What evolved in what order? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

What evolved in what order?
in Religion

By SandSand 110 Pts
Could anyone provide a viable list of things evolved in what order?
What animals developed first and then next?
What developed first mouth, eyes, or hands?
What developed next stomach, heart, or brain?
If we evolved from animals why can we not reproduce with animals?

Don't you feel it is odd that there are huge missing evidence or gaps in evolution?
AlofRI
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • SandSand 110 Pts
    No challengers?
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    no one knows for sure where life began, there is not enough evidence left from the many upheavals that the earth went throughout the eons.  educated guesses zero in on heat; under water vents, or volcanos, and it was single cell organisims. in order?  another educated guess, considering the amount of sea water in the world is that plants under the sea began, and what we call fish is simply a name we put a tag to.. evolution is a long slow gradual process and it doesn't work in where it creates one organ at a time. To be fair, eyes probably slowly evolved over time in a fish like animal in help in getting the minute organisms it ate that hovered about the top of the water.  evolution is all about survival of the species.  The animals that eventually evolved on land came from the sea simply by being washed ashore and it survived by the heavy moisture on the beach and generations eventually begin capable of breathing oxygen. The mammals and such we know of today did not come about until the demise of dinosaurs and probably was just a shrew like creature that either lived in trees or holes. one would have to understand from a science point of view that 6 billion years is a very long time and things change slowly over time. something does not magically change into one creature into another; just minute differences occur over time in which eventually leads into a separate species, and so on. and no, I do not feel it is odd about lack of evidence due to the reason I just spake of in where things dont change from a duck to a chicken instantly; it changes slowly and also of the tremendous upheavals the earth has gone through destroying much.  here is an example of evolutionary change.  take a blank piece of paper;  that is a complete species. I put a mark on in which represent a change in the species and then over time another mark and so on until it is slowly covered by marks which by then is a different species. one simply does not see a blank piece of paper one day and the next covered with marks. it evolves! it is a process that changes things but over time.@Sand
    AlofRISand
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    no one knows for sure where life began, there is not enough evidence left from the many upheavals that the earth went throughout the eons.  educated guesses zero in on heat; under water vents, or volcanos, and it was single cell organisims. in order?  another educated guess, considering the amount of sea water in the world is that plants under the sea began, and what we call fish is simply a name we put a tag to.. evolution is a long slow gradual process and it doesn't work in where it creates one organ at a time. To be fair, eyes probably slowly evolved over time in a fish like animal in help in getting the minute organisms it ate that hovered about the top of the water.  evolution is all about survival of the species.  The animals that eventually evolved on land came from the sea simply by being washed ashore and it survived by the heavy moisture on the beach and generations eventually begin capable of breathing oxygen. The mammals and such we know of today did not come about until the demise of dinosaurs and probably was just a shrew like creature that either lived in trees or holes. one would have to understand from a science point of view that 6 billion years is a very long time and things change slowly over time. something does not magically change into one creature into another; just minute differences occur over time in which eventually leads into a separate species, and so on. and no, I do not feel it is odd about lack of evidence due to the reason I just spake of in where things dont change from a duck to a chicken instantly; it changes slowly and also of the tremendous upheavals the earth has gone through destroying much.  here is an example of evolutionary change.  take a blank piece of paper;  that is a complete species. I put a mark on in which represent a change in the species and then over time another mark and so on until it is slowly covered by marks which by then is a different species. one simply does not see a blank piece of paper one day and the next covered with marks. it evolves! it is a process that changes things but over time.@Sand
    Sand
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    If it changes slowly then we should be able to easily connect the links between animals. If we are that closely related, cross breeding with animals should be possible.@maxx
  • Sand said:
    No challengers?
    Might as well ask why no one would accept a challenge from a flat-earther or a clucking chicken, it's a waste of time...
    DeeAlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    since the change is so slow and I mean slow we simply are not aware of these changes or links. it is similar to a baby growing up into an adult, the only link we are capable of seeing is a different appearance over a long amount of time. it is not a baby 1 day and adult the next. slow biological changes in a species which eventually led to another species are almost impossible to detect in fossils simply because the bones are all that are left. a slow biological change may simply a slight change in an organ or the loss of fur, slowly it changes over time. in evolution, it is the biological changes that occur first and appearances change in relation to it. you are trying to find a sudden link which isn't there because the changes are so minute, a bit here and a bit there. as for cross-breeding, there is too much of a genetic difference by now between humans and animals although it has been claimed that the Russians once tried with chimps in artificial means. genetics evolve over time as well and like I said it is a slow process. if one actually found the hospitals, there have been numerous cases in recorded history with pictures and records of babies bein born with a tail which has to be removed. this is obviously a genetic throw back.  @Sand
    Sand
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    edited November 27
    @Sand

    *****Don’t  you feel it is odd that there are huge missing evidence or gaps in evolution?

    I will await any  peer reviewed papers on the matter by the religious that even makes a dent in the theory which is something not one believer has been able to put forward  , Evolution is built upon mountains of scientific evidence .

    Evolution is fact only the irrational believe the reverse.
  • @Sand That is a really tall order, first off, we might not even know about a large percentage of life that is currently alive today, let alone millions of years ago. There are tons of animals like soft sea sponges and jellyfish that leave little or no trace after they die because they do not fossilize well.

    All of our guesses about how life evolved are just that. Guesses. We don't know what we don't know.

    Even if it were possible to do this, the list would not fit conveniently in this forum, and billions of names categories and classifications that do not exist yet would need to be created.

    From a practical standpoint, this isn't exactly possible.

    Even just asking which organs developed first is impossible to answer, and the lines get blurry when you start looking at single celled organisms, some of which have rudimentary organelles which function like each of those organs but not as complex.

    Most people have seen the videos of a cell consuming another by wrapping around it, a process known as endocytosis. Does this constitute a stomach? Many single celled organisms have light detecting components, does this constitute an eye?

    Little semantic questions like this make it impossible to answer the question in a meaning full way without fully exploring the details and intricacies of the reality.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I can answer the question of why we can not reproduce with animals, anyone who took a biology course in high school should know this.

    Our cells have a specific number of chromosomes, which are packets of tightly wound DNA, the code that produces proteins and runs cells. Animals that have different numbers of chromosomes can't combine their DNA because of the type and number mismatch. This is almost always lethal to the offspring, or in some cases leads to an animal which is sterile or malformed.

    A mule is a classic example of a horse and a donkey interbreeding to produce an infertile offspring.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No, it doesn't seem odd at all that there are huge gaps in our understanding of what happened millions of years ago.

    Consider this: Do you know everything that you ate every day of your life for every meal since you were born?

    Maybe you are a savant with perfect memory, rare but still surprising.

    Now consider this: Do you know everything that your great grandfather ate everyday of his life since he was born?

    How could you even answer that question unless he specifically recorded it, and suppose he gaffed or forgot for a while?

    The assumption that we would know given the gaps in hard evidence is ludicrous. In fact, that we know so much is an incredible example of the diligence and insightful nature of science and scientists.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • IzniIzni 62 Pts
    edited November 27
    @Sand
    If you are looking from a creationist perspective like I am,
    Then the first thing to evolve is the brain, followed by mouth and heart, then rest of the body, because without brain we would not have the ability for conscious action, distinction. later the speech.
    We can't reproduce with animals because we have different set of genome clusters that are not present in animals, but ever so often you will find half animal half human borne individuals who don't survive due to sustainability in these genome clusters to further replicate themselves

    This is just an assumption, but I am open to other's suggestions.
  • Certainly, we don't have all the answers yet. We may never have ALL the answers. We certainly have far more than were available when the Bible was written, and most of humanity was used to believing in mythological "gods" for answers. Then, many moved from a god for different specialties to ond god for ALL answers. 

    Today we follow our "evolving brains" and figure out the logical answers built on the evidence available. Mythological answers just don't cut it any more, we want something built on logic.

    Galileo said: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
    That great mind was "evolving", just hadn't distanced itself enough from the mythological era yet, (or realized it wasn't a healthy thing to state it openly). We will get enough indisputable answers over time …. we get more yearly now than we got for a century any time in the past. 

    That said, if we can't work fast enough to counter our self imposed climate change it will be a mute point. People will be looking for mythological help, and it won't be coming any more than it has in the past. :anguished:  
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    >>>That is a really tall order, first off, we might not even know about a large percentage of life that is currently alive today, let alone millions of years ago. There are tons of animals like soft sea sponges and jellyfish that leave little or no trace after they die because they do not fossilize well.

    Here is a problem because the evolution concept is playing both sides of the coin.
    Either it happens gradually or suddenly.
    If it happens gradually. We would see all the connection points.
    If there is a gap then there has to be a reason for the gap.
    Death in evolution philosophy is not a reason for the gap, because the reason for evolving is survival.
    For the species before the gap to survive and the species after the gap to survive then it did not evolve.
    It de-evolved, which brings up more questions.



    >>>Even if it were possible to do this, the list would not fit conveniently in this forum, and billions of names categories and classifications that do not exist yet would need to be created.
    I would take a general.
    Did the fish come first or the dog.
    Did the whale come next or the bird.

    >>>Even just asking which organs developed first is impossible to answer, and the lines get blurry when you start looking at single-celled organisms, some of which have rudimentary organelles which function like each of those organs but not as complex.

    The reason it is impossible is that a brain cannot function without blood.
    Once a cell has instructions, it doesn't go beyond the instructions.


    >>>Our cells have a specific number of chromosomes, which are packets of tightly wound DNA, the code that produces proteins and runs cells. Animals that have different numbers of chromosomes can't combine their DNA because of the type and number mismatch. This is almost always lethal to the offspring, or in some cases leads to an animal which is sterile or malformed.

