Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most interesting, especially in light of your claim that a Eucharist wafer became blood (to include dissolvable 'white cells') and heart muscle (enough to show that it was traumatized).You really do need to study critical thinking.
And at the end of all that rant.
You still have no shred of evidence
1/ That it actually happened - eg record of intermediates found
2/ That it continues to happen - eg record of intermediates present.
3/ End to end model for it. eg succession of intermediates with path between them.
4/ Any reproduction in vitro.
So in scientific terms you have no hypothesis just a belief.
It may be right. I may even agree. It is just belief.
The fact that celebrity scientist atheists agree with it, does nothing for the evidential position, only for informational conformance of their believers.
Spare me the insults please.
What I said was a totally factual honest assessment.
Now that is a straw man in this context!
When we are discussing how , not whether , living things came to exist: the mere fact of existence is evidence of noones hypothesis on how it happened, it only shows that both of us ask a real question, needing an answer!
Critical thinking leads one to accept that a tribal deity created the universe a few thousand years ago despite there being no supporting evidence, and that this same entity breathed life into dust and a man emerged?So stop pretending science supports it. Critical thinking certainly doesn't.
Now that is a straw man in this context!
1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).
Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)
Agreed, it was dust....Not a straw man exactly, but I agree it wasn't quite the answer to the question you were raising.
Whatever that first life was, it was not made out angel droppings or 'pneuma'. It was made out of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen, etc.
There is a rich experimental and theoretical program for studying the question of how.
Sort of like intelligent designers taking dust and trying to form life from it in the lab?I wouldn't want to pay for it with public money, or describe it as science, but I can imagine people gathering together some dust (or other matter) and encouraging supernatural agents to make a person out of it.
I really don't see the problem - we have evidence that there was a time before life existed on Earth, and life now exists on Earth. What hypotheses can we come up with to explain this observation?
1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).
Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)
Which of these hypotheses have supporting evidence? (2 & 3 - the 'building blocks of life' are found both on and off Earth).
Which of these hypotheses is likely to be most easily testable? (3 - restricting to early Earth environments narrows & simplifies the potential range of testing).
How should we proceed?
I vote we should look first at the hypothesis that has supporting evidence and is most easily testable.
That was just off the top of my head, so no doubt there are other ways to look at it, but that route seems reasonable.
I'm curious to hear alternative analyses.
One wonders how long they'd be prepared to wait...I wouldn't want to pay for it with public money, or describe it as science, but I can imagine people gathering together some dust (or other matter) and encouraging supernatural agents to make a person out of it.
I really don't see the problem - we have evidence that there was a time before life existed on Earth, and life now exists on Earth. What hypotheses can we come up with to explain this observation?
1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).
Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)
Which of these hypotheses have supporting evidence? (2 & 3 - the 'building blocks of life' are found both on and off Earth).
Which of these hypotheses is likely to be most easily testable? (3 - restricting to early Earth environments narrows & simplifies the potential range of testing).
How should we proceed?
I vote we should look first at the hypothesis that has supporting evidence and is most easily testable.
That was just off the top of my head, so no doubt there are other ways to look at it, but that route seems reasonable.
I'm curious to hear alternative analyses.
Another simple article on evidence:
The core of science: Relating evidence and ideas
And if one clicks on the link in the article on evidence a window opens that says:
"Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea."
A-ha!!
So that means that you believe 3/ on faith!!!!!!!
No need. The evidence makes the answer clear enough. Only those that will not accept the evidence tend to make this error.I vote that we first build a time-machine, and then, when we can go back, (I guess? I hope?) we'll see what really happened.
Let's review, shall we....
Evolution theory.
1. explanatory:
Evolution explains geographic distribution of species.
It explains why humans share more ERV's with primates then non-primates.
It explains anatomical similarity
It explains a ginormous amount of things.
2. practical application:
Exploiting evolutionary mechanisms through artificial selection. This gave us horse breeds, dog breeds, brussel sprouts, eatable banana's and other seedless fruits, broccoli..
Genetic algortims, which model evolutionary mechanisms, being awesome at optimizing a wide range of systems
Etc
3. predictability
To name just one example among an uncountable amount: tiktaalik.
Paleontologists, going by the idea that tetrapods evolved from fish vertebrates in the Devonian, looked at geological maps and pinpointed exposed Devonian rocks in locations that, back in those days, would have been favourable for fossilisation. They predicted that such locations would hold transitional fossils of "fish tetrapods". They went to the location, started digging and found exactly that: a fish/tetrapod. A previously unknown creature with both fish and tetrapod features.
It seems that evolution theory is solid science.
All of which could be explained by Gods creation and then management of life. The similarity of different creatures designs then simply points to a common Creator.
Breeding and gardening are possible without any knowledge of evolution and indeed are millennia older. Copying Gods code and marvelling at it dynamic capacity for adaptive change does not support evolution at all.
Create something out of nothing OR create something alive from pre existing materials OR predict the development of one kind of creature into another and you will have a solid basis for saying your theories are scientific. You cannot therefore BB , Abiogenesis and biological evolution are just guesses - explaining nothing, practically irrelevant and predicting nothing that has not already happened.
Predicting that sedimentary rock will hold fish fossils when that is the pattern across the world says nothing!!!
All Christians subscribe to creatio ex nihilo. But BBT is in effect an attempt to marry religion with an old view of the universe. It requires billions of years to be a credible theory. Since absolutely nothing can be proven scientifically over those kinds of time spans it is just guessing of little practical worth.
All of which could be explained by Gods creation and then management of life. The similarity of different creatures designs then simply points to a common Creator.
Breeding and gardening are possible without any knowledge of evolution and indeed are millennia older.
Copying Gods code and marvelling at it dynamic capacity for adaptive change does not support evolution at all.
You are replying to a quote where an example is given of exactly such predictions, and you then say "you cannot"???????Create something out of nothing OR create something alive from pre existing materials OR predict the development of one kind of creature into another and you will have a solid basis for saying your theories are scientific. You cannot
therefore BB , Abiogenesis and biological evolution are just guesses - explaining nothing, practically irrelevant and predicting nothing that has not already happened.
Predicting that sedimentary rock will hold fish fossils when that is the pattern across the world says nothing!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?