Discussion on the how it all started

[Godistruth1]

Potentially, scientific theories can always turn out to be wrong. But in the case of the theory of evolution, there is much evidence which appears to confirm it, no evidence against it, and no credible alternative theory. So, we accept it as is pending new developments.

Again im telling u the the link is not proven but assumed. I can also show u pictures of humans who have skulls similar to earlier specie of humans as described in modern day evolution. The earliest ones are from apes. Maybe u are right but again maybe its actually skulls of humans and apes assumed to be earlier specie of humans

 

[Speedwell]

Did it? And what will you know when some scientist comes up with a new theory in two weeks? Will you still "know" the old one?

It depends on whether you are interested in the field and paying attention or not. Otherwise it's not a big deal unless the new theory has applications which affect your daily life in some way.

 

[Godistruth1]

Deleted

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would I know which one will be proven wrong? But many are every day, although it takes a while to trickle down to the common folk.

Then name one from the past. Oh wait, you already failed at that.

 

[Larniavc]

Did it? And what will you know when some scientist comes up with a new theory in two weeks? Will you still "know" the old one?

True. What I should have said was “the evidence suggests that the Dinosaurs were finished off by the Chicxulub impact to the extent of our current knowledge”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again im telling u the the link is not proven but assumed. I can also show u pictures of humans who have skulls similar to earlier specie of humans as described in modern day evolution. The earliest ones are from apes. Maybe u are right but again maybe its actually skulls of humans and apes assumed to be earlier specie of humans

No, it is a rational conclusion supported by massive evidence. Fossil skulls are only one very small part of the evidence. They are often given because they are fairly obvious to be evidence to the untrained eye. There is far far more evidence than that.

The problem is when one is presented scientific evidence is that puts a burden of proof upon the person that was presented the evidence. Saying that you do not believe it is not a refutation. If one denies the evidence without ample evidence of your own that makes one a science denier. It does not make that person right, or even definitely wrong, but it raises the odds hugely that that person is wrong.

 

[Godistruth1]

The problem is that you appear to be the sort that rejects evidence out of hand. And that is a terribly dishonest thing to do. You keep pretending that there is no evidence for evolution when there clearly is. This means one of two things, you either do not understand the concept of evidence, or you are lying. I doubt if you are lying. That leaves us with an inability to understand what evidence is.

And by the way, your claim is incorrect. Early on I did provide you with the definition of hypothesis, since you did not understand that concept. You merely denied it. That indicates that you are apt to deny evidence as well. Which in a debate is, as I already said, very dishonest.

But if you do not want to learn what is and what is not evidence I can't make you learn. You will only continue to make yourself look rather ignorant in your future posts. You will not be able to understand what you are trying to refute so you will be like a baseball player wearing a blindfold. Swinging your bat at nothing.

Simple question for u. Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

 

[Larniavc]

Umm, history is exactly what we're talking about, ancient history. Are you trying to say that our experimental archaeology isn't a science?

History does not use direct observations of events. Looking at a supernova 500 light years away is viewing history in real time.

If experimental archeologist are not just making guesses why are biologists not making guesses?

Again, I like to ask what specific point of ToE are you taking issue with?

 

[Larniavc]

proven

Really?

Again?

 

[Speedwell]

Again im telling u the the link is not proven but assumed. I can also show u pictures of humans who have skulls similar to earlier specie of humans as described in modern day evolution. The earliest ones are from apes. Maybe u are right but again maybe its actually skulls of humans and apes assumed to be earlier specie of humans

Maybe so, but people who know quite a bit more about it than either of us say not, so I see no problem in going along with it. Perhaps you could study paleontology yourself and prove them wrong.

 

[Larniavc]

Simple question for u. Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

YES!

Any theory can be shown to be wrong.

But you need to supply evidence that cannot be explained by ToE.

An example of that would be a rabbit in strata dated in the pre cambion. That would be very hard for ToE to explain.

The thing is, as yet, no one has been able to supply this kind of contracting evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did it? And what will you know when some scientist comes up with a new theory in two weeks? Will you still "know" the old one?

The evidence strongly supports that claim. The dating of deposits can be done quite accurately at times, and the impact of the asteroid left a worldwide marker. When a known event results coordinates exactly with an apparent worldwide extinction, and that event was powerful enough to affect the world, it is a pretty good sign that it was the cause.

Maybe aliens visited the Earth and had a massive hunting expedition and then used an asteroid to cover up what they did. But I am going to accept the asteroid strike as the cause until we have evidence to the contrary.

You seem to be complaining about the fact that science is constantly improving itself. Why would you complain about that? If one uses the Bible as a science book one is forced into believing events that we know did not happen. It has no self correction mechanism. And it could really use one at times. Treating the Bible as a science book is an abuse of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple question for u. Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

Yes, the theory of evolution can be wrong. But the theory of evolution is not evolution.

Tell me, is gravity a fact?

 

[renniks]

Then name one from the past. Oh wait, you already failed at that.

Lol, are you serious? The Earth was once believed to be the center of the universe. Are you really trying to claim scientific theories don't change?

 

[renniks]

If experimental archeologist are not just making guesses why are biologists not making guesses?

There's guess work in all of them, that's the point. The reason I mentioned experimental archaeology is because a person can actually prove whether a skill works as supposed by, well, experiments!

You can't experience the beginning of the world .... unless you are God and create a new one.

 

[renniks]

Again, I like to ask what

I don't believe evolution happened, as Darwin supposed. In fact, no one does, but that's besides the point.
I have no reason to buy that one kind of animal becomes another kind. God created and we all adapt to our environment because he planned for this to be possible.

 

[pitabread]

Its is an explanation.

No, it isn't. An explanation is required to explain how something happened. Merely claiming that God made stuff isn't an explanation.

You seeing it not necessarily does not make it a fact. Like u see it as unnecessary we see it a necessity. There is no difference u see. Both are beliefs and both cannot be scientifically proven or disproven unless proven otherwise.

I apply Occam's Razor in this case. And consequently there is no reason to invoke an external supernatural being. Not unless it can provide additional explanatory power beyond what we already know.

 

[Shemjaza]

Nope, they are now saying it may not have had a beginning. ( Again) Even if there was an expansion, we don't know what happened prior.

That's exactly what I said.

That the BB was the beginning for one. That's very much in question. Not fact.

The evidence is strong, and it certainly defines the beginning of everything we know about the universe... we just don't before.

We don't know how time, space and energy came from the before, or even how the before could exist... call it God's will if you like, but no one has evidence for it.

But not having any explanation for how the Big Bang came about, doesn't remove all the evidence that the expansion of Big Bang is how this universe changed and grew.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't believe evolution happened, as Darwin supposed. In fact, no one does, but that's besides the point.
I have no reason to buy that one kind of animal becomes another kind. God created and we all adapt to our environment because he planned for this to be possible.

So if life can adapt and change, where and what is the barrier that stops this?

Evolution only requires tiny steps that only in retrospect represent changes in species. No child is a different species to their parents.

 

[Speedwell]

Lol, are you serious? The Earth was once believed to be the center of the universe. Are you really trying to claim scientific theories don't change?

I thought you claimed that it was facts which change?