    Very good, I am glad you know this information.
    Biology has never shown that DNA will change the number of chromosomes.
    Nevertheless, the concept of evolution says that this is happening now.
    And that it takes millions of years to develop a new species.
    In each instance, the chromosome number changed and when close in species like the horse and donkey, their offspring is infertile.
    So either it was a jump or a gradual process.
    If it was a gradual process there would not be a change in the number of chromosomes.

    >>>No, it doesn't seem odd at all that there are huge gaps in our understanding of what happened millions of years ago.


    Take a dictionary and a thesaurus.
    If the idea of a dictionary evolved into a thesaurus, but it is only seen over millions of years.
    The probability of that happening is astronomical.
    Would you base your understanding that it is a viable expectation?
    Nevertheless, it is nowhere near the complexity and probability of an ape evolving into a man.
    Yet society is supposed to greatly reduce their skepticism by reason of the increase in the number of years.

    If it were to happen wouldn't we see a half dictionary half thesaurus, and a quarter dictionary and a three-quarter thesaurus?
    But for the thesaurus to be here and the dictionary without the successions, it would drive suspensions that they did not evolve.

    I am using this only as an illustration, to point to the missing gaps that were higher evolved apes but died out with the apes living.

    That is a serious logical problem in the evolutionary explanation of time as the answer.



    >>>Consider this: Do you know everything that you ate every day of your life for every meal since you were born?
    No, but I can assure you that it was edible food.
    If you take any of the necessities that man needs to survive all humans will die. Not one will evolve into a new environment.
    Take air, sunlight, water away and man will die. There will not be one that will develop gills, adapt to frozen, or breathe nitrogen.



    >>>The assumption that we would know given the gaps in hard evidence is ludicrous. In fact, that we know so much is an incredible example of the diligence and insightful nature of science and scientists.
    That is what I am saying about the conclusion.
    Evolution has to be considered ludicrous until that gap is explained.
    Death in evolution philosophy is not a reason for the gap, because the reason for evolving is survival.

    The gap is not one or two between species, many scientists state that 95% of the information is missing.
    (Check reference, The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul)
    If you watch any 2-hour movie for the first time for 6 minutes, could you tell a just of the whole story?
    If we gave you more time to think about it would you suddenly come up with the story by guessing?

    >>>All of our guesses about how life evolved are just that. Guesses. We don't know what we don't know.

    Why can't we all say that?
    Without concrete evidence, it is a guess, or we are making an educated guess.
    Every statement about evolution needs to be preferenced with those words.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    Let it be known I am not against evolution ideology.
    I am against the idea that evolution is more accurate than creation.
    I personally feel that no one knows any of the concrete answers.
    I feel there is no way to find out.

    Evolution is good.
    Creation is good.
    Believe what you feel is the best explanation for your understanding.

    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 137 Pts
    edited November 27
    Sand said:
    Could anyone provide a viable list of things evolved in what order?
    What animals developed first and then next?
    What developed first mouth, eyes, or hands?
    What developed next stomach, heart, or brain?
    If we evolved from animals why can we not reproduce with animals?

    Don't you feel it is odd that there are huge missing evidence or gaps in evolution?

    This video is about the origin of blood and addresses the heart as well. You need to know this before you can even start to think about other organs.



    Sand
  • @Sand Evolution isn't a belief because it has facts and evidence to support it.

    Creation has no facts to support it whatsoever ( unless you count various holy texts, in which case whatever anyone makes up could be valid evidence )
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    @Sand

    **** I am against the idea that evolution is more accurate than creation.

    Evolution is a fact denial of such is based on nothing but nonsensical pseudoscienctific garbage  which cannot be backed up with one peer reviewed paper 

    *****I personally feel that no one knows any of the concrete answers.

    Yes , but that makes you wrong agin the denial of fact leaves one embracing absurdities 

    ****I feel there is no way to find out.

    You I believe feel that , but we have found out already 
  • @Sand No, I think you need to do some more reading before you can criticize effectively.

    "Here is a problem because the evolution concept is playing both sides of the coin.
    Either it happens gradually or suddenly.
    If it happens gradually. We would see all the connection points.
    If there is a gap then there has to be a reason for the gap.
    Death in evolution philosophy is not a reason for the gap, because the reason for evolving is survival.
    For the species before the gap to survive and the species after the gap to survive then it did not evolve.
    It de-evolved, which brings up more questions."

    It is possible for both rapid and gradual evolution to happen at the same time, it depends on environmental and inter species pressures that drive evolution.

    For example, suppose a sexually isomorphic species ( one that has different characteristics across gender lines ) slowly diverges due to females being picky breeders.

    On the rapid side, suppose sudden environment changes kill all but the strongest.

    Evolution isn't a set in stone process where things are always moving to one higher goal, it has no goals, so de-evolution is incredibly common. For example, crocodiles have two sets of eyelids, one that is vertical and another horizontal, which is partially transparent used underwater. If you look closely at a human ( or especially cat ) eyes you will find the vestigial remains.

    "I would take a general.
    Did the fish come first or the dog.
    Did the whale come next or the bird."

    No, it doesn't work like that. That is like asking which came first, your cousin or yourself if you share a birthday?

    "The reason it is impossible is that a brain cannot function without blood.
    Once a cell has instructions, it doesn't go beyond the instructions."

    I don't know what your point is, this is true but not a good argument.

    "Very good, I am glad you know this information.
    Biology has never shown that DNA will change the number of chromosomes.
    Nevertheless, the concept of evolution says that this is happening now.
    And that it takes millions of years to develop a new species.
    In each instance, the chromosome number changed and when close in species like the horse and donkey, their offspring is infertile.
    So either it was a jump or a gradual process.
    If it was a gradual process there would not be a change in the number of chromosomes."

    Organisms can and do change the number of chromosomes! Have you ever heard of down syndrome? Chimps, Gorillas, and other primates have 24 pairs where humans have only 23.

    "Take a dictionary and a thesaurus.
    If the idea of a dictionary evolved into a thesaurus, but it is only seen over millions of years.
    The probability of that happening is astronomical.
    Would you base your understanding that it is a viable expectation?
    Nevertheless, it is nowhere near the complexity and probability of an ape evolving into a man.
    Yet society is supposed to greatly reduce their skepticism by reason of the increase in the number of years.
    If it were to happen wouldn't we see a half dictionary half thesaurus, and a quarter dictionary and a three-quarter thesaurus?
    But for the thesaurus to be here and the dictionary without the successions, it would drive suspensions that they did not evolve.
    I am using this only as an illustration, to point to the missing gaps that were higher evolved apes but died out with the apes living.
    That is a serious logical problem in the evolutionary explanation of time as the answer."

    It's all about boundary conditions. Lets say we had 100 million dictionaries, each one unique in some ways. Then we killed all the ones that were the least thesaurus like, took the remaining ones crossed their information. Then we repeated this with the new set of dictionaries. If you do this enough times, eventually you will get a thesaurus. 

    The false dichotomy you create between it needing to be fast or slow is completely inaccurate.

    "The gap is not one or two between species, many scientists state that 95% of the information is missing.
    (Check reference, The Evolutionists—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul)
    If you watch any 2-hour movie for the first time for 6 minutes, could you tell a just of the whole story?
    If we gave you more time to think about it would you suddenly come up with the story by guessing?"

    No, but if you get enough single frames from throughout the movie you can make a reasonable prediction about what the movie might have been like. You will notice scene changes, common characters, and maybe even figure out some of the plot. The straw man you create here is the assumption that 6 minutes should be consecutive, but with the fossil record everything is spread out.

    "Why can't we all say that?
    Without concrete evidence, it is a guess, or we are making an educated guess.
    Every statement about evolution needs to be preferenced with those words."

    Yes, and every claim about religion needs to be prefaced with We just made this up and it sounded good, and if you question us we might kill you. At least with evolution theory there is concrete evidence.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 110 Pts

    Show the evidence.
  • @Sand The Influenza virus changing it's keys.

    Millions of dead things buried in rock, which all seem to change slowly over time.

    Every variety and breed of dog.

    Physiological similarities of some species, vast differences in others.

    Similarity of animals being closely tied to geography.

    Genetic similarities of species removes all doubts.

    Vestigial structures

    Insects gaining immunity to pesticides.

    Plants creating new poisons to kill insects.

    Genetic disorders.

    Cancer. ( mutation of individual cells )

    The list goes on, entire books have been written on each of these subjects.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 110 Pts

    >>>It is possible for both rapid and gradual evolution to happen at the same time, it depends on environmental and interspecies pressures that drive evolution.
    Please provide the example, or are you hypothesizing.


    >>>Evolution isn't a set in stone process where things are always moving to one higher goal, it has no goals, so de-evolution is incredibly common. For example, crocodiles have two sets of eyelids, one that is vertical and another horizontal, which is partially transparent used underwater. If you look closely at a human ( or especially cat ) eyes you will find the vestigial remains.
    So we de-evolve?
    Where is your scientist's evidence, or are you still hypothesizing?


    >>>No, it doesn't work like that. That is like asking which came first, your cousin or yourself if you share a birthday?
    One of us came first. Nevertheless, we are talking about evolving, changing from one species to another.
    If it did de-evolve then it would die out.
    Your illustration does not apply because ether one did not come from the other.
    If you say, parents, now this is a more comparable illustration.
    Obviously, with parents, the father and mother were alive before the offspring.

    A succession of evolution needs to be outlined to create a viable conclusion.

    How do you know that man is at the top of the spectrum?
    Maybe the ape came from the man. (de-evolved)

    To come up with a theory with no session or outline how, just time, millions or billions of years.
    Can you really trust this?


    >>>I don't know what your point is, this is true but not a good argument.
    My point is that evolution states that a brain did develop without blood.
    Evolution states that cells did change their instructions.
    It just took millions and billions of years.


