Is science being divided?

[Walker]

- So, this is empirical evidence of Darwinism?

Here is someone friendly to ask: https://io9.gizmodo.com/ask-biologist-m ... -508314397

Marlene, who are we, where do we come from, and where are we going?

Marleen ... I can't hear you. No answer? Have you backed into oblivion?

[Walker]

Physics is not a philosophical program of materialism or other. It only relates to physics and the (processing power) of HDM, Hypothetico-Deductive Method as scientific method. HDM makes the case on plausibility whether something has been proven or not! Final!

HDM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheti ... tive_model.

"Hypothetico"

That could be a poem title.

Hypothermico, hypoglycemico, hyperallergenico.

Do other countries have TV commercials selling powerful drugs with broad legal disclaimers?
They began appearing out of nowhere and then everyone got used to them.

(May as well pass the time until empiricism gets here.)

[Averroes]

I too think that Darwinian evolution is solely a question of belief.

Well, I believe that organisms which are better adapted to their environment are more likely to reproduce than less advantaged competitors. What do you believe?

Well, I would say here for me that that statement is analytically true. There is no room for belief here, because what you said is an analytic proposition for me, which means that it is necessarily true by the meaning of the words used to express the proposition itself! An organism “better adapted to its environment” must necessarily survive better otherwise they would not be better adapted to their environment. And a dead organism cannot reproduce otherwise they would not be dead! So the whole statement is just analytically true. We do not need science to know the truth of that statement, but basic logical reasoning is enough!
It is something like "all bachelors are unmarried." These propositions/statements have the property that they are true by definition.

Only organisms better adapted to their environment survive. (A truism)
Only living organisms reproduce. (A truism)
Therefore, only organisms better adapted to their environment reproduce. (Also a truism!!!)

There is no need of science here. Here it was just very basic logical reasoning. Note I say "basic" here because analytical reasoning can get extremely complicated (and thus also be more beautiful and useful) and yet they are still analytic. However here, mathematicians and logicians could label this as a trivial result, i.e. in a nutshell something not worth their attention! But there are other analytical truths which are far from trivial and many such propositions are very profound and useful. So even though analytical truths are necessarily true, they are not obviously true in the majority and the most interesting cases. Most of such proofs have required years, decades or even centuries of toil and frustration before a statement is proved in that way. But in the present case it was a trivial and thus obvious result.

In a too harsh environment not suitable for someone or something, they just die! There is no mystery about it. It is just basic common sense logic!
But now it should not go unnoticed that my contention did not concern such trivial analytical truth at all!!! What I am challenging specifically is the following claim of Darwinism, namely: Darwinism claims that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutation.
So whether you were to take the analytic path (mathematics) or the synthetic path (the natural sciences) one has to prove that statement. Darwinism claim to be scientific, then I ask where is the empirical evidence/proof for that claim? And so far none has been adduced, And I am still waiting.

But anyway thanks for asking. You have seemed so far to be civilized and sensitive. But I cannot understand how someone intelligent can fall for the nonsense of Darwinism! Too harsh an environment would make sense to me! The harsh philosophical environment we are living in at present is a great intelligence killer. Few people are able to retain the clarity of mind to be able to see the nonsense of Darwinism. But the situation is changing fast as more and more experts are speaking out against Darwinism. One among the leading experts in the subject is Dr Micheal Denton who has written devastating criticisms against Darwinism. Dr Denton is a British-Australian biochemist and geneticist. His work has inspired a lot of other expert biologists to see through the nonsense of Darwinism. Others too, I believe, find it oppressive to their intelligence deep inside but they are too weak to speak out against it. Moreover, in the system of Darwinian dogma, speaking out against Darwinism would be not be a wise choice if one has a family to take care of! I have references to insider information of the Darwinian culture! Truth, and freedom of conscience and expression is not a primary concern for most of them!
The following link references an essay by Dr Denton intelligently criticizing the theory of evolution. It is in three parts, I am linking to the first part: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one

[Averroes]

NEVER! I have been trying to get them to engage in a serious, civilized, intelligent and scientific discussion with me for YEARS but ALWAYS they refuse, or back away into oblivion whenever I ask them for scientific evidence of their claims! I do not discourage though. I am patient and keep trying every so often.

