Discussion on the how it all started

[Godistruth1]

Hardly. Scientific evidence is a concept that is well thought out and extremely useful. In fact your ability to post here is due to the development of the concept of scientific evidence. For you to denigrate it and depend upon it is more than just a little hypocritical.

Sorry again you are using science as an excuse here. We agree science that can be observed and verified not make assumptions. I think its hypothetical to say evolution is proven yet u cannot prove it actually happened

One does not need to be a believer in evolution. If one understands the science one knows. Now the problem with creationists is not only are they science deniers. They also are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence. And no if you claim there is a God the burden of proof is upon you. The null hypothesis is not a belief in a thing. The null hypothesis is a lack of belief until sufficient evidence has been supplied. Your belief in God may be comforting, but it is not rational.

And of course the fact of evolution does not refute the existence of God so that should not worry you very much.

Sorry you are not speaking logic here. U are wrong on both points. First creationists dont deny science they only deny evolution. Second evolution is an assumption not a fact or proven evidence that can be verified. The claim that God exists is no different than claim that we evoled from specie similar to apes. Well let me tell u it's a belief without proof. Unless u can prove to us in lab or show us by observation its yet another belief

 

[Godistruth1]

There is evidence for evolution. For creationism, not so much.

Sorry what u call evidence is a hypothesis. Its one in a million guesses how it started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry again you are using science as an excuse here. We agree science that can be observed and verified not make assumptions. I think its hypothetical to say evolution is proven yet u cannot prove it actually happened

No, science is not an "excuse". That is nonsensical. And you do not understand how science is done. Science is evidence based. There are mountains of evidence for evolution and none for creation. Also technically "proof" is a mathematical term. But if you mean by the legal sense of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then it is absolutely true that evolution is "proven". You would probably need some education to understand how. But given time you could learn.

Sorry you are not speaking logic here. U are wrong on both points. First creationists dont deny science they only deny evolution. Second evolution is an assumption not a fact or proven evidence that can be verified. The claim that God exists is no different than claim that we evoled from specie similar to apes. Well let me tell u it's a belief without proof. Unless u can prove to us in lab or show us by observation its yet another belief

Wrong again. That is not how either science works or logic works. I am not the one wrong here. There is no evidence for God that I know of. You appear not to understand what is and what is not evidence and you earlier refused to present any evidence. That is rather telling. And no, it is actually a breaking of the Ninth Commandment to make such claims as "assumption" in regards to evolution. In fact when you make that claim you take on the burden of proof. Now you need to provide evidence that evolution is an assumption. You are digging a hole for yourself.

You have mere belief and are incorrectly claiming the same of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry what u call evidence is a hypothesis. Its one in a million guesses how it started.

Wrong again. You do not know what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is a concept. It is a testable concept that explains observations:

scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example

You are continuing to dig your hole deeper and deeper. And evidence are observations that support or refute a hypothesis. Read my sig.

 

[Shemjaza]

No sir u are assuming they are related. If something is similar does not mean they are absolutely related. What u need to do is give me evidence to verify this as true which i can observe or test. And like i said earlier human skulls even now tend to look in the same fashion as u depict in the process. Some initially are more ape like and later human like. Evolutionist scientists say we did not evolve from apes but then again u have no proof to prove that also. We again could have. You belief is strong just like somebody's belief in God but unless it can be verified by observation and experimentation now its still a guess

The fossil remains exist, that is testable evidence.
They can be dated to a sequence going from very human like, to more like other apes, that is testable evidence.
Human genetics indicate that chimps are closer related to humans then they are to gorillas or orangutans, that is also testable evidence.

So, nothing is ever 100% certain, an omnipotent trickster god could have just happened to create more and more upright and human like apes and then created humans with the genetic structure to make it look like they were related... but the reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that humans are related to and descended from non-human apes.

 

[Larniavc]

First creationists dont deny science they only deny evolution.

They also deny cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, chemistry, archaeology, geography.

 

[Shemjaza]

They also deny cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, chemistry, archaeology, geography.

Also geology, history and linguistics.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, maybe the universe has always existed. And there’s really no evidence of a god/s until man showed up and on the scene. And of these two things, all of us agree that at least one exists. So maybe we should start there.

Can you provide any evidence that the universe always existed? There is evidence that God exists. https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-LB1.pdf

 

[disciple Clint]

Like god?

No God was not created

 

[Godistruth1]

No, science is not an "excuse". That is nonsensical. And you do not understand how science is done. Science is evidence based. There are mountains of evidence for evolution and none for creation. Also technically "proof" is a mathematical term. But if you mean by the legal sense of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then it is absolutely true that evolution is "proven". You would probably need some education to understand how. But given time you could learn.

Dude u need to calm down before speaking and reading anything. What i said is you are using science as an excuse to tell people evolution is scientifically proven beyond doubt. Well lets see that proof. All u have is a hypothesis which is no different to thousands of hypothesis out there.