    >>>Organisms can and do change the number of chromosomes! Have you ever heard of down syndrome? Chimps, Gorillas, and other primates have 24 pairs where humans have only 23.
    This is a powerful statement.
    Are you saying there is a chimp, gorilla, or other primates with 23 waiting to be found?
    If so then maybe we should wait until it is discovered.
    Are you saying there is a species that has changed chromosomes making it possible to bear offspring with a man?
    It sounds highly unlikely, but I am willing to be proven wrong, just provide the evidence.


    >>>It's all about boundary conditions. Let's say we had 100 million dictionaries, each one unique in some ways. Then we killed all the ones that were the least thesaurus like, took the remaining ones crossed their information. Then we repeated this with the new set of dictionaries. If you do this enough times, eventually you will get a thesaurus.

    I agree but can this happen on its own?
    Or would it need someone or something to kill the dictionaries that were the least thesaurus like?
    The problem is the 100 million dictionaries are here and the 100 million thesaurus' is here, but the thesaurus like dictionaries are not here.
    They are completely gone!
    Not just one hundred million are missing, three hundred million are missing.
    Not just three hundred million between one species but three hundred million between every species.
    This is very shocking!


    >>>The false dichotomy you create between it needing to be fast or slow is completely inaccurate.
    You think so. So speed is not an issue?
    Then have scientists film it. Film an ape turning into a man.

    There is an obvious boundary, of how far species can change.

    Notice this quote from this evolutionist - "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
    Book - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation

    Basically what he is saying it has to be intentional.


    >>>No, but if you get enough single frames from throughout the movie you can make a reasonable prediction about what the movie might have been like. You will notice scene changes, common characters, and maybe even figure out some of the plot. The straw man you create here is the assumption that 6 minutes should be consecutive, but with the fossil record everything is spread out.

    I am not strawman-ing here, I quoted a book it was my own quotation and the writer said 95% was missing, not me.
    I illustrated by means of a movie, you could say the illustration was wrong.
    Who said consecutive, I said 6 minutes.
    2-hour movie and let us say it is not consecutive break it down in seconds, but you cannot control what parts of the movie you get.
    I don't think your conclusion will be incorrect, but others may see it differently.
    Here is the biggest problem saying that other conclusions about the movie were incorrect.


    >>>Yes, and every claim about religion needs to be prefaced with We just made this up and it sounded good, and if you question us we might kill you. At least with evolution theory, there is concrete evidence.
    Apart from the "made it up bit", I agree we should state this is our educated guess.
    Nevertheless, how many times on this site do they criticize the Bible and Religious ideology as stupid and untrue?
    Verses the number of times we criticize evolution as stupid and untrue?
    It pales in comparison.

    As far as the "kill you" part, I know you are including the Muslims way of handling things in your statements.
    But the same is done to religious people in communist countries, foreign, and USA allied countries.
    6% Concrete evidence! :-)
    The Bible is based on concrete evidence also - historical evidence, based on the historical mythology.
    This may be evidence most people do not want to accept but are unable to prove false.
    Hear me it is more than 6 percent.
    (Pun intended)

    Happy_Killbot
  • @Sand You read what I wrote right?

    "Please provide the example, or are you hypothesizing."

    I already have!

    "One of us came first. Nevertheless, we are talking about evolving, changing from one species to another. ( and everything else you wrote )"

    Look, the analogy of cousins is the most accurate. Evolution does not work like Pokemon!

    Consider your grandparents, had your parents, uncles and aunts, and they had you you and your cousins. The original species ( your grandparents ) is dead, but they have produced you which is genetically different from your cousins. Evolution works the same way. People might say something like "humans evolved from chimps" This is wrong! The reality is that modern chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor, the same way your cousins and you share grandparents.

    "My point is that evolution states that a brain did develop without blood.
    Evolution states that cells did change their instructions.
    It just took millions and billions of years."

    I assume you are talking about bloodless creatures like spiders, insects, cephalopods, and crustacians, all of which have brains, therefore blood is not necessary for a brain that exists without it.

    "Are you saying there is a chimp, gorilla, or other primates with 23 waiting to be found?"

    No. I an saying that millions of years ago, a human ancestor dropped a chromosome. Also just having 23 pairs of chromosomes would not a viable genetic partner make. There has to be deeper compatibility, such as location of key alleles and similar structure of each chromosome.

     "I agree but can this happen on its own?"

    Nature is cruel. Things die all the time. I shouldn't have to explain this, but maybe you haven't noticed because our species has spent the last 12,000 years or so systematically fighting nature.

    "Then have scientists film it. Film an ape turning into a man."

    It still takes long periods of time, and because it is based on random changes, not driven by any specific goal, there is no guarantee that an ape will always develop into a man. It is random.

    "Basically what he is saying it has to be intentional."

    I don't know how you are drawing this conclusion from that statement, this is an obvious non-sequitur. What he is saying is what I said above about species differentiation, possibly by adding or dropping chromosomes, but also by other factors such as different mating cycles or geographic location.

    "I don't think your conclusion will be incorrect, but others may see it differently"

    Others may come to different conclusion about the movie, but these differences shouldn't be as radically different as one person saying the movie happens in sequence and another says that all frames are meant to be viewed together. Some disagreement is expected, and unless you can get more clips out of the movie, it is hard to say.

    "Nevertheless, how many times on this site do they criticize the Bible and Religious ideology as stupid and untrue?
    Verses the number of times we criticize evolution as stupid and untrue?
    It pales in comparison."

    I wonder why that is? There are people out there who think evolution is some sort of devil worship anti Jesus cult, but the general public tends to ignore these people as extremists. Science is as close to objective truth as you can get, and one of the reasons for that is that every time we find new information that conflicts with an old idea but has evidence to prove it, we throw out the old ideas. The evolution we talk about to day is a far cry from what Darwin thought, it has gone through countless periods of change and reinvention so that only the core concepts remain.

    Whenever science is pitted against religion, science always wins, because it is by definition, based on objective truth rather than personal or spiritual truth. Science and Religion should never fight each other, though, because they are in different fields of thought. It is only when people decide that science is somehow "just as valid a world view" as religion that we have problems. Science tells you what is absolute truth and what is absolute false. Religion can not tell you absolute truth of falsity. So when religion makes a claim to truth like "The world was created in 7 days" science can disprove that claim and make religion look dumb. When the bible says: "Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Science has no power to prove or disprove this claim, because it is not provable or disprovable. Science could prove what will happen if we do not, for example all the scientists sounding the alarms of climate change.

    My rant is over, I am going to guess you won't read every word but I would highly recommend it.
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Sand said:

    Don't you feel it is odd that there are huge missing evidence or gaps in evolution?
    There is a wonderful quote that is usually attributed to Einstein, although I have never been able to verify this attribution. The quote is as follows:

    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called 'research', would it?".

    It is the nature of science that there are always countless missing pieces of evidence and gaps. If there were none, we would not need science in the first place.

    Of course we are not able to explain absolutely everything about evolution. Retrospective analysis is incredibly hard, and we even have a hard time understanding who Cleopatra was, arguably the most famous woman in the history of humanity, living merely a bit over 2000 years ago. How can one possibly expect us to know everything about the events that took place hundreds millions ago, based on some ambiguous fossils? Paleonthology is an extraordinarely hard science; I am a mathematician, and I consider my field a 5 star resort in terms of difficulty, compared to what those guys have to deal with. Looking at a fossil from 200 million years ago and deriving whether Plateosaures used two or four limbs to run? This is beyond my comprehension. Paleonthologists are geniuses, as far as I am concerned.

    That said, the amount we have managed to learn by now is truly impressive. There really is no limit to human ingenuity, and how much a human curious and talented enough can derive from a few kilobytes of raw data is truly impressive.

    Give some credit to natural scientists. Some of them have brains from out of this world.
    Sand
  • SandSand 110 Pts

    >>>Look, the analogy of cousins is the most accurate. Evolution does not work like Pokemon!
    Based on your analogy of cousins the evolved animal would die.
    Because it would need a mate that has a similar evolved makeup to procreate.
    If it was a cousin that evolved (23 chromosomes) and it ran into another primate (24 chromosomes) it would not survive.

    >>>No. I am saying that millions of years ago, a human ancestor dropped a chromosome. Also just having 23 pairs of chromosomes would not a viable genetic partner make. There has to be deeper compatibility, such as location of key alleles and similar structure of each chromosome.

    Numerical abnormalities and Structural abnormalities in dropping a chromosome causes bad things to happen.
    You are probably well aware that dropping a chromosome results in down syndrome, which is marked by mental retardation, learning difficulties, a characteristic facial appearance, and poor muscle tone (hypotonia).

    >>>I don't know how you are drawing this conclusion from that statement, this is an obvious non-sequitur. What he is saying is what I said above about species differentiation, possibly by adding or dropping chromosomes, but also by other factors such as different mating cycles or geographic location.
    No, if you read his book he said experimented with 70 years of "mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one."

    >>>Nature is cruel. Things die all the time. I shouldn't have to explain this, but maybe you haven't noticed because our species has spent the last 12,000 years or so systematically fighting nature.
    Well,...... this is not old age this is specific dying.

    >>>It still takes long periods of time, and because it is based on random changes, not driven by any specific goal, there is no guarantee that an ape will always develop into a man. It is random.
    The Book - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation
    Proved that "random" changes proved a worldwide failure, "almost all [subjects]. . . died or were weaker than wild varieties"
    Multiple well-funded experiments in the United States, Asia, and Europe.
    That conclusion has been proven false. It has to be specific.

    Not to say evolution does not have evidence.
    It has evidence to support conclusions.
    My claim is looking at all the evidence evolution has and concluding it is true is ok.
    Nevertheless, looking at the evidence religion has and concluding it is true is also ok.

