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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We're back to evolution is FACT cause I say so must point scoring.

No, you shameless little liar. I said it is an accepted fact, which is true and is quite independent of what i had for breakfast.

I didn't even use the word magic

Nor will you ever, because you think your little brand of preferred magical fetish is "special", and you feel that "special" status is removed by lumping it in with all other magic. That's why it is up to people not steeped in and addled by your preferred little magical fetish to state it for what it is. We can't count on you for that honesty.

 

[james bond]

I will.
It is believed powerful sonar is confusing marine life causing mass beachings. We have risen the noise levels in the oceans and sound is more powerful in water.
Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?

Nice. But it helps my argument that man doms cetaceans.

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26

We still don't dominate the bacterial world despite medical advances. All our livestock and the worlds wildlife is susceptible to the most ancient organisms.
We are open to destruction from organisms, global and cosmic disaster and even by our own hand. Only thing we dominate is our own arrogance.

We dom the bacterial world, too. We understand there are both healthy and harmful bacteria, and have a symbiotic relationship with them. There are probably more bacteria we need than harmful ones. In regards to germs, God warned us about cleanliness.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We dom the bacterial world, too.

Well, I'm sure that is comforting to everyone with bacterial disease and all those who died from it this year.

Or maybe that's just more magical horseshit based on an iron aged fairy tale ..

 

[Flopper]

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.

I agree it does not seem likely because we know that environmental extremes in space and many planets will not support life as we know.

 

[james bond]

Says the bible is not a science book.

Quotes it as scientific authority 3 minutes later.

Smokin' the Jesus crack...

Like I said, Jesus has gotten in your head. The second part of your first sentence is, "but science backs up the Bible."

We're back to evolution is FACT cause I say so must point scoring.

No, you shameless little liar. I said it is an accepted fact, which is true and is quite independent of what i had for breakfast.

I didn't even use the word magic

Nor will you ever, because you think your little brand of preferred magical fetish is "special", and you feel that "special" status is removed by lumping it in with all other magic. That's why it is up to people not steeped in and addled by your preferred little magical fetish to state it for what it is. We can't count on you for that honesty.

You didn't even answer my question, "Can I say you failed now?" I think I can. Your facts have de-evolved into fallacious thinking and ad hominem attacks.

YOU HAVE FAILED!!!

 

[james bond]

We dom the bacterial world, too.

Well, I'm sure that is comforting to everyone with bacterial disease and all those who died from it this year.

Or maybe that's just more magical horseshit based on an iron aged fairy tale ..

I don't doubt people die from bacteria, but it would be worse if we didn't have the good bacteria and have a symbiotic relationship with them. It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The second part of your first sentence is, "but science backs up the Bible."

No it isn't, you shameless little liar. Embarrassing.

You didn't even answer my question, "Can I say you failed now?"

You can say whatever you like. Feel free to embarrass yourself all day. I suggest you, once again, declare victory over the global scientific community, so we can all laugh at you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.

Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

I agree it does not seem likely because we know that environmental extremes in space and many planets will not support life as we know.

True. Though, we thought that about many areas of our own planet that we now find to be teeming with life .

 

[progressive hunter]

It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.

Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.

what a 6th grader knows is whats called indoctrination,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

^^

poor little attention-begging troll is out of his depth

 

[progressive hunter]

^^

poor little attention-begging troll is out of his depth

doesnt mean what I said was false,,,and is why you cowardly try to label me a troll when its you that cant back up his claim with proof

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Back to the topic....

NASA twins study shows a year in space causes thousands of genetic changes

"...Preliminary results had already filtered out since the experiment's completion in 2016, such as those pointing to the idea that space lengthens telomeres, the protective caps on chromosomes that generally shorten the older we get. Surprisingly, it seems that space is somehow protective against telomere shortening, which could help determine the risks and benefits of long-duration spaceflight...."

 

[westwall]

Not direct evidence.

No, that's not accurate. We found our "smoking gun" over 5 years ago, in the CMB data, caused by gravitational weaves

Show me a bird that has morphed in such a way that it can longer be called a bird.

Why? My inability to show you 10 million years of the future on an internet message board would not lend any support the the false claim you made.

Actually, it is now backed up by a lot of evidence.

Hmm, no, still just a little. And it still appears to be a fact that almost all the oil we ever found, are drilling now, or could find is biotic.

The CMB data you are referring to was discovered long ago. That is that big noise from all around us i was referring to.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The CMB data you are referring too was discovered long ago.

But the signal of gravitational waves from the Big Bang in the CMB was only found 5 years ago. It's direct evidence of the big bang.

 

[Likkmee]

It's part of God's design as evolution does not explain the good bacteria.

Yes it does. But, again, you know less about evolution science than a 6th grader does. So idiotic comment from you#4,763,290 about evolution surprises nobody.

what a 6th grader knows is whats called indoctrination,,,

Much like the 13 th grade that some refer to as " college"

 

[westwall]

The CMB data you are referring too was discovered long ago.

But the signal of gravitational waves from the Big Bang in the CMB was only found 5 years ago. It's direct evidence of the big bang.

You are referring to the BICEP2 study right? That is definitely some interesting research, but it has so far not been confirmed by other studies. Until that happens it is a single point reference. I do however look forward to more work being done in that area. It would be pretty definitive support for the inflationary theory of the Universe.

 

[Montrovant]

The Bible wasn't written as a science book.

Exactly!

 

[progressive hunter]

The CMB data you are referring too was discovered long ago.

But the signal of gravitational waves from the Big Bang in the CMB was only found 5 years ago. It's direct evidence of the big bang.

I read they arent calling it the big bang anymore,,,its now the big expansion,,,

 

[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.

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???

What were we before we were humans?

That is the question that the study of human evolution is answering. It began over 150 years ago and is still continuing. We do not have a single evolutionary ancestor but rather several which surely will increase as research continues. That's why the following chart is labeled "Possible Pathways to Evolution of Man". Today, our oldest discovered ancestor is Lucy, (Australopithecus afarensis) about 4 million years old, who is far more ape than than human with one very important characteristic, walking erect. Our most recent environmental ancestor is Homo erectus who lived about a million years ago. Our Ancestral first cousin, Naenderthal Man lived about 40,000 years ago and is believed to have been driven to extinction by modern man tens of thousands of years ago.

The following is a video documentary about the search to discovery where we came from. It's been dramatized a bit but the basic facts are correct. It's actually pretty interesting.


I think you mentioned not being able to find scientific evidence of evolution. Finding it is no problem. Understanding it is something entirely different because it is technical and requires knowledge of a number of branches of science. Scientific American has complied a rather extensive list of 6929 important scientific papers and articles on evolution that go back to 1849. So if you're really interested, which I doubt, have at it.
Evolution