Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.

False. We have observed speciation.

That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.

Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable to this robust evidential support, there is not a shred of evidence at all!

Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.

Show me the forensic record of divine creation. You can't, because none exists. But i can show you 4 billion years of forensic records that show the evolution of everything we see today from a common, single celled ancestor. The order is always the same. I can show you how it matches perfectly with DNA research, archaeology, geology, and zoology.

So no, they are not comparable "fundamental beliefs". One is completely faith based, comes without a shred of evidence, explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, is untestable, is unfalsifiable, and merely replaces one mystery with another.

The other is supported by ALL of the evidence, with all the evidence being mutually supportive. It is testable and falsifiable. It explains every observation of the flora and fauna of the planet, past and present, and it yields accurate predictions.

There is no comparison on any level, "fundamental" or otherwise.

 

[progressive hunter]

No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.

False. We have observed speciation.

That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.

Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable, there is not a shred of evidence.

Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.

your whale reference has been proven false a long time ago,,,,

and dont deflect to god when you cant even back up your own claims,,,

 

[rightwinger]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method. Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.

Absolutely

We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings

NO WE HAVE'NT,,,

not one time have we seen anything give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,

and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,

and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,

We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
Evolution is a fact

 

[progressive hunter]

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method. Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.

Absolutely

We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings

NO WE HAVE'NT,,,

not one time have we seen anything give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,

and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,

and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,

We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
Evolution is a fact

that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,

 

[Flopper]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,

It is called the theory of evolution. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory. The theory and supporting evidence is published. Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory. Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists. However, it always remains a theory subject to change.

The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago. Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man. Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.

When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence. The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs. All of which have been useful explanations of observations.

but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???

I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show life from nonliving matter

You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and Abiogenesis, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life. Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.

Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.

In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth. However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,

It is called the theory of evolution. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory. The theory and supporting evidence is published. Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory. Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists. However, it always remains a theory subject to change.

The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago. Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man. Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.

When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence. The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs. All of which have been useful explanations of observations.

but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???

I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show life from nonliving matter

You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and Abiogenesis, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life. Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.

Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.

In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth. However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.

Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted. The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further. Etc., etc.

 

[westwall]

No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.

False. We have observed speciation.

That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.

Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable to this robust evidential support, there is not a shred of evidence at all!

Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.

Show me the forensic record of divine creation. You can't, because none exists. But i can show you 4 billion years of forensic records that show the evolution of everything we see today from a common, single celled ancestor. The order is always the same. I can show you how it matches perfectly with DNA research, archaeology, geology, and zoology.

So no, they are not comparable "fundamental beliefs". One is completely faith based, comes without a shred of evidence, explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, is untestable, is unfalsifiable, and merely replaces one mystery with another.

The other is supported by ALL of the evidence, with all the evidence being mutually supportive. It is testable and falsifiable. It explains every observation of the flora and fauna of the planet, past and present, and it yields accurate predictions.

There is no comparison on any level, "fundamental" or otherwise.

SPECIATION. Not one thing turning into another thing. That's the whole point of breakdown with evolutionary theory. Birds are still birds, they are merely changed in some slight manner.

I can't give you evidence for God. There is none. Just like I can't give you evidence for what happened at the Big bang. All we can do is theorize.

However, the Book of Genesis, and modern cosmology share many, many descriptors.

 

[westwall]

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method. Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.

Absolutely

We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings

NO WE HAVE'NT,,,

not one time have we seen anything give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,

and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,

and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,

We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
Evolution is a fact

Hundreds of millions, not billions. What the fossil record doesn't show is a single cell creature and its transformation into a multi celled creature. There is no evidence that exists on the planet to support that idea.

Yes, evolution is a fact. There is no doubt about that. But there is no evidence so far that shows evolution occurring that modifies one critter, into a different type of critter.

 

[westwall]

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,

It is called the theory of evolution. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. It begins with an idea, a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomenon. If enough evidence accumulates to support this idea, it moves to the next step, known as a theory. The theory and supporting evidence is published. Other scientists publish there research which may support or oppose the theory. Over time the theory becomes accepted or is rejected by scientists. However, it always remains a theory subject to change.

The theory of evolution, really natural selection was published by Darwin over 180 years ago. Since then there have been thousands of papers written supporting the theory most in form of papers and charts showing the evolution of various creatures including man. Most, but not all the evidence is archaeological.

When we say evolution is a fact, what is mean is a well accepted theory which is supported by a preponderance of evidence. The theory of evolution is taught as fact just as we teach the theory of gravitation or the theory of germs. All of which have been useful explanations of observations.

but what facts are there that prove humans came from non living matter???

I think your using the word facts instead of what it should be,which is information,,,because there are no facts that even come close to show life from nonliving matter

You've been mixing up two entirely different theories, the Theory of Evolution, which explains the evolution of the species and Abiogenesis, a theory that attempts to explain the beginning life. Evolution is well accepted among scientists and is treated as fact.

Abiogenesis at this point in time, does not address the creation of human life or any other species but rather the creation of organic compounds from non-organic compounds which are considered the building blocks of life. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. It's been demonstrated in the lab that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early earth.

In short, we understand a lot about the evolution of the species and how the building blocks of life could have been created on early earth. However, we don't have any accepted explanation of how organic molecules developed into the first species.

Right. But it can be said that we have an accepted "effective theory" of abiogenesis: formation of life by selection. The most stable molecules persisted. The most stable molecules which also replicated persisted even more. And the model that managed to do the best job of surrounding itself with protective layers persisted even further. Etc., etc.

We also have evidence of abiogenic oil. Drilled for, and found within the deep kraton of North America. A place where modern petroleum theory said it could never be found.

 

[Flopper]

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method. Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.

Absolutely

We have seen evidence of evolution over time.....that is an observation
We do not need to have been present to observe single cells evolving into human beings

NO WE HAVE'NT,,,

not one time have we seen anything give birth to anything other than its own kind,,,

and not one time have we ever seen life form from non-living matter,,,

and those are the two main things evolution is based on,,,

We have observed geologic strata from hundreds of billions of years
Those strata show single cell and non complex creatures at the lowest levels with no complex creatures mixed in. The higher up the strata, the more complex the creature.
Evolution is a fact

that proves nothing other than something died,,,let alone it is billions of yrs old,,,

No, it is evidence of age because it can be dated. Radiometric dating is used to date the strata above and below the fossil thus giving a relative date range. Radiometric dating can used to determine the an accurate age of some fossils independent of strata.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

SPECIATION. Not one thing turning into another thing.

That's what speciation is.

Birds are still birds, they are merely changed in some slight manner.

And vertebrates are still vertebrates. And animals are still animals. You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. With the amount of mutually supportive evidence (a/k/a, every observation of anything, ever), including the known mechanisms of evolution that would (you couldn't stop it if you wtried) change one species so much that, eventually, their progeny would be something "completely different" , we know all animals will eventually "change into something different".

The robust fossil record showing land vertebrates becoming whales: That is an observation of something becoming "something else". But you say it isn't. Okay then, you can answer some questions, and answer them all for every single fossil in the ancestral whale record:

- where did the species come from?
- where did it go?
- if it is not the ancestor/descendant of (another fossil), then why are the characteristics so similar? Why in the same place? Why does it appear right after the other fossil disappears from the record?
- why does it disappear from the record at the nearly the same time we find the next fossil in the series appearing?

Evolution answers every question easily. Divine creation.... nassomuch.

Just like I can't give you evidence for what happened at the Big bang.

False. We actually took a picture of the big Bang: the CMB image. Yes, you can provide evidence for what happened at the big bang, and lots of it.

 

[Flopper]

No evolutionary change has ever been observed where something changed into something it is not.

False. We have observed speciation.

That requires a belief every bit as fundamental as believing God created Man.

Nonsense. Go ahead and show me something comparable as evidence for divine creation to the excellent fossil record we have for the evolution of whales. You can't, because not only is there not anything comparable, there is not a shred of evidence.

Go ahead and show me the mechanism by which god created man. You can't. But i can show you the mechanisms by which animals speciate.

your whale reference has been proven false a long time ago,,,,

and dont deflect to god when you cant even back up your own claims,,,

Was that done by Jonah when he wandering around inside a whale?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We also have evidence of abiogenic oil.

yes, it's plausible, but still an early hypothesis.