    Both are suspect.
    Both have strengths and weaknesses.
    Both have evidence.

  • The thing that came first is the fluid that brings nutrients to all the cells and it was here before they were. That’s why I posted the video which is appropriate for your level of understanding.


    Sand
  • @Sand
    "Based on your analogy of cousins the evolved animal would die.
    Because it would need a mate that has a similar evolved makeup to procreate.
    If it was a cousin that evolved (23 chromosomes) and it ran into another primate (24 chromosomes) it would not survive."

    I'm no genetic scientist, but I did some research and the answer get technical fast. The long of the short is that chromosomes fused, this is what happened between the human ape ancestor and modern humans. Thus early ancestors could still breed with others, because even though there was a sum mismatch the actual DNA would still be able to combine.

    "Numerical abnormalities and Structural abnormalities in dropping a chromosome causes bad things to happen.
    You are probably well aware that dropping a chromosome results in down syndrome, which is marked by mental retardation, learning difficulties, a characteristic facial appearance, and poor muscle tone (hypotonia)."

    Mostly it results in bad things, but sometimes it results in good things, or things that make no difference. It's a game of roulette, where sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

    "No, if you read his book he said experimented with 70 years of "mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one."

    If you want to make points from his book please use the entire quote because context matters, and you need to avoid jumping to conclusions. That is why what you said was a non-sequitur, because there are missing relevant logical steps between points A and B.

    "Well,...... this is not old age this is specific dying."

    When I say things die all the times I mean all kinds of death, not just old age. When I talk about humans fighting nature, I am talking about technology.

    "The Book - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation
    Proved that "random" changes proved a worldwide failure, "almost all [subjects]. . . died or were weaker than wild varieties"

    This is what I mean when I am talking about boundary conditions. It's sort of like cherry picking data. Most of the offspring are going to be nearly identical to the parents, and a few that are different die immediately, so only the ones that are stable and different can be vectors of evolution.

    I think we have discussed the evidence for evolution thoroughly, let's talk about the evidence for creation.

    Specifically, I want to know What is the evidence, how credible is that evidence, and what could we find to prove it wrong?
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    I will respond soon.
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    I am sorry for the delay.

    >>>Specifically, I want to know what is the evidence, how credible is that evidence, and what could we find to prove it wrong?

    What is the evidence?
    How credible is it?
    What could we find to prove it wrong?

    Historical Method is the process used to determine documented eye witness accounts can be considered credible.

    Whenever you have a documented eye witness to a historical event it must undergo the Historical Method to determine viability.

    Historical Method is more complex than many people realize.
    In order to pass it at a high rating is very difficult.
    A historical account needs only to pass it once to be a credible account.
    The Bible has passed it hundreds of times.

    The Bible has 11,000 documented scholars who verify the authenticity of the Bible during the time of writing.
     
    Including some of the most influential historic figures in verification known in life.
    Some of the people who verified the biblical gospels taught the scholars and writers of the people who wrote the books on verification.
    One of the guy's name is Origen was so famous that some believed that his name influenced the word 'origin'.
    In fact in the school of Alexandria, the subject of verification used the Bible as its passing training subject.
    In order to get the degree on verification, you had to use the Bible as a guideline for class.

    The reason the Bible was tested so many times because after it passed the Historical Method, the process would be revised and people would want to retest it again. And again. It is the oldest book that has the highest credible information. Because it has been tested so many times, the tests themselves became documents of credibility.
    No book ever has undergone the level of scrutiny and has to prove credibility as many times as the Bible.

    It is more credible than the history books we have today, simply because it passed so many times.

    So your point of proving it wrong is impossible unless you change the Historical Method. You cannot change the fact that the Bible is “evidence”.
    What you can say is I do not accept the evidence, or I think the evidence points to a different conclusion.

    The main reason people fight against the Bible is because of the fantastical things that were stated that occurred.
    Nevertheless, there are some fantastical things that were said to have happened during WW1, China, Europe, and throughout all of history.

    There are a lot of things that were super far ahead of time that was commonplace during Biblical times, it could be a coincidence but raises eyebrows. The Bible coined the statement that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”, a millennium before dictionaries were written. Proving faith taught from the Bible is based on substance and evidence.
    The Bible documented the earth in space millenniums before it was determined by man.
    The Bible instituted quarantining millenniums before the discovery of germs.
    The Bible outlined the order of created items millenniums before scientists determined the order of how life would come about.
    People were discovering stuff and then going in the Bible and finding the discovery already written. It got to the point that people were saying the writers of the Bible had inputted the information in later. Which bolstered another Historical test, to determine viability, and of course the Bible passed.

    As to whether God created man, man evolved, or a combination, I feel unless we get a time machine we will never know.
    But like you said about the 6 minutes, we can only make the best-educated guess based on the evidence we have.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Sand The oldest religious texts do not come from the bible. They come from Sumerian texts, who were poly-theistic. Some of these texts seem to have influenced the bible and the Hebrew culture in various ways, such that there was a blending of ideas from different regions.

    http://www.oldest.org/religion/religious-texts/
    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Kesh_Temple_Hymn.html

    The historical accuracy of the bible is hotly debated among actual historians, who point out many contradictions between the bible and other records. Many of the stories are considered to be etiologies, which are stories made up to explain the origins of things for example the tower of babble explaining the many languages. It is possible that the account of creation in the bible is one of these stories.

    The problem with using a method for verifying the accuracy of historic data that uses the Bible as the standard of measure for accuracy is that it means that you can only test things relative to that standard.

    If I asked you: How long is a meter? or how much does a kilogram weigh? You would give me a funny look like I was dumb and say "one meter and one kilogram"

    Now lets say I live on another planet and we can only communicate via text. If I asked the same question, how could we verify we used the same measurements? The answer is we would have to use physical constants, such as the speed of light or the length of specific waves, or create a new standard based on the known standard and somehow send it to me.

    Even if the bible or other ancient texts are considered to be historically accurate, that does not automatically mean that the information contained within is necessarily true.

    There are millions of works of fiction that have been published since the printing press was developed. If in 4,000 years from now, someone read Harry Potter ans assumed it was true, what arguments could they make to say that is was? All we know is that a long time ago someone said this happened.

    "The main reason people fight against the Bible is because of the fantastical things that were stated that occurred.
    Nevertheless, there are some fantastical things that were said to have happened during WW1, China, Europe, and throughout all of history."

    You do not know that these things stated in the bible occurred, and that is not the main reason people fight against the bible. This is the main argument against the bible, because as I have stated it could be mostly made up or vastly exaggerated. The reason people fight the bible is because they want to know the truth, and know why they know the truth. Asking questions about the bible often yields null or non-nonsensical answers that don't work well with the reality.

    You have a list of things the bible "predicted" that turned out to be true years latter, and it could have been much longer. Lets look at the details here. In every instance, there was no prediction, but rather the bible was used after the discovery to justify that the bible knows all.

    The question is: could we use the bible to make predictions of things not yet discovered? The answer is no. While the bible does make some good recommendations, it doesn't tell you how to how to make antibiotics, or explain that the world is full of microbial life which causes disease. Is it so unreasonable that ancient people made the connection between the spread of sickness and individuals who are sick? All you would have to do was notice if one person gets sick so does their family and neighbors, and realize if you isolate the sick from the healthy the disease will not spread.

    The bible talks about how life appeared on earth during creation, and I assume you wanted to know how accurate this is in making this post. The problem with the biblical account is that it is severely oversimplified at best and completely wrong at worst. Take for example, the animals that evolved to swim from land animals, such as modern sea mammals like dolphins and whales. It's just kind of hard to place something like that into the biblical account of creation. Birds and fish were created on the same day in the bible, followed by land animals and "creeping things and wild animals of the earth" We have to ask critical questions like what counts as a fish, because although evolution indicates that the water was populated before land was, a lot of "fish" are also "creeping things" eg. arthropods . It's just so vague and open to interpretation that no useful information can be learned here. I mean, according to the holy book plants existed before the sun did. If you know what photosynthesis is, you will know why this is a problem.

    Alright, that's enough for now. Here is another relevant debate about a similar topic.
    https://www.kialo.com/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools-31776
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    >>>The oldest religious texts do not come from the bible. They come from Sumerian texts, who were poly-theistic. Some of these texts seem to have influenced the bible and the Hebrew culture in various ways, such that there was a blending of ideas from different regions.

    I do not believe the Bible claims to be the oldest religious text.
    Do American history books influence German history books?
    Or do they confirm the information?
    Does the Bible reference the Sumerians or do the Sumerians reference the Bible?
    Nevertheless, this doesn't take away from the Bible as being historical evidence.


    >>>The historical accuracy of the bible is hotly debated among actual historians, who point out many contradictions between the bible and other records. Many of the stories are considered to be etiologies, which are stories made up to explain the origins of things, for example, the tower of babble explaining the many languages. It is possible that the account of creation in the bible is one of these stories.

    I believe your question is about Biblical evidence.
    Is the Bible considered evidence?
    Now you say actual historians as if the historians who confirm the Bible are not actual historians.
    Please provide the names of these "actual" historians, so we can see their break down of the historical method, it sounds to me that they are voicing their outside opinion.
    Contradictions do not take away from the historical accuracy of the record, (10,000 troops or 10,400 troops can be a contradiction).
    Then again the question is which record of the account is considered more credible?
    Are we to see a discrepancy and determine these people did not exist?
    Ethologies (we need the historian and the method he used).


    >>>Even if the bible or other ancient texts are considered to be historically accurate, that does not automatically mean that the information contained within is necessarily true.

    I agree, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily false either.


    >>>There are millions of works of fiction that have been published since the printing press was developed. If in 4,000 years from now, someone read Harry Potter and assumed it was true, what arguments could they make to say that is was? All we know is that a long time ago someone said this happened.

