Why every rational person must accept evolution

[orogenicman]

It is being proven. Get over it.

You remind me of the devout atheist I once had a conversation with. He got frustrated and said "You believe in fairy tales while I believe in scientific facts that haven't been proven yet".

You remind me of a flat Earther. Congratulations.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.

 

[westwall]

Did the yeast change into something other than yeast? It doesn't look like it. Life can and does adapt, especually if nurtured along in a lab. The question remains how that process exists in the first place.

How does a 'simple' cell happen when so many aspects have to function at the same time, the right amount, survive and go on to reproduce. I know there are theories but it is not provable science. To call it science is to misuse or misrepresent science.

It is being proven. Get over it.

You claim to be a scientist...DEFEND your thesis!

 

[westwall]

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.

Untrue. "Real" science began with the ancient Greeks and it has been expanded upon since then. Archimedes could hold his own in any mathematical, or engineering discussion, in any university today.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.

Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality. You do know that many scientists are theists don't you?

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.

Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality. You do know that many scientists are theists don't you?

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Which is completely irrelevant. No scientist sits in his laboratory and declares "God did it". If you don't understand why by now, you never will.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.

Untrue. "Real" science began with the ancient Greeks and it has been expanded upon since then. Archimedes could hold his own in any mathematical, or engineering discussion, in any university today.

Not really. Archimedes would have his pointy hat handed to him by today's mathematicians and engineers.

 

[westwall]

Well, we have had religion in one form or the other for nearly the whole existance of mankind. However, real science has been something we have had only for the past few hundred years. And in that past few hundred years, nearly one hundred percent of the advances in understanding the universe around us has taken place.

How many tens of thousands of years have they prayed, danced, and chanted around sick people. Yet, only in the past couple of hundred years have we really understood the basics of how the human body works. And that has been through the work of scientists, not shamans, whether tribal or modern priests.

Untrue. "Real" science began with the ancient Greeks and it has been expanded upon since then. Archimedes could hold his own in any mathematical, or engineering discussion, in any university today.

Not really. Archimedes would have his pointy hat handed to him by today's mathematicians and engineers.

Proving yet again how little you know about science. Ever heard of the Archimedes Codex? Turns out the guy who you think would have his pointy hat handed to him invented heuristics (basically integral calculus) over 1500 years before it was reinvented.

Your level of ignorance seems to know no bounds.





Revealing the lost codex of Archimedes. [VIDEO]

 

[orogenicman]

Untrue. "Real" science began with the ancient Greeks and it has been expanded upon since then. Archimedes could hold his own in any mathematical, or engineering discussion, in any university today.

Not really. Archimedes would have his pointy hat handed to him by today's mathematicians and engineers.

Proving yet again how little you know about science. Ever heard of the Archimedes Codex? Turns out the guy who you think would have his pointy hat handed to him invented heuristics (basically integral calculus) over 1500 years before it was reinvented.

Your level of ignorance seems to know no bounds.





Revealing the lost codex of Archimedes. [VIDEO]

Gee, I waited and waited for that video to support your claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.But it didn't.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Did the yeast change into something other than yeast? It doesn't look like it. Life can and does adapt, especually if nurtured along in a lab. The question remains how that process exists in the first place.

How does a 'simple' cell happen when so many aspects have to function at the same time, the right amount, survive and go on to reproduce. I know there are theories but it is not provable science. To call it science is to misuse or misrepresent science.

It is being proven. Get over it.

untrue....the test concluded that multiple yeast cells clumped together.....molecularly, they remained single yeast cells.....the same was true of the bacteria being experimented on......a cluster of 64 single celled bacteria remained just that, 64 different single celled bacteria.....they did not reproduce as a single 64 celled organism, but as additional single celled bacteria that had the capacity to clump together......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality.

unfortunately, many who believe what they say is based on science are actually basing it on their own superstitions.....for example, those who claim that science has evidence that human being evolved from single celled organisms.....

 

[Iceweasel]

Which is completely irrelevant. No scientist sits in his laboratory and declares "God did it". If you don't understand why by now, you never will.

It's completely relevant, about half of the scientists are not on board with your faith.

 

[westwall]

Not really. Archimedes would have his pointy hat handed to him by today's mathematicians and engineers.

Proving yet again how little you know about science. Ever heard of the Archimedes Codex? Turns out the guy who you think would have his pointy hat handed to him invented heuristics (basically integral calculus) over 1500 years before it was reinvented.

Your level of ignorance seems to know no bounds.





Revealing the lost codex of Archimedes. [VIDEO]

Gee, I waited and waited for that video to support your claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.But it didn't.

I guess we'll just have rely on your favorite wiki then....


"Ancient[edit]





Archimedes used the method of exhaustion to compute the area inside a circle
The ancient period introduced some of the ideas that led to integral calculus, but does not seem to have developed these ideas in a rigorous and systematic way. Calculations of volumes and areas, one goal of integral calculus, can be found in the Egyptian Moscow papyrus (c. 1820 BC), but the formulas are only given for concrete numbers, some are only approximately true, and they are not derived by deductive reasoning.[1]

From the age of Greek mathematics, Eudoxus (c. 408−355 BC) used the method of exhaustion, which foreshadows the concept of the limit, to calculate areas and volumes, while Archimedes (c. 287−212 BC) developed this idea further, inventing heuristics which resemble the methods of integral calculus.[2] The method of exhaustion was later reinvented in China by Liu Hui in the 3rd century AD in order to find the area of a circle.[3] In the 5th century AD, Zu Chongzhi established a method that would later be called Cavalieri's principle to find the volume of a sphere.[4] Greek mathematicians are also credited with a significant use of infinitesimals. Democritus is the first person recorded to consider seriously the division of objects into an infinite number of cross-sections, but his inability to rationalize discrete cross-sections with a cone's smooth slope prevented him from accepting the idea. At approximately the same time, Zeno of Elea discredited infinitesimals further by his articulation of the paradoxes which they create."