Hehe ok.. with what explanation do you dismiss the billions of found fossils, and the entire fields of paleontology and genetics? (To name a few.)

Thank you very much for replying Atla. It seems to me that you are trying to present some "evidence" for Darwinism, but it is not yet clear to me from your comment. Please clarify for me this: are you saying that fossils found by paleontologists and others are evidence for Darwinian evolution? If that be so, then please tell me how it proves the claim of evolution? Please try to express yourself in as good an English as you can and give me as much detail as you can. I am not asking you for the sky though, just make a coherent short paragraph. If you can provide some references for these fossils from paleontology websites it would be even better. Please understand that I want to learn from you. In an attempt to learn more about Darwinism, I have been asking questions to those who believe in Darwinism but never do they try to explain to me their beliefs in detail and in a logically coherent manner. This shows clearly that the majority of people who believe in Darwinism does not have a clue about the details of their beliefs. All this just shows herd mentality, shallowness and no real conviction based on serious research on Darwinism. However, I am still searching for a good explanation. May be my long quest will finally find an answer and end with you! As I have said, if someone can provide me with a scientific and logically coherent explanation for Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it!

[Averroes]

Two:
- The fossil record.

- So, this is empirical evidence of Darwinism?

That one is spot on and intended to be addressed on this thread. But to address that adequately one has to go in the scientific details, and not just blindly accept vague statements which mean nothing purposeful in reality. And then later all of a sudden we are presented with non-sequitur statements that man descended from apes or one species becoming another species and such type of nonscientific and nonsensical fictional statements!

[-1-]

I too think that Darwinian evolution is solely a question of belief.

Actually, Darwinian Evolution is a question of several beliefs, not just of one belief.

The beliefs:

1. Survival of the fittest.
2. Offspringggg differ from their parents while resembling them.
3. Mutations happen.
4. Results of mutations are inherited.
5. A series of mutations that help the individuals survive better and have more offspring gives rise to new species.
6. Christian dogma is plain stupid in this day and age, and it must be abandoned.
7. The population of the USA has been conditioned by historical tradition and by dumbing down the education standards to continue a belief in Christianity and in all its hair-raisingly stupid dogmas.
8. The stupider a person, the more likely he or she will be more and more militant about defending Christianity along with all its stupid dogmas. Nick_A is a sole exception.

------------------

These are all beliefs that sustain a healthy belief in Darwinian evolution.

[Atla]

Thank you very much for replying Atla. It seems to me that you are trying to present some "evidence" for Darwinism, but it is not yet clear to me from your comment. Please clarify for me this: are you saying that fossils found by paleontologists and others are evidence for Darwinian evolution? If that be so, then please tell me how it proves the claim of evolution? Please try to express yourself in as good an English as you can and give me as much detail as you can. I am not asking you for the sky though, just make a coherent short paragraph. If you can provide some references for these fossils from paleontology websites it would be even better. Please understand that I want to learn from you. In an attempt to learn more about Darwinism, I have been asking questions to those who believe in Darwinism but never do they try to explain to me their beliefs in detail and in a logically coherent manner. This shows clearly that the majority of people who believe in Darwinism does not have a clue about the details of their beliefs. All this just shows herd mentality, shallowness and no real conviction based on serious research on Darwinism. However, I am still searching for a good explanation. May be my long quest will finally find an answer and end with you! As I have said, if someone can provide me with a scientific and logically coherent explanation for Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it!

You forgot to mention how the billions of fossils got there, if they are not the fossilized remains of organisms from the past 4 billion years.

[Averroes]

I too think that Darwinian evolution is solely a question of belief.

5. A series of mutations that help the individuals survive better and have more offspring gives rise to new species.

Thank you for replying -1-. Please what definition of a species are you using? And show me empirical evidence of one species becoming another through evolution.

[Averroes]

Thank you very much for replying Atla. It seems to me that you are trying to present some "evidence" for Darwinism, but it is not yet clear to me from your comment. Please clarify for me this: are you saying that fossils found by paleontologists and others are evidence for Darwinian evolution? If that be so, then please tell me how it proves the claim of evolution? Please try to express yourself in as good an English as you can and give me as much detail as you can. I am not asking you for the sky though, just make a coherent short paragraph. If you can provide some references for these fossils from paleontology websites it would be even better. Please understand that I want to learn from you. In an attempt to learn more about Darwinism, I have been asking questions to those who believe in Darwinism but never do they try to explain to me their beliefs in detail and in a logically coherent manner. This shows clearly that the majority of people who believe in Darwinism does not have a clue about the details of their beliefs. All this just shows herd mentality, shallowness and no real conviction based on serious research on Darwinism. However, I am still searching for a good explanation. May be my long quest will finally find an answer and end with you! As I have said, if someone can provide me with a scientific and logically coherent explanation for Darwinism, I will have no choice but to accept it!

You forgot to mention how the billions of fossils got there, if they are not the fossilized remains of organisms from the past 4 billion years.

I did not mention anything to you yet! But I am asking you to back your claims with empirical evidence. And yet you are not providing any. What fossils are you talking about? Please be specific. Are these fossils 4 billion years old?

[Atla]

You forgot to mention how the billions of fossils got there, if they are not the fossilized remains of organisms from the past 4 billion years.

I did not mention anything to you yet! But I am asking you to back your claims with empirical evidence. And yet you are not providing any. What fossils are you talking about? Please be specific. Are these fossils 4 billion years old?

So are you saying that the billions of fossils are not real, tangible objects? Are they imagined then maybe?

[Averroes]

You forgot to mention how the billions of fossils got there, if they are not the fossilized remains of organisms from the past 4 billion years.

I did not mention anything to you yet! But I am asking you to back your claims with empirical evidence. And yet you are not providing any. What fossils are you talking about? Please be specific. Are these fossils 4 billion years old?

So are you saying that the billions of fossils are not real, tangible objects? Are they imagined then maybe?

I am not saying anything yet! I am asking you to be specific about the fossils. If there are billions then choose some of them and expose them to me so that we can discuss further about it. I want to be sure we are speaking about the same thing.

[Atla]

I did not mention anything to you yet! But I am asking you to back your claims with empirical evidence. And yet you are not providing any. What fossils are you talking about? Please be specific. Are these fossils 4 billion years old?

So are you saying that the billions of fossils are not real, tangible objects? Are they imagined then maybe?

I am not saying anything yet! I am asking you to be specific about the fossils. If there are billions then choose some of them and expose them to me so that we can discuss further about it. I want to be sure we are speaking about the same thing.

I'm talking about all of them, they are all fossils. How did they get there?

[Averroes]

So are you saying that the billions of fossils are not real, tangible objects? Are they imagined then maybe?

I am not saying anything yet! I am asking you to be specific about the fossils. If there are billions then choose some of them and expose them to me so that we can discuss further about it. I want to be sure we are speaking about the same thing.

I'm talking about all of them, they are all fossils. How did they get there?

Good. Give me a description of these fossils please. Some links to some authoritative site would be enough for me. Let us be specific.

[Atla]

I am not saying anything yet! I am asking you to be specific about the fossils. If there are billions then choose some of them and expose them to me so that we can discuss further about it. I want to be sure we are speaking about the same thing.

I'm talking about all of them, they are all fossils. How did they get there?

Good. Give me a description of these fossils please. Some links to some authoritative site would be enough for me. Let us be specific.

You know exactly what fossils are, or how to do a Google search, or how to start with the Wikipedia page about fossils which is here.

[Averroes]

I'm talking about all of them, they are all fossils. How did they get there?

Good. Give me a description of these fossils please. Some links to some authoritative site would be enough for me. Let us be specific.

You know exactly what fossils are, or how to do a Google search, or how to start with the Wikipedia page about fossils which is here.

Thank you Atla. Of course I know what is a fossil, but first I had to ascertain that we are talking about the same thing! Take it easy Atla, there is no need to worry!
Now from the article on wikipedia, it is said:

The oldest fossils are from around 3.48 billion years old to 4.1 billion years old.

My question now, how were these fossils dated and found to be 3 to 4 billions of age? What method was used to date them and how reliable are these methods?