    Fiction was invented in the 12th century. So it does not pertain to the Bible.
    The question is whether the Bible is credible or not?


    >>>You do not know that these things stated in the bible occurred, and that is not the main reason people fight against the bible. This is the main argument against the bible because as I have stated it could be mostly made up or vastly exaggerated. The reason people fight the bible is because they want to know the truth, and know why they know the truth. Asking questions about the bible often yields null or non-nonsensical answers that don't work well with reality.

    You do not know if they didn't occur. It "could be" it also "could be" true.
    Exaggeration definition - "a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is."
    To be an exaggeration there has to be a form of truth to build off of.
    To be "mostly made up" there has to be a measure of truth to grow from.
    Nevertheless, I can tell you know little about the historical method.
    It addresses all of these topics.


    >>>You have a list of things the bible "predicted" that turned out to be true years later, and it could have been much longer. Let's look at the details here. In every instance, there was no prediction, but rather the bible was used after the discovery to justify that the bible knows all.

    This is very interesting, I would like to know your references.
    Also, that would be very hard to do, they would have to change it in over 5000 copies in different areas of the world, Africa, Russia, Europe, China, among other places.
    Then they would have to avoid making the adjustment look conspicuous.
    To me that is a fantastical story, all though possible, highly improbable, and easily detectable.


    >>>The question is: could we use the bible to make predictions of things not yet discovered? The answer is no. While the bible does make some good recommendations, it doesn't tell you how to how to make antibiotics or explain that the world is full of microbial life which causes disease. Is it so unreasonable that ancient people made the connection between the spread of sickness and individuals who are sick? All you would have to do was notice if one person gets sick so does their family and neighbors, and realize if you isolate the sick from the healthy the disease will not spread.

    This is very interesting. You speak as if it is an easy discovery, or easy to make the connection.
    Well, this so-called easy understanding, was not understood until the 14th century.
    Meaning the Egyptians, Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians, British, Africans, Grecians, among other nations, all failed to discover this easy correlation.
    I think you make light of that discovery.
    I think you make light of the fact that it was thousands of years ahead of time.
    I think you do this because it is easily understandable from your point of view.
    No, the Bible does tell how to build an electron microscope to determine the connection of "microbial life" to disease.
    Nor does it tell how to grow fungus and bacteria in order to produce antibiotics.


    >>>I mean, according to the holy book plants existed before the sun did. If you know what photosynthesis is, you will know why this is a problem.
    The Bible did not say there was no light, It said there was no Sun.
    You use the word "vague", and didn't you just state that you could learn a lot from the 6 minutes of data.
    At least the Bible is on record of having an order.
    Unlike saying "From a practical standpoint, this isn't exactly possible."

    The efforts of evolutionists to explain where man came from are just as weak as the Bible.
    There is no way to find out who is more accurate.
    Nevertheless, claiming that the Bible has no evidence is like claiming evolutionists have no evidence.

    I will leave you with this thought.
    Life cannot come from lifelessness, it is impossible.
    Life must come from other life.


    Happy_Killbot
  • "I do not believe the Bible claims to be the oldest religious text.
    Do American history books influence German history books?"

    The answer is yes, because they influence each other.

    "I believe your question is about Biblical evidence.
    Is the Bible considered evidence?"

    I didn't ask a question here. There is archaeological evidence to support certain parts of the bible, but none to support the creation story with the exception of the bible, which could be wrong. Remember, there are thousands of creation stories all from different cultures many of which were lost when the practicing people were killed, and because they are all unique in some way they can't all be accurate, and because there is no evidence they are most likely all wrong.

    "I agree, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily false either."

    That's not how the burden of proof works, just because no one says that the world popped into existence exactly how it is 20 minutes ago doesn't mean it didn't happen, you have to show evidence that it did, so if you agree with me here then this conversation should effectively be over.

    "Fiction was invented in the 12th century. So it does not pertain to the Bible.
    The question is whether the Bible is credible or not?"

    This is objectively not true, because there are many ancient cultures that all have completely different ideas of how the world was created, and they can not all be true, therefore at best only one of them is right, but also all of them could be wrong. This is fiction as a genre and a formally recognized concept.

    "You do not know if they didn't occur. It "could be" it also "could be" true."

    Burden of proof again!

    "Nevertheless, I can tell you know little about the historical method.
    It addresses all of these topics."

    My argument is philosophical, it has nothing to do with history, it is about the present, therefore the historical method doesn't apply.

    "This is very interesting, I would like to know your references."

    I think you missed my point, so here is an example: Did you know the bible predicted air has weight, hundreds of years before this was discovered? It says so in (Job 28:25):  When God fixed the weight of the wind and measured out the waters,

    It seems obvious that after air was discovered to have weight, the bible was given credit because it contains a passage that uses some poetic language. Here are other examples:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible

    "The Bible did not say there was no light, It said there was no Sun.
    You use the word "vague", and didn't you just state that you could learn a lot from the 6 minutes of data."

    You are making an error of comparison here. The information contained in the bible describing creation is only a few kilobytes of information. The information from that 6% of the fossil record we have is in the petabytes easily!

    There are tons of evidence to support evolution, and none to support creation.

    "I will leave you with this thought.
    Life cannot come from lifelessness, it is impossible.
    Life must come from other life"

    And I will leave you with this: Then life can not exist, because life had to come from some place, so either life always existed or it never did. The universe is finite and life exists therefore life had to come from non living things!

    You have been a good sport and a formidable opponent and I appreciate that.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    >>>I didn't ask a question here. There is archaeological evidence to support certain parts of the bible, but none to support the creation story with the exception of the bible, which could be wrong. Remember, there are thousands of creation stories all from different cultures many of which were lost when the practicing people were killed, and because they are all unique in some way they can't all be accurate, and because there is no evidence they are most likely all wrong.

    (November 27, 2019, 10:30 pm - "Specifically, I want to know what is the evidence, how credible is that evidence, and what could we find to prove it wrong?")
    Somebody asked that question.
    That is why you should know the Historical Method.
    You place the same importance of the Bible that has 6.5 Billion plus copies in circulation, and 11,000 documented people to validate, with some Sumerian creation story that very few people know about, has very little validation, and has hardly any details, yet you consider these stories equally credible.
    The reason why is because you know nothing about the historical method.
    It is similar to comparing Albert Einstein to Karl Barth, saying, "well Karl may have influenced Albert Einstein we need to look at his information also".
    These thousands of stories do not have the credibility that the Bible has, and refusing to acknowledge a scientific method that separates the Bible is like refusing to acknowledge the NBA Hall of Fame. Comparable to saying, "we have to compare Michael Jordan to all the thousands of players that ever existed."


    >>>That's not how the burden of proof works, just because no one says that the world popped into existence exactly how it is 20 minutes ago doesn't mean it didn't happen, you have to show evidence that it did, so if you agree with me here then this conversation should effectively be over.

    So now we are moving from showing the Bible has evidence to if it can prove its claim.


    >>>This is objectively not true, because there are many ancient cultures that all have completely different ideas of how the world was created, and they can not all be true, therefore at best only one of them is right, but also all of them could be wrong. This is fiction as a genre and a formally recognized the concept.

    Historical Method Again - Darko Milicic vs Michael Jordan


    >>>My argument is philosophical, it has nothing to do with history, it is about the present, therefore the historical method doesn't apply.

    Exactly, that is why the historical method was put together because you cannot scientifically prove the past, it is like scientifically proving the future.
    Science can only prove the present.


    >>>You are making an error of comparison here. The information contained in the bible describing creation is only a few kilobytes of information. The information from that 6% of the fossil record we have is in the petabytes easily!

    Occams Razor my friend. The simple answers are usually the correct ones.
    I believe you missed my point. The reason why I brought up 6 minutes of information is that only scientists say they are missing 95%.
    Nevertheless, if the few kilobytes of information is correct, then the 6 minutes is actually evidence that supports all the animals were created at once.
    There is no 114 minutes of missing data. There is no missing exabytes of information.
    You have to think, Millions of years of dying animals and we are missing 95% of the fossil record?
    A general estimate of animals on the earth today could be in the trillions. (fish, birds, rats, cats, dogs, etc.)
    So we are talking about upwards of Septillion fossil records gone.
    All these animals evolved rockets and shot off the planet.
    The simple answer is that there are no evolving animals.
    The reason it is missing because it did not exist.
    I mean we got thousands of Dinosaurs fossils, but the fossils of the link between ape and man are gone!
    According to these scientists, there were billions of these guys on the earth.
    We should have billions of fossils.


    >>>There are tons of evidence to support evolution, and none to support creation.
    Occams Razor. Evolution evidence is creation evidence.
    We are comparing made at one time, or made over hundreds of millions of years.
    If it was evolution's evidence it would be 95% more.


    >>>And I will leave you with this: Then life can not exist, because life had to come from someplace, so either life always existed or it never did. The universe is finite and life exists therefore life had to come from nonliving things!

    You prove this, I believe you would win the Nobel peace prize.


    >>>You have been a good sport and a formidable opponent and I appreciate that.

