules though?

These scriptures also make the claim that a belief in a God is not enough because even the devil believes.Logically that makes sense as well.

The cultural influence of the life and work of Jesus and subsequent work of the disciples especially Paul cannot have been mystical revelation, because if it were, billions of people generation after generation would be receivers of mystical revelation, which is absurd.

Moreover Jesus would not have needed to bother with his hard work teaching by parables and the Sermon on the Mount if his influence had been by way of mystical revelation.

Moreover, Paul would not have had to do all the hard work he did preaching Christianity to Gentiles if all he needed to do was some brief mystical revelatory action.

[Joshua10]

I am not suggesting that the teachings of Jesus or Paul were mystical revelation.I would suggest the the teachings ofJesus and Paul were/are different revelations on the interpretation of the way things are.I would suggest that an individual can either accept or reject these interpretations as far as I can see.As I said, from my understandings of the Christian scriptures a God does it all from start to finish.There is absolutely nothing the individual can do to accept or reject the plan that this God has put in place other than if that God gives the individual the ability to do so.I find that more mysterious than mystical.

I see these alternative revelations as stating that man/woman may think that they have a say in things but ultimately they don’t unless a God permits them.I see these revelations as saying that everything is of God and it is only by the grace and mercy of this God that we even exist to be able to comment in posts such as these.

I would suggest that that is a lot to get your head around.

[Belindi]

I am not suggesting that the teachings of Jesus or Paul were mystical revelation.I would suggest the the teachings ofJesus and Paul were/are different revelations on the interpretation of the way things are.I would suggest that an individual can either accept or reject these interpretations as far as I can see.As I said, from my understandings of the Christian scriptures a God does it all from start to finish.There is absolutely nothing the individual can do to accept or reject the plan that this God has put in place other than if that God gives the individual the ability to do so.I find that more mysterious than mystical.

I see these alternative revelations as stating that man/woman may think that they have a say in things but ultimately they don’t unless a God permits them.I see these revelations as saying that everything is of God and it is only by the grace and mercy of this God that we even exist to be able to comment in posts such as these.

I would suggest that that is a lot to get your head around.

Christians' deity is strongly deterministic, which is the basis and main point of your claim. Within a strong deterministic belief in the Christian supreme deity both Jesus Christ and Paul are part of God's holy word. As are you and I and everything else that happens exactly the way God decided it was all to be.

How then can God blame us and punish us for our sins?

Answer: the Christian doctrine of Free Will means the God gave this special dispensation to humans out of all the creation to avoid the implications of strong determinism.

Jesus Christ , as both God and man ,was of course not subject to Free Will, and that is why he struggled against the Tempter to obey His God self rather than his human self of Jesus as man.

The determinism of God is the reason you and others believe mankind does not and never has evolved either biologically or culturally. The determinism of God is sometimes called 'predeterminism' or even predestination. 'Predeterminism' also accounts for your belief, Joshua, that species were finalised by God at the beginning of time and thus never evolved so as to become the huge variety of species.

So far the Christian narrative makes sense. What you have not accounted for, Joshua, is that if the Christian deity made all species as unchangeable forms of life , then surely He must also have made the laws and effects of nature such as the force of gravity, osmosis, black holes, death of living things, climates, and evolution by natural selection, and so forth.