Wrong again. That is not how either science works or logic works. I am not the one wrong here. There is no evidence for God that I know of. You appear not to understand what is and what is not evidence and you earlier refused to present any evidence. That is rather telling. And no, it is actually a breaking of the Ninth Commandment to make such claims as "assumption" in regards to evolution. In fact when you make that claim you take on the burden of proof. Now you need to provide evidence that evolution is an assumption. You are digging a hole for yourself.

You have mere belief and are incorrectly claiming the same of others.

Again u are talking illogical. U need to learn that science is not a constant. U dont get to tell me how science works and how it does not. U might not be aware of the fact there are good scientists who believe in God. Im sure you are not a scientist so please forgive me if i dont buy into your religion. What im asking for is proof. Dont tell me how science works.

 

[solid_core]

But we have evidence for our "grand grand grand<sic> father" For God, not so much. You refute yourself with your example.

We have more evidence for God than for your existence.

 

[Godistruth1]

Wrong again. You do not know what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is a concept. It is a testable concept that explains observations:

scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example

You are continuing to dig your hole deeper and deeper. And evidence are observations that support or refute a hypothesis. Read my sig.

You dont have evidence for evolution my dear friend. Just because u call it evidence dont not make it so. No different than someone claiming belief of God to be true.

 

[Godistruth1]

They also deny cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, chemistry, archaeology, geography.

People may not accept some part of it and some they may accept. Depends on the proof. Just because somebody may deny a theory or hypothesis does not mean they reject the whole science. Two different scientists can have a different hypothesis regarding the same thing.

 

[Godistruth1]

The fossil remains exist, that is testable evidence.
They can be dated to a sequence going from very human like, to more like other apes, that is testable evidence.
Human genetics indicate that chimps are closer related to humans then they are to gorillas or orangutans, that is also testable evidence.

Again this is something that is a hypothesis and its not possible to verify it. Did u know humans share 50% dna with bananas. We might as well have evolved from bananas. I hope u get my point.

So, nothing is ever 100% certain, an omnipotent trickster god could have just happened to create more and more upright and human like apes and then created humans with the genetic structure to make it look like they were related... but the reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that humans are related to and descended from non-human apes.

Conclusions are subjective again. What is more logical for u does not necessarily have to be logical for somebody else. There may be scientists who differ on different theories in evolution. Its ever changing.

 

[Larniavc]

People may not accept some part of it and some they may accept. Depends on the proof. Just because somebody may deny a theory or hypothesis does not mean they reject the whole science. Two different scientists can have a different hypothesis regarding the same thing.

For the last time.

There is no proof in science. Do you understand that? If not, why not?

 

[Godistruth1]

For the last time.

There is no proof in science. Do you understand that? If not, why not?

Sorry my bad. I mean evidence. I tend to mix them up

 

[Subduction Zone]

You dont have evidence for evolution my dear friend. Just because u call it evidence dont not make it so. No different than someone claiming belief of God to be true.

Whoa! Major infraction there. Just because you do not understand the nature of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence. I can prove that I have evidence, you, not so much. And to tell someone that they do not believe something of a religious nature is a big no no here. I would suggest a retraction. I would be in big trouble if I said "You don't really believe in Jesus". That cuts both ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry my bad. I mean evidence. I tend to mix them up

We understand,you do not understand the concept of either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again this is something that is a hypothesis and its not possible to verify it. Did u know humans share 50% dna with bananas. We might as well have evolved from bananas. I hope u get my point.

Yes, your logical skills need some work too. We share a common ancestor with bananas, but that would be over six hundred million years ago. The common ancestor we share with chimps is about one one hundredth of that time. We did not evolve from chimps either. We share an ancestor with them. That ancestor of course was an ape, not a modern one of course, and you and I are still apes.

Conclusions are subjective again. What is more logical for u does not necessarily have to be logical for somebody else. There may be scientists who differ on different theories in evolution. Its ever changing.

Yes, some people can reason rationally and some can't. And yes, the details of the theory of evolution are ever changing. That is a feature and not a bug. That is how people advance in the sciences. Hypotheses are formed, tested, and confirmed or refuted. Our knowledge increases as a result. Creationists on the other hand refuse to properly test their ideas. Probably because those that understand the sciences well enough know they will fail such a test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People may not accept some part of it and some they may accept. Depends on the proof. Just because somebody may deny a theory or hypothesis does not mean they reject the whole science. Two different scientists can have a different hypothesis regarding the same thing.

You are conflating evidence and proof. Evidence is well defined in the sciences. We do have evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for creationism. Creationists cannot seem to find any. If you want to debate in the science parts of this forum understanding what is and what is not evidence will help you immensely. Just as a lawyer in a court of law needs to understand legal evidence to win a case a person arguing the sciences needs to understand scientific evidence.