    I enjoy speaking with you also, please stay on the site.
  • VaulkVaulk 667 Pts
    maxx said:
    no one knows for sure where life began, there is not enough evidence left from the many upheavals that the earth went throughout the eons.  educated guesses zero in on heat; under water vents, or volcanos, and it was single cell organisims. in order?  another educated guess, considering the amount of sea water in the world is that plants under the sea began, and what we call fish is simply a name we put a tag to.. evolution is a long slow gradual process and it doesn't work in where it creates one organ at a time. To be fair, eyes probably slowly evolved over time in a fish like animal in help in getting the minute organisms it ate that hovered about the top of the water.  evolution is all about survival of the species.  The animals that eventually evolved on land came from the sea simply by being washed ashore and it survived by the heavy moisture on the beach and generations eventually begin capable of breathing oxygen. The mammals and such we know of today did not come about until the demise of dinosaurs and probably was just a shrew like creature that either lived in trees or holes. one would have to understand from a science point of view that 6 billion years is a very long time and things change slowly over time. something does not magically change into one creature into another; just minute differences occur over time in which eventually leads into a separate species, and so on. and no, I do not feel it is odd about lack of evidence due to the reason I just spake of in where things dont change from a duck to a chicken instantly; it changes slowly and also of the tremendous upheavals the earth has gone through destroying much.  here is an example of evolutionary change.  take a blank piece of paper;  that is a complete species. I put a mark on in which represent a change in the species and then over time another mark and so on until it is slowly covered by marks which by then is a different species. one simply does not see a blank piece of paper one day and the next covered with marks. it evolves! it is a process that changes things but over time.@Sand
    Bravo, an excellent summarization of the key issues in the theory of evolution.  Similar to other beliefs in the origins of life, evolution requires leaps and bounds of faith in place of knowledge that we cannot possibly begin to understand because there's simply no current method of determining the processes and procedures that had to have been present and occurred throughout history to bring about the infinitely improbably outcome that we stand on today...that we somehow evolved from nothing for no reason with no direction.  

    Don't get me wrong, I understand there are biological processes throughout countless species that enact changes, some for the good, some for the worse.  That said the idea that one creature came from another totally different creature still requires faith as we cannot provide evidence that serves to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened that way.

    I advocate for temperance in one's beliefs so that an understanding of exactly what you're purchasing into can be had prior to going along with what sounds good.  I'm of a personal opinion that if the majority of evolution advocates knew the depths of what they're pushing...they'd either reconsider simply due to the improbability or they'd at least temper their belief to the point that they wouldn't insist that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot.  Simply put, evolution is a theory based on countless assumptions based on educated guesses that were made to encompass what cannot be explained because it cannot be observed and therefore must have been what happened despite it being so incredibly improbable that the improbability factor cannot be fathomed by Humanity.
    Sand
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2310 Pts
    edited November 30
    @Vaulk

    Those actually are not issues at all. Those are missing pieces, at best, and any science has missing pieces. The primary goal of science is not to "learn everything" there is to learn, because it is simply physically impossible; the primary goal of science is to form phenomenological descriptions of various aspects of the physical reality around us that match the evidence as well as possible. The presence of all possible evidence from all periods of time is not required at all and can be extrapolated from the existing data.

    Another aspect of the kind of a theory science seeks is its superiority over reasonable alternatives. Let us suppose for the moment that we are unhappy with the precision the evolution theory features and want a better theory. What choices do we have? As of now, none. There are no theories that even remotely approach the precision in describing the evidence and the predictability power that the evolution theory features. If you are not happy with the evolution theory, then what would you be happy with? Saying "evolution theory is not perfect, and so I will assume that we know absolutely nothing and refrain from making any claims"? That is not a very practical position, and, again, not a very scientific one. Science is not supposed to be perfect; it is supposed to be practical.

    It seems to me that people not working in science tend to have a very skewed idea of what real science is like. A lot of ideas are derived from movies or books displaying scientists in a very stereotypical way, as well as the media that only pay attention to the major and easily explainable results and never go into the details of what the remaining 99.999% of the scientific world is like. They will show someone getting really excited about, say, some aspect of paleonthology and showing the audience beautiful pictures - but they will not show this scientist sitting at the table, analysing abstract boring data and getting frustrated over the lack of progress, and in practice 99.999% of that scientist's work is like that.

    People who criticise science for not having all the answers should really reflect on this. Science is brutally hard, and people expecting it to deliver what it possibly cannot deliver does not make it any easier. Theory of evolution does have its issues, but "we do not have enough evidence" is not one of them. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and the issues concern more the details in the description of particular narrow aspects of it.
    The fact that some pieces of evidence are missing does not suggest that the theory is problematic, but, rather, suggests new venues of research.
  • The reason I don't care to look at the historical method is because it can not do the creation story in the bible justice. If the story is true, there were only two people around at the time. So when was writing developed so that all this could be written down? A few thousand years is insufficient time for society to develop. It is why so many scientists don't say the year is 2019, they say it is 12,019, Because archaeological evidence suggests that the first societies are about that old.

    "It is similar to comparing Albert Einstein to Karl Barth, saying, "well Karl may have influenced Albert Einstein we need to look at his information also".

    No, it's more like saying that the works of Johnathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss influenced each other.

     "Comparable to saying, "we have to compare Michael Jordan to all the thousands of players that ever existed."

    I think you were trying to make a straw man here, but it backfired because this is literally how it is done. Every player is compared to every other, it is all relative. The winners of today could be mediocre tomorrow.

    "So now we are moving from showing the Bible has evidence to if it can prove its claim."

    We never moved away from this.

    "Historical Method Again - Darko Milicic vs Michael Jordan"

    Thanks for avoiding the question. How do you know which creation story is right? There are so many to choose from, and they all have exactly the same evidence to back them up.

    "Science can only prove the present."

    NO! SCIENCE IS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT TIME! ANYTHING WE PROVE TODAY WAS TRUE YESTERDAY AND WE BE TRUE IN THE FUTURE! 

    "Occams Razor my friend. The simple answers are usually the correct ones"

    If you knew what Occams Razor was you would not have said that. it states: ""Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." and means that the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one, not the simplest one is correct.

    For creation to be true, we need to assume: at least one god exists, it is all powerful, there is a way for things to form in a certain way, we are the center of the universe, it is possible for all things to form in a short time, and

    For evolution to be true we only need assume that the laws of physics exist and they allow life to form. That's it. Occams Razor supports evolution, not creation.

    "You have to think, Millions of years of dying animals and we are missing 95% of the fossil record?"

    Try to make a fossil. No, seriously, go bury a dead thing and see if there is anything left. The circumstance that lead to fossilization have to be very specific.

    "I mean we got thousands of Dinosaurs fossils, but the fossils of the link between ape and man are gone!"

    That isn't true, it's just a colloquialism that supposes that because we don't have every skull between man and ape ancestor that this means that there is no clear connection.

    "Occams Razor. Evolution evidence is creation evidence.
    We are comparing made at one time, or made over hundreds of millions of years.
    If it was evolution's evidence it would be 95% more."

    Already debunked.

    "You prove this, I believe you would win the Nobel peace prize."

    You should read about Tholins. They are found everywhere in the solar system except on earth, and they contain all the building blocks for life to form. Some microorganisms are even able to digest them as if they were their primary food source.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    what many fail to realize is that evolution is simply change. everything changes.  animals, plants, the earth itself evolves. cities, society, movies, religions, war-fare, everything slowly evolves over time. it is a nature process that began with the creation of the universe. evolution is change and change is intertwined with time itself. there is nothing that does not evolve over time. as to macro evolution, the changes from one species into another is so slow and gradual that it is paramount to impossible to see any sudden links from one thing into another.
    Sand
  • SandSand 110 Pts

    >>>The reason I don't care to look at the historical method is that it can not do the creation story in the bible justice. If the story is true, there were only two people around at the time. So when was writing developed so that all this could be written down? A few thousand years is insufficient time for society to develop. It is why so many scientists don't say the year is 2019, they say it is 12,019; Because archaeological evidence suggests that the first societies are about that old.

    It was written down immediately, nevertheless, the materials it was written on began to decompose, so each generation had to rewrite it over and over.

    The determine these old dates through carbon dating.
    Someone took a 400-year piece of wood that gave a carbon date of over 9000 years in carbon 14.
    This piece of wood was a piece out of someone's house.
    So the scientists adjusted the carbon formula, which made many scientists question if the environment was different back then, could it give us false readings now?

    Dr. Evzen Neustupný, of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences
    He outlines the assumptions of carbon dating in his symposium - Nobel Symposium 12: Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, page 25.
    Here are his credentials:
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/div-classtitleintransigent-archaeology-an-interview-with-evzen-neustupny-on-his-life-in-archaeologydiv/C44E8FF1948D9B9F94C652DAB0845E15
    Many scientists now say carbon dating breaks down after 4000 years or right at 2000 BCE, for some odd reason.
    I got the references:
    C. W. Ferguson says there are no trees with more 3,000, and even 4,000 years old, the oldest living tree included in the chronology goes back only to 800 C.E.
    For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before. - Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon Dating Wrong,” January 18, 1976, p. C8
    Nobel prize-winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating.
    He suggested two stages of dating, because anything over 5000 years "these ancient ages, are not known accurately".


    >>>How do you know which creation story is right?

    When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
    Where was it produced (localization)?
    By whom was it produced (authorship)?
    From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
    In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
    What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
    Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (Indirect Witness)

    A lot of these stories no one knows the author, where it was produced, and they have no indirect witnesses.
    So their credibility is very low.


    >>>NO! SCIENCE IS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT TIME! ANYTHING WE PROVE TODAY WAS TRUE YESTERDAY AND WE BE TRUE IN THE FUTURE! 

    If you look at carbon dating information it shows the problems with science proving the past.
    In a sense you are right, what we prove today should be true yesterday and tomorrow.
    Nevertheless, here are the constraints of science.
    You have to know all the criteria that could affect the conclusion

    Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment ->
    Control Group and Experimental Group
    Results will be Evidence - Supports or inconsistent
    Scientific Theory Or Revise Hypothesis

    #1 you cannot observe the past or future.
    So you have to make a Hypothesis and Experiment on Nonobservation.
    #2 You cannot make a Control Group or Experimental Group of the past or future.
    So you have to make a Control Group or Experimental Group of the present and hope you predicted all the conditions.

