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

[rightwinger]

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,,,

It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
No dinosaurs and no humans

 

[Flopper]

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.

The fact that organic molecules have been discovered in space has lead some to speculate that life may have begun off the earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

The fact that organic molecules have been discovered in space has lead some to speculate that life may have begun off the earth.

But it's odd speculation, as it would more seem to indicate that organic chemicals can be found all over the place. It would first seem to speak to the possibility that it coild happen "anywhere" and "elsewhere", than the possibility that it DIDN'T happen here and happened elsewhere instead.

Not that I find it implausible. But occam's razor seems to stand against the idea. And there are so many ideas to cpnsider.

Perhaps complex organics came here in droves during bombardment, and then were acted upon by selection to produce the first dna or life.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
No dinosaurs and no humans

no it doesnt,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyone who thinks that saying "nothing has been seen to give birth to a different species" speaks to evolutionary theory is not qualified to open his mouth about evolution, ever.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

if we know so much about it then what were humans before they were humans???
or did we magically appear one day,,,

same goes for the whale issue

did the whale give birth to a cow or did it walk out of the ocean and magically turn into a cow???

or is it the reverse???

 

[rightwinger]

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,,,

It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
No dinosaurs and no humans

no it doesnt,,,

Fraid it does my friend

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyone pretending to beg strangers for basic information about evolution instead of just looking it up for himself is a fraud and should not be acknowledged.

 

[progressive hunter]

Anyone who thinks that saying "nothing has been seen to give birth to a different species" speaks to evolutionary theory is not qualified to open his mouth about evolution, ever.

then educate us,,,,what were humans before they were humans???

give me something other than what someone else told you,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

It proves that when they died, there were only non complex organisms dying with them
No dinosaurs and no humans

no it doesnt,,,

Fraid it does my friend

maybe in your mind,,,some call that hallucinations,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Anyone pretending to beg strangers for basic information about evolution instead of just looking it up for himself is a fraud and should not be acknowledged.

I've tried looking it up,,,it seems its a secret,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyone who says they have tried looking up basic information on evolution and says they could not find it is a shameless liar who should not be acknowledged.

 

[progressive hunter]

Anyone who says they have tried looking up basic information on evolution and says they could not find it is a shameless liar who should not be acknowledged.

and yet you cowardly respond in a separate comment thinking I wont see it or think youre responding to me,,,

all that just because you cant answer a simple question about a religion you hold so dear,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fossil record of the evolution of the whale is a great example of the predictions of evolutionary theory coming to bear as accurate. We can trace, through time and space, its ancestral line from a land mammal to a sea-going mammal. We can watch as the nostrils move up the skull and become the blowhole. We can watch as the walking limbs become flippers. We can watch as the body shape changes from that of a standard, quadrupedal land mammal form to a fusiform shape. We can watch its ancestral line radiate out from the location of the earliest fossils.

Not just understanding this evidence, but also predicting it is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory and of mankind in general.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Speaking of evolution.... maybe "The Greys" are real, and are just humans descended from early humans who were taken from earth and who have evolved over millions of years of living in outer space (or whose evolution was rushed/interfered with):

 

[james bond]

Maybe they have. But we can't see them, due to the limitations of our puny brains.

Even if they could see, close encounters from the 70s-80s do not count because it lacks scientific rigor today.

What would be rigorous scientific evidence is a response to something we send out in search of aliens.

Here's Carl Sagan's idea of rigorous scientific evidence. I think it still holds true today. "To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on Earth, chemical elements from the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on Earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts—electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account."

I think he says that he would accept anecdotal evidence from a wide group of people who described the same thing or from a trained observer, i.e. someone who has experience in what people see and report about ufos and aliens.

You don't have to accept it, but I think a majority of people would.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think he says that he would accept anecdotal evidence from a wide group of people who described the same thing or from a trained observer, i.e. someone who has experience in what people see and report about ufos and aliens.

Uh...what? He literally says the opposite of that:

"To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists"

 

[james bond]

We've never seen a star form. We have never watched an alpha particle leave an atomic nucleus. We have never even seen an electron. We have never seen an underground magma pocket. We have never seen the iron cores of the Earth or the Moon.

Some quacks like to insist that, if we haven't watched an event unfold with our human eyes, then we cannot find good basis to know it happened. Of course this is utter nonsense, and we would still be trying to figure out what causes syphilis, were this the case: Demons, or god's wrath? Or witches?

Just think if murderers could use, in their defense, the idea put forward by these quacks. "You can't PROVE my DNA was not deposited at the crime scene or even at your lab by magical fairies!"

Can you imagine them as kids? "Son, I told you no more chocolate, yet there you are with chocolate on your face." "Prove a magical fairy didnt put it there! Prove it has not always been there! You didn't see me eat chocolate!" .... Haha...total nuttery....

This quackery is a stupid talking point put forth by young earth creationists and is reserved only for the science that contradicts their strident dogma. They don't seem to mind the known half lifes of isotopes when they need radiation therapy for cancer; but use that knowledge to determine a fossil is 60 million years old, and suddenly it's time to pull out the "you dont know, because you weren't THERE, man!!!" argument.

An evolutionary microbiologist determines which strain of a particular bacteria is likely infecting their loved one, and they seize on the knowledge to help their loved one. Remind them that this knowledge was determined by assessing 100s of 1000s of years of evolution of the species, and they will bring out the fairies and sky daddies again.

Use our knowledge of mitochondrial DNA to find better organ donor matches, and the quacks are eternally grateful for saving the lives of their loved ones. Use that same knowledge to determine that two populations of a species have been separated for 1,000,000 years, and here come the sky daddies and the "you weren't there!" nonsense.

And abiogenesis? Their heads explode. Apparently, god can do anything and everything...but he becomes Meatloaf, when it comes to abiogenesis. "But I won't do that!" Funny thing is, abiogenesis is what the bible describes. Life, from "not life". So apparently, god could and would "do that". But no, he wouldn't. Or wait, yes he would. Intellectual fumduckery....

Too many red herrings in your post. For example, you equate God with a magical fairy, YECs with quackery and the fake science of evolution with knowledge. I can equate you with a magical fairy or unkotare (not the usmb poster, but I found it means leaking poop in Japanese) and poof there goes your argument. It just goes to show you are someone full of fallacies in your thinking, in this case association fallacies. Is there anything there that passes 10th grade logic? Bwahahahahaha. No. You're still below the threshold.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example, you equate God with a magical fairy

No, I conflate them, in the sense of proposing magic. I don't equate fairies and unicorns, but I can still conflate them in the sense of introducing magic. That is not a red herring. Improper use of that term on your part. The point is the introduction of magic. A point you seem to squeamish to addres, much less mention...

YECs with quackery

Correct, I am arguing that they are quacks. It was literally the point. That also would not be a red herring. I'm starting to think you don't actually know what that term means.





And you failed to address any point I made, nor could you state any of the logic. which, basically, renders your entire post -- pay attention to the correct usage of the term to follow -- one big red herring.

go back and read the entire post again, as if I am talking directly to you. because I, essentially, am. You don't mind our knowledge of isotopic half-lives, right up until they contradict your strident YEC dogma. That, sir, is a fact, and you know it. And it makes you absurd.

 

[james bond]

I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers. A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist. Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.

For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.

I probably know more science than you in my little pinky. Furthermore, there is no word as "sciency." It would help if you used proper English and terminology so the science and technology crowd and I know what you are talking about. Why don't you explain? The science crowd and I can use a good laugh.