According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Syriusly]

Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear. Makes much more sense than evolution.

Do all of the Gods do that- or just some of them?

 

[Syriusly]

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).

We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.

So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?

Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h

As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.

 

[The Irish Ram]

And the Bible says this where?

You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.

What do you suggest I use then, a Betty Crocker Cookbook?

And to the shortsighted poster that thinks God goes "poof", dimensions dearheart, dimensions.
Can God see the beginning from the end without getting all poofie?? Yes. How? dimension # 6.

In the sixth, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

Science proves what God says. God not only mastered the 6th dimension, He created it. No poofies, just science...
A Universe of 10 Dimensions - Universe Today

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

You are referring to Hubble's Law. I am referring to Hubble, who proved to Einstein the cosmos was not constant as Einstein believed:
In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero....

So you are admitting that your claim
Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant

Was a slight error- since Einstein actually came up with the Theory of Relativity before meeting Hubble and before Hubble's 1929 discovery.

 

[Syriusly]

And the Bible says this where?

You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.

What do you suggest I use then, a Betty Crocker Cookbook?y

That is like saying that you have proven that a recipe from Betty Crocker tastes good because the Cookbook says that the recipe is for a tasty meal.

 

[Syriusly]

That isn't proof of creationism. The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection. If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.... It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.

OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.

If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it. It just happened to be by a Christian.

What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars. You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.

It is an anti-evolution argument- used exclusively by you Christianist anti-evolutionists.

The basis for the Christianist argument against Evolution is as you yourself have stated- the belief that the Earth is around 6,000 years old.

And that argument is just willfully ignorant- since we have so many examples from geology, paleontology and cosmology that show that is patently false.

 

[Syriusly]

That isn't proof of creationism. The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection. If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.... It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.

OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.

If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it. It just happened to be by a Christian.

What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars. You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.

Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves. The crab is still part of the same species. And here's where you're wrong about ToE. It is based on changes over time. In this case, the species didn't change. It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere. You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!). That statement means you do not understand the ToE.

Prove that the horseshoe crab of today is the same species as the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago.

This will be interesting because there are 4 extant horseshoe crab species today.
Which one of these is the same species as the species of 450 million years ago- and how will you prove it?

 

[bripat9643]

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.... It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.

OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.

If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it. It just happened to be by a Christian.

What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars. You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.

Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves. The crab is still part of the same species. And here's where you're wrong about ToE. It is based on changes over time. In this case, the species didn't change. It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere. You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!). That statement means you do not understand the ToE.

Prove that the horseshoe crab of today is the same species as the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago.

This will be interesting because there are 4 extant horseshoe crab species today.
Which one of these is the same species as the species of 450 million years ago- and how will you prove it?

Not quite the same:

 

[Syriusly]

That isn't proof of creationism. The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection. If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.... It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.

OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.

If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it. It just happened to be by a Christian.

What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars. You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.

Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves. The crab is still part of the same species. And here's where you're wrong about ToE. It is based on changes over time. In this case, the species didn't change. It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere. You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!). That statement means you do not understand the ToE.

ToE explained here
An introduction to evolution

Considering all of the false claims you have made about the Theory of Evolution- I find it humorous that you provide a citation- that of course doesn't back up your claim.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”

The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.

One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.

One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.

Like you are doing

The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No error. Einstein had a theory alright. The only problem was, it was wrong. E does not equal mc squared in a static universe. Not in 1915, not in 1917, 19, 29 or 30.
It took Hubble's expanding universe to convince Einstein that the universe was not static, but expanding. < (Einstein's bane) Einstein adopted that belief in the early thirties. Of the two, Einstein vs Hubble, only one knew that the universe was expanding in 1929. Only one of the two was right. It was not Einstein.

Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static.. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae—today known as galaxies. But the reality is more complex. The change in Einstein's viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process. Now, in an article published in European Physical Journal H, Harry Nussbaumer from the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, explains how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.

In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse – an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.

Einstein's conversion from a static to an expanding universe

What Einstein needed to keep his universe from collapsing was expanding space time which he finally found, and dark matter, which he knew had to exist, but eluded him.
Why was an expanding universe his bane? Because he realized that, contrary to his belief, the universe had a beginning. Until then, he had to apologize to his colleagues so often for his incorrect math, that no one took him seriously. It was indeed torturous.

