• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

How does the Biblical flood fit in with the natural world we see today?

Sherlock Holmes said:
Any claim about the past that's based on fossil evidence establishes a dependency on fossil evidence.
I'll believe any proposition that's supported by convincing evidence.
I've never said that organisms (their genome) do not change over time, that's not disputed, what is disputed is that such changes are what led to the Cambrian explosion fauna, that such changes resulted in over 20 original, complex, phylae, that claim has no evidential support.
Click to expand...

No, you are just making that the rule that you want to be true. Scientific theories are not propositions requiring belief. There is plenty of evidence that complexity can arise from changes over millions of years.
 
gboisjo said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm simply pointing out what I see. Your refusal to point to any evidence as to what happened during the Cambrian has everyone scratching there heads. Why go after evolution
with a vengeance if not for some reason. I hit a nerve, which leads me to think, I'm right.
Click to expand...

The Cambrian explosion is the evidence that complex life did not evolve as claimed.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You are seriously mistaken, I won't repeat myself for you, if you cannot see where I have done that then we are at an impasse.
Click to expand...

No, you are mistaken. You have not presented any sicentific evidence or linked to any to back your claim that evolution has been scientifically falsified.
 
devildavid said:
It's not a claim, it's a fact.
Click to expand...

No, the only fact here is that the record is highly discontinuous and no more so than at the start of the Cambrian.

Supposition about what happened during the intervening time between fossils, where there's no fossil evidence, that's a claim, a belief.

Saying things existed when there's no fossil evidence they ever did exist is a claim, not a fact.

devildavid said:
The time it took to happen is irrelevant as to what happened. And what happened was evolution. it doesn't have a speed limit.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't have a speed limit then why are making so much fuss over the suggestion that they emerged instantaneously?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
No, the only fact here is that the record is highly discontinuous and no more so than at the start of the Cambrian.

Supposition about what happened during the intervening time between fossils, where there's no fossil evidence, that's a claim, a belief.

Saying things existed when there's no fossil evidence they ever did exist is a claim, not a fact.



If it doesn't have a speed limit then why are making so much fuss over the suggestion that they emerged instantaneously?
Click to expand...

No, fossil evidence is not required, no matter how many times you say it is.
 
devildavid said:
No, you are just making that the rule that you want to be true. Scientific theories are not propositions requiring belief. There is plenty of evidence that complexity can arise from changes over millions of years.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that the Cambrian fauna evolved from earlier, simpler life over millions of years, claiming they did in the absence of evidence is a belief.

If we don't actually need evidence to support such claims then we can simply dispense with any need at all for evidence, this is what your position amounts to, advocating that we don't need evidence at all.
 
devildavid said:
No, you are mistaken. You have not presented any sicentific evidence or linked to any to back your claim that evolution has been scientifically falsified.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that ship has already sailed, that evidence has been presented, explained if you don't believe me then we are at an impasse, all you need do - if your honest - is look back at earlier posts where other have asked and I have answered.
 
devildavid said:
No, fossil evidence is not required, no matter how many times you say it is.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, to say numerous creatures with various characteristics definitely existed 530 MYA ago does require evidence, at least I require evidence because I'm analyzing this scientifically whereas you are not.
 
You have to admit David, you slipped up majorly here:

1615392870491.webp
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Of course it is, to say numerous creatures with various characteristics definitely existed 530 MYA ago does require evidence, at least I require evidence because I'm analyzing this scientifically whereas you are not.
Click to expand...

No, of course it is not. It does not require fossil evidence. None of evolution requires fossil evidence.
 
devildavid said:
Is "making a fuss" a scientific term?
Click to expand...

If the rate of evolutionary change has not limits, then can a worm reproduce and give birth to a trilobite?

Could a huge morphological change arise in one generation?

Yes -> no evolutionist in the world agrees with you.
No -> there are speed limits after all and you were wrong to say there were not.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Very well, God exists.
Click to expand...

That does not relate at all Evolution does have evidence to support it, other than fossil evidence. It does not depend solely on fossil evidence, nor it is verified or falsified by the presence or lack of fossil evidence. Please go learn about what evolution is and what supports it instead of the straw man version of evolution you are presenting here.
 
devildavid said:
Instantaneous is not a speed. Evolution takes time. That is what the science supports. it does not support instantaneous.
Click to expand...

So there's no limit to the degree of morphological change that can take place during a single reproductive cycle, is that your claim?
 
devildavid said:
That does not relate at all Evolution does have evidence to support it, other than fossil evidence. It does not depend solely on fossil evidence, nor it is verified or falsified by the presence or lack of fossil evidence. Please go learn about what evolution is and what supports it instead of the straw man version of evolution you are presenting here.
Click to expand...

You'll agree the claim God exists does not require evidence?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
If the rate of evolutionary change has not limits, then can a worm reproduce and give birth to a trilobite?

Could a huge morphological change arise in one generation?

Yes -> no evolutionist in the world agrees with you.
No -> there are speed limits after all and you were wrong to say there were not.
Click to expand...

Evolutionary science does not say worms gave birth to trilobites. Just another straw man from you.

Evolutionary science does not say that evolution can only take place at certain rates of time. Yet another straw man of yours.
 
Scientist: the explosion of life forms during the Cambrian era is a mystery, so I will keep looking.
Non-scientist: the explosion of life forms during the Cambrian era is a mystery, so I will stop looking.
 
devildavid said:
Evolutionary science does not say worms gave birth to trilobites. Just another straw man from you.

Evolutionary science does not say that evolution can only take place at certain rates of time. Yet another straw man of yours.
Click to expand...

Hardly a strawman my dear fellow, after all you just said "And what happened was evolution. it doesn't have a speed limit" I was just showing you the implications of that belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom