Discussion on the how it all started

[Shemjaza]

It does explain but there is no proof that there is a link between the fossil records. U have absolutely no evidence that there were actually Homo habilis or other species which evolved to homo sapiens. We can see around us how the human skull can be different than others and no doubt similar to apes. But what u are doing is using different skull makeup to justify different species existed. There is absolutely no proof of a specie transforming into another altogether. It's only a hypothesis

Actually the pattern genetic evidence supports the relatedness of humans and chimps.

The fossil and tool remains tell us that the extinct transitional hominids existed.

I think the presence of fossils of progressively more human like apes in th he fossil record before the first humans appear is extremely good evidence.

Science deals in evidence, and the evidence for the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the other apes is strong enough to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Godistruth1]

Have you read “Who We Are and How We Got Here”?

I have read so many theories and i prefer to chose one of many out there

 

[HitchSlap]

False gods (small g) do not exist and true God (capital G) was not created.

I get it. You claim god/s exist. This is where you demonstrate with objective, repeatable experiments that this is true.

 

[solid_core]

I get it. You claim god/s exist. This is where you demonstrate with objective, repeatable experiments that this is true.

No, you did not get it. I claim that god/s do not exist. But God exists and is uncreated.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sorry if i mixed them up but u do get my point. Again the concept of theory in science is not what i am saying. Maybe the definition keeps changing. U also cannot have a definition that is approved by all scientists. I am trying to make a point here. My question is there are facts like humans breathing in oxygen and breathing out co2, gravity, laws of motion that can be verified now by scientific methods but making a hypothesis is not similar. I am not debating what is a theory and what established science. I hope you get my point

Under the scientific definition of 'theory' ,theories are established science. This is the scientific definition of theory from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.​

The most recent verification of evolution comes from genetics, a brand new science unknown to Darwin. Genetics helps to explain the specific bodily mechanisms (like random changes to DNA) involved in evolutionary change. Genetics has also verified the evolutionary relationships between different species including humans and other primates.

OB

 

[HitchSlap]

I have read so many theories and i prefer to chose one of many out there

Then you’re unaware of the fact we have dna of our human ancestry and evolution. I suggest you look into it. You may discover myopic religious beliefs are not the best explanation of reality. At least for me they weren’t. But unfortunately for you, accepting facts might get you killed (assuming Muslims execute apostates?). So I suggest you double down and keep it in the family.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, you did not get it. I claim that god/s do not exist. But God exists and is uncreated.

So demonstrate your claim, or admit it’s only an assertion.

 

[solid_core]

So demonstrate your claim, or admit it’s only an assertion.

Beings cannot be demonstrated at your will. They are not physical laws. You must conclude their existence from other things. For example you cannot demonstrate your grand grand grand father existed. But I can logically conclude that he did, because you are here.

 

[HitchSlap]

Beings cannot be demonstrated at your will. They are not physical laws. You must conclude their existence from other things. For example you cannot demonstrate your grand grand grand father existed. But I can logically conclude that he did, because you are here.

Thats it? You logically assume I had a great—great grandfather, therefore god?

I think you need to honestly evaluate what you believe and why, before you try selling it to others.

 

[Godistruth1]

A theory is established science. It is the most firmly established science and the definition hasn't changed in several hundred years. Theories are the best evidenced and tested explanations for the facts of observable phenomena that science can offer,

No u did not understand what im trying to say. Im not debating the definitions here. They can always differ among scientists. Let me ask u two questions. Is earth oval and can theory of evolution be wrong altogether?

 

[sesquiterpene]

Actually only bloggers consider abiogenesis a separate event from the evolution of the cosmos.

Scientists always consider them together as one stream of evolution. (change)

For example:
Subsumed complexity: abiogenesis as a by-product of complex energy transduction
Phase

Ironically you seem to be the only one conflating abiogenesis and the Big Bang. The first paper concerns abiogenesis only and is not about the Big Bang. Did you even read it?

 

[Godistruth1]

Speciation has been observed. It is absolutely certain that new species can form.

BTW, the singular of "species" is also "species." "Specie" (without the final S) is a word meaning gold coinage.

Sorry my bad about the word. I tend to write it wrong. Again when a fly evolves for example it is always a fly. A fly does not become something different. There are minor changes no doubt but there is no example how an ape like creature can become something like a man.

 

[Godistruth1]

There's plenty, if you really want to get into it.

Of course i do. As i already said im open to discuss and investigate if u provide proof

No, the burden is on you to come up with a test that will tell us which of those claims is true. That's how science works.

Well i already admit that i chose to go with the hypothesis that God created the universe and u claim evolution did. Well i agree its only one of many assumptions and not scientifically proven at the same time i also believe evolution is also not scientifically proven. Now u cannot tell me this is how science works and this is how i prove it. How scientific evidence differs among scientists and how scientists see facts differently is debatable again. What im asking is simple. How do u consider evolution the true explanation of how it started and how it works

 

[Larniavc]

"God did it" is no intellectual dead end. Because you can always ask "how".

That’s true, fair point. But creationist’s don’t ask how.

 

[Larniavc]

Right now theory of evolution is the most popular narrative which explains origins of universe

That is incorrect. ToE explains how species evolve over time. Strictly speaking it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. That would be cosmology and astrophysics: not biology.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course i do. As i already said im open to discuss and investigate if u provide proof

Well i already admit that i chose to go with the hypothesis that God created the universe and u claim evolution did.

Wrong, and an offensive falsehood besides. The creation/evolution debate is not about the existence of God. It is about how the universe came to be, whether God created it or not. I believe that God created the universe and that science is the best way to find out how He did it. If you can't defend your creationist beliefs scientifically, that's fine, you don't have to. But to accuse believers in God who disagree with you about creationism of denying God's authorship of our being is cowardly and shameful.

 

[solid_core]

Thats it? You logically assume I had a great—great grandfather, therefore god?

I think you need to honestly evaluate what you believe and why, before you try selling it to others.

No, I logically assume that you had a great great grandfather, therefore not everything must be demonstrated as some lab experiment.

Your straw men do not work.

 

[MIDutch]

That's not a scientific answer, and so, special pleading.

Yet you are perfectly willing to accept "and then magic happened" as your "scientific " answer.

I find it hilarious that creationists demand an incomprehensible level of evidence, logic, rational thought, reasoning, etc. from science, yet fail to demand the same of themselves.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, I logically assume that you had a great great grandfather, therefore not everything must be demonstrated as some lab experiment.

Your straw men do not work.

I asked for evidence your god exists. You stated I have a grandfather, so logically god exists. If I have mischaracterized your argument, then please expound.

Maybe we should start with this question: Why did you become a Christian?

 

[solid_core]

Yet you are perfectly willing to accept "and then magic happened" as your "scientific " answer.

I find it hilarious that creationists demand an incomprehensible level of evidence, logic, rational thought, reasoning, etc. from science, yet fail to demand the same of themselves.

Because their personal experience with God (or, more specifically, with the resurrected Jesus and the Holy Spirit) in their life is so huge that you must give them really a huge amount of evidenc, logic, reasoning etc if you want to convince them otherwise.

Sadly, many young earth creationists make a mistake by equating their experiences with God to "everything in the Bible must be literal and scientific". This is something I would concentrate on. The Universe did not have to be created in 6 literal days for God to exist and for Christianity to be true.