    These two things can change the results of your experiment.
    Carbon dating is a good example of mistakes that can happen.


    >>>For creation to be true, we need to assume: at least one god exists, it is all-powerful, there is away for things to form in a certain way, we are the center of the universe, it is possible for all things to form in a short time, and

    At least one god exists.
    It is all-powerful - no not necessarily, a person could know more and be seen as all-powerful.
    We are the center of the Universe - no nothing written about that.
    It is possible for all things to form in a short time - no, creative days are not literal 24 hour periods, they are more likely 100s of millions of years.


    >>>For evolution to be true we only need to assume that the laws of physics exist and they allow life to form. That's it. Occams Razor supports evolution, not creation.

    No. You might want to reread Vaulk's information.
    Just to name a few assumptions.
    We have to assume that life can come from non-life and can do this without assistance (presently unproven)
    We also have to assume that atoms and molecules fall in the right place and form a protein (chance 1 in 10^113)
    Then we have to assume this happens 2000 times in a row (chance 1 in 10^40,000)
    Then we have to assume the earth conditions are like a lab, protected from any extreme elements.
    We have to assume that the instructions the simple organism has included self-reproduction.
    We also have to assume that cells can change their instructions on their own, allowing procreation with different species.

    "Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50.

    >>>Try to make a fossil. No, seriously, go bury a dead thing and see if there is anything left. The circumstance that leads to fossilization has to be very specific.

    More animals more chances for fossils, we are talking about Trillions of animals every 100 years.


    >>>That isn't true, it's just a colloquialism that supposes that because we don't have every skull between man and ape ancestor that this means that there is no clear connection.

    My problem is not so much a clear connection, but the loss of 95%.
    It should be we are missing 5% or 10% but it is the opposite.


    >>>You should read about Tholins. They are found everywhere in the solar system except on earth, and they contain all the building blocks for life to form. Some microorganisms are even able to digest them as if they were their primary food source.

    Very interesting, I am still studying.





  • "It was written down immediately, nevertheless, the materials it was written on began to decompose, so each generation had to rewrite it over and over."

    The doesn't answer the question, or maybe more accurately it only raises more. Who taught the first people how to write? Right now your claim suggests they somehow just knew it, which is another assumption we have to make for Occamms Razor to apply.

    "Someone took a 400-year piece of wood that gave a carbon date of over 9000 years in carbon 14.
    This piece of wood was a piece out of someone's house."

    This is a misuse of the carbon dating process for two reasons. What this tells you is not how old the wood is, it tells you the last date that the tree that made the wood sucked up the carbon. Second, because carbon-14 decays exponentially, the closer you get to modern days the more inaccurate the sample, and the older it is the more inaccurate. Carbon dating is only useful between 1,200 A.D and 62,000 B.C. It is also important to note that there are numerous factors that can throw off the date, such as smoking.

    http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/02/07/radiocarbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/

    "A lot of these stories no one knows the author, where it was produced, and they have no indirect witnesses.
    So their credibility is very low."

    We don't know who authored much of the old testament. In fact, the book of genesis has at least 4 authors, and if you read through you can tell when the writing style changes. We have no idea who they were so we have names for them based on how they refer to god.

    https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

    "you cannot observe the past or future.
    So you have to make a Hypothesis and Experiment on Nonobservation.
    #2 You cannot make a Control Group or Experimental Group of the past or future.
    So you have to make a Control Group or Experimental Group of the present and hope you predicted all the conditions."

    It is really tempting to open up the can of worms labeled "Special relativity" right now, but I think this is a little beyond the scope of this debate, so it remains closed for the time being. When you see light from distant stars, you are seeing the past. In fact, if you look across the room you are seeing the past. In fact, there is no such thing as the present.

    Because the results of an experiment will always be the same no matter what, we can use a control group in the present to represent the past.

    "At least one god exists.
    It is all-powerful - no not necessarily, a person could know more and be seen as all-powerful.
    We are the center of the Universe - no nothing written about that.
    It is possible for all things to form in a short time - no, creative days are not literal 24 hour periods, they are more likely 100s of millions of years."

    In order for something to have created the universe, it would have to be at least as powerful as what it was trying to create. If this were not true, then anyone could make a universe. That just isn't mathematically possible.

    Psalm 104:5 "He established the earth upon its foundations,
    So that it will not totter forever and ever."

    Bible debunked by science...again!

    Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

    This makes no sense unless you assume the sun goes around the earth. If you take this passage literally then it means the earth is the center of the cosmos.

    The church did teach the geocentric model for a long time, and it is because of the bible. If these passages are not to be taken literally, why wouldn't god just make them more clear?

    "We have to assume that life can come from non-life and can do this without assistance (presently unproven)"

    I proved this true.

    "Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50."

    I have no idea where you got this, in mathematics impossible is 0 in anything.

    lets do some math then. The milky way galaxy is approximately 8 trillion light years cubed. The earth happens to have about 10^50 atoms in it. The probability that all those atoms would occupy the same light year ( let alone the same planet ) is 1 in 8 x 10 ^ 600. Yet here we are!

    The math you do makes a similar error. While the odds that life would form are apparently slim, the number of chances that is would happen is incredibly high, thus cancelling out the small chance.

    "My problem is not so much a clear connection, but the loss of 95%.
    It should be we are missing 5% or 10% but it is the opposite"

    I think we talked about this before, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse.

    "Very interesting, I am still studying."

    I just found out about these the other day, apparently they coat everything. Very interesting indeed.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 110 Pts

    In that sense yes, things can evolve.
    By definition, everything changes.

    Microevolution can only change, exactly like the definition, macro or small things.
    When it comes to serious changes, there are boarders.

    This scientist studied Microevolution for 70 years. 
    His conclusion.
    “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
    "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
    Book - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation

    There is a limit to macroevolution.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2310 Pts
    edited November 30
    Sand said:

    No. You might want to reread Vaulk's information.
    Just to name a few assumptions.
    We have to assume that life can come from non-life and can do this without assistance (presently unproven)
    We also have to assume that atoms and molecules fall in the right place and form a protein (chance 1 in 10^113)
    Then we have to assume this happens 2000 times in a row (chance 1 in 10^40,000)
    Then we have to assume the earth conditions are like a lab, protected from any extreme elements.
    We have to assume that the instructions the simple organism has included self-reproduction.
    We also have to assume that cells can change their instructions on their own, allowing procreation with different species.

    "Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50.
    This is a very weak argument, as you are unnecessarily complicating a very simple phenomenon. We actually only need to make one fundamental assumption: that structural complexity can arise from approximately stochastic processes. It is true that a random bunch of molecules colliding once inside a small volume are very unlikely to form a protein; it is very likely, however, that a very large ensemble of such molecules evolving throughout a period of hundreds millions years will produce some proteins in the end.

    There is nothing in modern chemistry or biology that suggests impossibility of spontaneous emergence as a result of stochastic processes. Life is mostly (completely?) a statistical outcome, and statistical outcomes, pretty much by definition, do not require intelligent intervention to occur.

    I also do not understand your last claim. Mathematicians do not define "impossible" as 1 in 10^50; mathematicians define "impossible" as leading to logical contradiction. Where did you get this definition?
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    iam not sure if you read my early replies to your post;  go through them again and read what all I said and answer them@Sand
    Sand
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    >>>Who taught the first people how to write?
    According to the Bible Adam was created with a level of intelligence.


    >>>This is a misuse of the carbon dating process for two reasons. What this tells you is not how old the wood is, it tells you the last date that the tree that made the wood sucked up the carbon. Second, because carbon-14 decays exponentially, the closer you get to modern days the more inaccurate the sample, and the older it is the more inaccurate. Carbon dating is only useful between 1,200 A.D and 62,000 B.C. It is also important to note that there are numerous factors that can throw off the date, such as smoking.

    Misuse - this guy was trying to make a point.
    The point he made is that over 4000 years discrepancies happen.
    That is why those experts made those statements, one made it during his prize-winning speech.
    Dr. Evzen Neustupný, of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences - who won the Nobel peace prize versus Andrea Cohn - some student in college.
    Who do you think is more credible?
    Based on your information it has many issues.
    If numerous factors can throw off the date, then it is not reliable.
    And it is not useful anymore beyond 4000 years, according to several experts in the field.

    >>>We don't know who authored much of the old testament. In fact, the book of genesis has at least 4 authors, and if you read through you can tell when the writing style changes. We have no idea who they were so we have names for them based on how they refer to god.

    Once again we have the 11,000 scholars and the school of Alexandra.

    There are 200 references to Moses being the author of Pentateuch. (first five books)
    To disprove Moses they have to disprove the 200 references.

    What you are trying to do has already been done many times about the Bible.


    >>>In order for something to have created the universe, it would have to be at least as powerful as what it was trying to create. If this were not true, then anyone could make a universe. That just isn't mathematically possible.

    Man-made the atomic bomb and then the nuclear bomb, he must be as powerful as those entities.
    Or it could be his understanding and his use of the knowledge applied to physics to implement such power.


    >>>Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
    >>>This makes no sense unless you assume the sun goes around the earth. If you take this passage literally then it means the earth is the center of the cosmos.
    >>>The church did teach the geocentric model for a long time, and it is because of the bible. If these passages are not to be taken literally, why wouldn't God just make them more clear?

    Maybe because he is speaking to people over 4 millenniums ago. But you hit the nail on the head, you have to assume.
    God inspired Solomon to write this information. So terms and words used by Solomon transpose in the information.
    Like a translator who has an accent.
    People still use the term "the sun sets" are they alluding to Earth being the center of the universe?
    What are people alluding to with the words, "under the weather", "beat around the bush", "watch your six", "easy does it", "steal someone's thunder", "bite the bullet", the list goes on and on.


    >>>I proved this true.