And now, on to proof that we are only as smart as our most recent scientists, and not nearly as smart as God:
Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

 

[Syriusly]

No error. Einstein had a theory alright. The only problem was, it was wrong.

So Einstein didn't come up with a Theory of Relativity in by 1917?

 

[Marion Morrison]

And the Bible says this where?

You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.

What do you suggest I use then, a Betty Crocker Cookbook?y

That is like saying that you have proven that a recipe from Betty Crocker tastes good because the Cookbook says that the recipe is for a tasty meal.

Ah, but Betty Crocker recipes are repeatable experiments, the outcome is the same, time and time again.

Therefore, Betty Crocker Cookbook=scientific.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No error. Einstein had a theory alright. The only problem was, it was wrong.

So Einstein didn't come up with a Theory of Relativity in by 1917?

He worked on the Theory of Relativity right up to 1931, disposed the constant in 1931, embraced Hubble's expanding universe, and the math look good enough to take Einstein seriously. He begrudgingly added that 4th dimension, that he simply didn't believe existed prior to Hubble's discovery.
So, no Big Bang for Einstein. He didn't believe in a beginning and an end until he found out the universe had a beginning point. Then he had to figure out who started it. Not wanting to give the personal God of the Bible the credit, he decided that the Bible was full of shit, and his God was instead merely an anonymous creator.
Had he added the other 6+ dimensions his math would have been perfect and he would have understood how the Biblical God could have moved back and forth thru time...without poofy magic. Turns out all that was necessary was Creator God's advanced science and His dimensions.

Let's put the Scientific/Biblical/Creator God to the test. Now that man has found more of God's dimensions, here is what they will eventually discover.
Dimensions can:
be torn
be burned
be stretched
be rolled up like a scroll. < stunning.

 

[sealybobo]

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).

We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.

So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?

Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h

As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.

Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe. Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there. But what we found was the essentials for life.

1. Water
2. A molten hot core
3. Organic material

Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa

I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets. And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is. They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like. Both frozen and burning versions of hell.

Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.

The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.

We are on the cusp of discovery. No more exciting time than now.

"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."

 

[sealybobo]

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).

Did you know Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface? No. You think we sent a probe here and didn't find life and that's the end of it. You couldn't be more wrong. They did find something very promising and now we have to go back.

The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.

"I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."

The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.

"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."

The third necessary ingredient — energy for fueling life's processes — could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.

Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life

 

[sealybobo]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

“Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn’t have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn’t even be thinking about it.”
— President Trump, in remarks at the Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, Calif., March 13, 2018

Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Of course he's completely wrong about this too.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No error. Einstein had a theory alright. The only problem was, it was wrong. E does not equal mc squared in a static universe. Not in 1915, not in 1917, 19, 29 or 30.
It took Hubble's expanding universe to convince Einstein that the universe was not static, but expanding. < (Einstein's bane) Einstein adopted that belief in the early thirties. Of the two, Einstein vs Hubble, only one knew that the universe was expanding in 1929. Only one of the two was right. It was not Einstein.

Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static.. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae—today known as galaxies. But the reality is more complex. The change in Einstein's viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process. Now, in an article published in European Physical Journal H, Harry Nussbaumer from the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, explains how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.

In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse – an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.

Einstein's conversion from a static to an expanding universe

What Einstein needed to keep his universe from collapsing was expanding space time which he finally found, and dark matter, which he knew had to exist, but eluded him.
Why was an expanding universe his bane? Because he realized that, contrary to his belief, the universe had a beginning. Until then, he had to apologize to his colleagues so often for his incorrect math, that no one took him seriously. It was indeed torturous.

And now, on to proof that we are only as smart as our most recent scientists, and not nearly as smart as God:
Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

I find it odd that you keep naming scientists who would disagree with all of your magical nonsense.

And how odd that you say we are "only as smart as our scientists"... And then you deny their discoveries. Apparently, you meant to say we are only as smart as YOU are, and you are somehow smarter than our best scientists....all without a single shred of education or experience in their fields.

Amazing!

 

[The Irish Ram]

Einstein:
“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.

You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific.
We are only as smart as our most recent scientist. For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy. Then he became a 4 dimension guy. Hawking was a 10 dimension guy. Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy... And I deny none of their contributions. The smarter they get, the closer to God they get. I am all for it.

 

[james bond]

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

Einstein came up with the ToR first, but Hubble showed Einstein that he was right and that the universe was expanding.. Up to learning about Hubble's work, he questioned his own ToR.