 

[westwall]

SPECIATION. Not one thing turning into another thing.

That's what speciation is.

Birds are still birds, they are merely changed in some slight manner.

And vertebrates are still vertebrates. And animals are still animals. You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. With the amount of mutually supportive evidence (a/k/a, every observation of anything, ever), including the known mechanisms of evolution that would (you couldn't stop it if you wtried) change one species so much that, eventually, their progeny would be something "completely different" , we know all animals will eventually "change into something different".

They robust fossil record showing land vertebrates becoming whales: That is an observation of something becoming "something else". But you say it isn't. Okay then, you can answer some questions, and answer them all for every single fossil in the ancestral whale record:

- where did the species come from?
- where did it go?
- if it is not the ancestor/descendant of (another fossil), then why are the characteristics so similar? Why in the same place? Why does it appear right after the other fossil disappears from the record?
- why does it disappear from the record at the nearly the same time we find the next fossil in the series appearing?

Evolution answers every question easily. Divine creation.... nassomuch.

Just like I can't give you evidence for what happened at the Big bang.

False. We actually took a picture of the big Bang. Yes, you can provide evidence for what happened at the big bang, and lots of it.

The point that he is making is that there is no evidence of a bird changing into a rat. All evolution is one critter morphing over time into a very slightly different form of itself. Birds develop longer beaks so they can get nectar from deeper flowers thus giving them an advantage over birds with shorter beaks. But, they remain birds.

No we have not taken a photograph of the Big Bang. We can hear it, but there is no image of it. Period end of story. In fact, mathematics breaks down when you get to within a couple of hundred thousand years of the actual bang itself. Cosmologists can mathematically postulate what happened beginning about 275,000 after the bang, but not before. It is too chaotic.

 

[westwall]

We also have evidence of abiogenic oil.

yes, it's plausible, but still an early hypothesis.

A hypothesis that is backed up by real world observation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point that he is making is that there is no evidence of a bird changing into a rat

Why would he think that argues against evolution? It doesn't.

And, eventually, some bird lines will change into something that can no longer be classified as a bird by the current classifications. No, not all bird ancestral lines will 'always be birds", barring some sort of cataclysmic event that wipes out all bird lines.

No we have not taken a photograph of the Big Bang.

So, you are saying we don't have an image of the precise moment of the big Bang. That's accurate. But that is not a good argument that we are taking anything on faith. And let's not forget that what you ACTUALLY said was that you couldn't produce any evidence of the Big bang. that was false. yes, you can, and lots of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A hypothesis that is backed up by real world observation.

But very little. So, still a hypothesis. We will learn more...

 

[westwall]

The point that he is making is that there is no evidence of a bird changing into a rat

Why would he think that argues against evolution? It doesn't.

And, eventually, some bird lines will change into something that can no longer be classified as a bird by the current classifications. No, not all bird ancestral lines will 'always be birds", barring some sort of cataclysmic event that wipes out all bird lines.

No we have not taken a photograph of the Big Bang.

So, you are saying we don't have an image of the precise moment of the big Bang. That's accurate. But that is not a good argument that we are taking anything on faith. And let's not forget that what you ACTUALLY said was that you couldn't produce any evidence of the Big bang. that was false. yes, you can, and lots of it.

Not direct evidence. Only math and a sound that comes from all areas of space (which in itself is a problem, a Big Bang would have a point of origin, thus the energy should NOT be coming from all around us. Yet it does) No direct evidence at all.


Show me a bird that has morphed in such a way that it can longer be called a bird.

 

[westwall]

A hypothesis that is backed up by real world observation.

But very little. So, still a hypothesis. We will learn more...

Actually, it is now backed up by a lot of evidence. Igneous rock is supposed to be devoid of oil. It ain't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not direct evidence.

No, that's not accurate. We found our "smoking gun" over 5 years ago, in the CMB data, caused by gravitational weaves

Show me a bird that has morphed in such a way that it can longer be called a bird.

Why? My inability to show you 10 million years of the future on an internet message board would not lend any support the the false claim you made.

Actually, it is now backed up by a lot of evidence.

Hmm, no, still just a little. And it still appears to be a fact that almost all the oil we ever found, are drilling now, or could find is biotic.