History of calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[orogenicman]

Which is completely irrelevant. No scientist sits in his laboratory and declares "God did it". If you don't understand why by now, you never will.

It's completely relevant, about half of the scientists are not on board with your faith.

What faith would that be?

 

[orogenicman]

Proving yet again how little you know about science. Ever heard of the Archimedes Codex? Turns out the guy who you think would have his pointy hat handed to him invented heuristics (basically integral calculus) over 1500 years before it was reinvented.

Your level of ignorance seems to know no bounds.





Revealing the lost codex of Archimedes. [VIDEO]

Gee, I waited and waited for that video to support your claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.But it didn't.

I guess we'll just have rely on your favorite wiki then....


"Ancient[edit]





Archimedes used the method of exhaustion to compute the area inside a circle
The ancient period introduced some of the ideas that led to integral calculus, but does not seem to have developed these ideas in a rigorous and systematic way. Calculations of volumes and areas, one goal of integral calculus, can be found in the Egyptian Moscow papyrus (c. 1820 BC), but the formulas are only given for concrete numbers, some are only approximately true, and they are not derived by deductive reasoning.[1]

From the age of Greek mathematics, Eudoxus (c. 408−355 BC) used the method of exhaustion, which foreshadows the concept of the limit, to calculate areas and volumes, while Archimedes (c. 287−212 BC) developed this idea further, inventing heuristics which resemble the methods of integral calculus.[2] The method of exhaustion was later reinvented in China by Liu Hui in the 3rd century AD in order to find the area of a circle.[3] In the 5th century AD, Zu Chongzhi established a method that would later be called Cavalieri's principle to find the volume of a sphere.[4] Greek mathematicians are also credited with a significant use of infinitesimals. Democritus is the first person recorded to consider seriously the division of objects into an infinite number of cross-sections, but his inability to rationalize discrete cross-sections with a cone's smooth slope prevented him from accepting the idea. At approximately the same time, Zeno of Elea discredited infinitesimals further by his articulation of the paradoxes which they create."




History of calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of which can be done today by a 12 year old. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

untrue....the test concluded that multiple yeast cells clumped together.....molecularly, they remained single yeast cells.....the same was true of the bacteria being experimented on......a cluster of 64 single celled bacteria remained just that, 64 different single celled bacteria.....they did not reproduce as a single 64 celled organism, but as additional single celled bacteria that had the capacity to clump together......

You are missing the point here. What the experiment did was show the key steps in the transition from single cellular to multicellular life. It was a definitive experiment, one that others are now conducting.

Now, let me ask you a question (I know you won't answer it because people like you never do). If multicellular life didn't arise from single cellular life (and there is plenty of evidence that it did), where did it come from?

 

[westwall]

Gee, I waited and waited for that video to support your claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.But it didn't.

I guess we'll just have rely on your favorite wiki then....


"Ancient[edit]





Archimedes used the method of exhaustion to compute the area inside a circle
The ancient period introduced some of the ideas that led to integral calculus, but does not seem to have developed these ideas in a rigorous and systematic way. Calculations of volumes and areas, one goal of integral calculus, can be found in the Egyptian Moscow papyrus (c. 1820 BC), but the formulas are only given for concrete numbers, some are only approximately true, and they are not derived by deductive reasoning.[1]

From the age of Greek mathematics, Eudoxus (c. 408−355 BC) used the method of exhaustion, which foreshadows the concept of the limit, to calculate areas and volumes, while Archimedes (c. 287−212 BC) developed this idea further, inventing heuristics which resemble the methods of integral calculus.[2] The method of exhaustion was later reinvented in China by Liu Hui in the 3rd century AD in order to find the area of a circle.[3] In the 5th century AD, Zu Chongzhi established a method that would later be called Cavalieri's principle to find the volume of a sphere.[4] Greek mathematicians are also credited with a significant use of infinitesimals. Democritus is the first person recorded to consider seriously the division of objects into an infinite number of cross-sections, but his inability to rationalize discrete cross-sections with a cone's smooth slope prevented him from accepting the idea. At approximately the same time, Zeno of Elea discredited infinitesimals further by his articulation of the paradoxes which they create."




History of calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of which can be done today by a 12 year old. Next.

Really? YOU can't do simple percentages and you claim to be a PhD geologist! Archimedes was a GENIUS. That means, give him an hour, and the proper source material, and he would be conversant with whatever you presented him.

You've been alive for at least 50 years and STILL can't do simple math.

You are so clueless it amazes me.

 

[Iceweasel]

What faith would that be?

Secularism.

 

[orogenicman]

What faith would that be?

Secularism.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You are missing the point here. What the experiment did was show the key steps in the transition from single cellular to multicellular life. It was a definitive experiment, one that others are now conducting.

well no.....what the experiment did was show that if you shake a bottle of yeast, those that stick to each other will settle on the bottom of the beaker......they started as single cells, they ended as single cells....it wasn't some "key transition"......transition implies movement or change......they didn't change and while there was movement, it was simply because heavy objects don't float nearly as well as light objects.....

Now, let me ask you a question (I know you won't answer it because people like you never do). If multicellular life didn't arise from single cellular life (and there is plenty of evidence that it did), where did it come from?

???....why wouldn't "people like me" answer?........multicellular life was created, separately and distinctly different from single celled life.....