    LOL, ........ just in case you are serious.
    "There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides."


    >>>I have no idea where you got this, in mathematics impossible is 0 in anything.

    You got me there!


    >>>lets do some math then. The milky way galaxy is approximately 8 trillion light-years cubed. The earth happens to have about 10^50 atoms in it. The probability that all those atoms would occupy the same light-year ( let alone the same planet ) is 1 in 8 x 10 ^ 600. Yet here we are!
    >>>The math you do makes a similar error. While the odds that life would form are apparently slim, the number of chances that is would happen is incredibly high, thus canceling out the small chance.

    Good point.

  • SandSand 110 Pts
    You right!
  • "That is why those experts made those statements, one made it during his prize-winning speech.
    Dr. Evzen Neustupný, of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences - who won the Nobel peace prize versus Andrea Cohn - some student in college.
    Who do you think is more credible?"

    I think he was trying to point out the limitations of the technology, not to say that it is completely wrong or useless.

    "There are 200 references to Moses being the author of Pentateuch. (first five books)
    To disprove Moses they have to disprove the 200 references."

    No, they only have to provide a single reference that says otherwise. To be considered strong scientific evidence, it has to be falsifiable. So if I say "I have super powers but they don't work when anyone is watching" That isn't falsifiable, so it isn't scientific. If someone says "I have psychic powers" they can be tested, and if they go through 1000 tests that seem to prove they are, but the 1001 test proves they don't, then they don't have psychic powers and never did, and all the hits were just flukes.

    If the historical method doesn't work like this, then it is hard for me to accept that it is strong evidence for creation.

    "Man-made the atomic bomb and then the nuclear bomb, he must be as powerful as those entities.
    Or it could be his understanding and his use of the knowledge applied to physics to implement such power."

    No, the universe made atomic bombs through the hands of man, and atomic bombs are not as powerful as the universe.

    Lets look at this from another angle: suppose an engineer wants a computer that knows everything about itself in a virtual model. In order for this model to exist, the virtual model would have to contain a virtual virtual model, which would have to contain a virtual virtual virtual model, turtles all the way down to infinity. Therefore, this computer can never be built. It is an old problem in logic, does the premise of a question contain all the logical conclusions?

    "LOL, ........ just in case you are serious."

    While it is true that we have yet to successfully cause abiogenesis in the lab, we have no reason as of yet to assume that it isn't possible. My proof was from logic, but it is still a sound conclusion. You have probably heard the argument before, that if god created the universe then what created god? If it is possible for god to have no cause, then why can't the universe itself?

    "You got me there!"

    I actually did some research, the 1 in 10^50 is from statistics, but it's completely arbitrary where you put this value. It is the value at which a result is considered non-existent. As far as I can tell it's just convention.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @MayCaesar ;I actually did some research, the 1 in 10^50 is from statistics, but it's completely arbitrary where you put this value. It is the value at which a result is considered non-existent. As far as I can tell it's just convention.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2310 Pts
    edited December 1
    The 1 in 10^50 notion seems to be accepted in some scientific fields and not accepted in others. Different fields have different precision standards. In particle physics we used to use the 3-sigma / 5-sigma rule: the 3-sigma precision (1 in ~333) is used as a strong indication that a theory may be correct, and the 5-sigma precision (1 in ~3.5 million) means that the theory is "confirmed" to be correct.

    In pure mathematics 0% is the only probability which implies impossibility of something. 
  • SandSand 110 Pts
    >>>I think he was trying to point out the limitations of the technology, not to say that it is completely wrong or useless.

    It is not completely wrong or useless.
    It works for things under 4000 years.
    But you have to keep in mind that when science tests for things in the future and the past there are criteria that can be missed.
    Nobel prize-winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating.
    He suggested two stages of dating, because anything over 5000 years "these ancient ages, are not known accurately".
    "For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past"
    Could it be that a global event happened, like a worldwide flood, that altered the atmosphere and the level of carbon?
    HMMM

    It was fortunate that they found this. Because if they didn't they would be saying things are 20,000 years old and it wasn't.
    It good the dude with the tree showed people the fault because he could dig up artifacts a few thousand years old and do whatever he did to it and make them priceless artifacts.
    He could sell them as 40,000-year-old urns or 50,000-year-old bowls or 60,000-year-old scepter from the lost kingdom of Eurasia.


    >>>No, they only have to provide a single reference that says otherwise. To be considered strong scientific evidence, it has to be falsifiable. So if I say "I have superpowers but they don't work when anyone is watching" That isn't falsifiable, so it isn't scientific. If someone says "I have psychic powers" they can be tested, and if they go through 1000 tests that seem to prove they are, but the 1001 test proves they don't, then they don't have psychic powers and never did, and all the hits were just flukes.

    If you are in court and have 200 people attesting to your whereabouts all saying the same thing, but one says otherwise, you go with the 200.
    Now if you got 200 on one side and 200 on another, then we have to check the credibility of everyone.
    It is always scientific if you can study all the criteria, superpowers that only work when people look away is very scientific.
    There is a way to test for it. Have you heard of string theory?
    If someone goes through 1000 tests moving a 500-pound drum across the room, but on the 1001 test they can't do it, you don't shut the experiment down. There is no such thing as a 1000 flukes in a row, like that. We test until we find out what really happened those 1000 times. If we perform 1000 additional tests and he can't do it then yeah we shut down, but we put people on him to follow him. Because we have to study the criteria. Maybe something in the air changed things, maybe certain time of the year the moons gravitational pull affected him. It could be a number of things. 1000 times in a row we are keeping tabs on him for some years!
    Just because someone says its magic, science tests for these things.

    This actually happened in 1700 to an African slave who learned from a witch doctor in Africa how to magically get rid of diseases. Sometimes it would work sometimes it wouldn't. But what he was doing was taking puss from infected persons can creating wounds in healthy people and rubbing the puss in the wound. Upon further study, the puss would activate the immune system of a healthy person. This study eventually leads to vaccinations.


    >>>If the historical method doesn't work like this, then it is hard for me to accept that it is strong evidence for creation.

    You got to do some reading before claiming the Bible is hogwash. It was noted that 90% of scientists who attacked the Bible never studied the book. They would hear about passages and read portions of scriptures but never actually studied the book. The Bible is not Harry Potter. You got to listen to why people feel the way they feel.
    Science is very good, but so is the Bible.


    >>>Lets look at this from another angle: suppose an engineer wants a computer that knows everything about itself in a virtual model. In order for this model to exist, the virtual model would have to contain a virtual virtual model, which would have to contain a virtual virtual virtual model, turtles all the way down to infinity. Therefore, this computer can never be built. It is an old problem in logic, does the premise of a question contain all the logical conclusions?

    If you were able to take technology back to the 1300s to Native people and you take a stick and make fire, and this stick only works when you touch it, you would be a God. They won't say, "oh it is just a Butane Lighter". If you show them how to create electricity from water currents or windmills, create walls made of concrete, simple science to you, but Godlike abilities to them.
    For a millennium of years, It was beyond comprehension that a woman could have a baby without having intercourse with a man, now it happens all the time at sperm banks.
    I think of God as knowing a lot of things. Think about a scientist that is eons more advanced than you, to a closed mind, his actions would seem Godlike. I know human scientists don't want to think there is a being that could be more advanced than we are. In Star Trek, the people would wait until a civilization would reach a certain level before revealing themselves. This was to help them see they were not Gods but just technically more advanced. What I am trying to say is don't close your mind, miracles do happen, and there is a scientific reason behind it.


    >>>While it is true that we have yet to successfully cause abiogenesis in the lab, we have no reason as of yet to assume that it isn't possible. My proof was from logic, but it is still a sound conclusion. You have probably heard the argument before, that if God created the universe then what created god? If it is possible for god to have no cause, then why can't the universe itself?

    I do not believe God doesn't have a cause. I think his cause is beyond us, and not a concern. Because if God told you his God made him, what would be your next question? Who made him? We ask that God who made him, he says his God made him. What would be the next question? It could go on and on.
    But please keep your mind open.
    I feel it is a good study.

  • "If you are in court and have 200 people attesting to your whereabouts all saying the same thing, but one says otherwise, you go with the 200.
    Now if you got 200 on one side and 200 on another, then we have to check the credibility of everyone."

    In court witness testimony is the least credible kind of evidence. If there is a single disproving piece of evidence, all the witness testimony will likely be ignored.

    "If someone goes through 1000 tests moving a 500-pound drum across the room, but on the 1001 test they can't do it, you don't shut the experiment down. There is no such thing as a 1000 flukes in a row, like that."

    It is unlikely, but it is possible.

    "Just because someone says its magic, science tests for these things."

    Yes science tests for these things, but it is all about the probability of that thing happening. For simplicity, lets say the psychic claim is that they can always make a coin always land on heads. If the coin is flipped 100 times and it always landed on heads, that would be a 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 odds. If on the 101 flip it lands on tails then we know that the claim is false because the claim is that the psychic can always make a coin land on heads. We don't change the data, we change the claim. We would then say that the psychic can usually make the coin land on heads, and then try to isolate other effecting factors.

    "You got to listen to why people feel the way they feel."

    Feelings have no say on objective reality, as much as we feel that is true. Consider people raised in other religions. They feel that their god beliefs are the correct ones, they have their own scholars who say it is all correct and consistent, and they have their own creation stories. Obviously they can't all be true. So how would we know which was the correct one if the historical method reveals that they are all accurate?

    "they would hear about passages and read portions of scriptures but never actually studied the book."

    I actually have read the bible and that is why I am an atheist. There are too many things in the bible that sound exactly like a fairy tale. I can respect the people who take the bible to be a metaphysical truth, that is stories that teach values and lessons about how to live a good life, but I can't respect those that claim it is literally true because that would mean I have to expect things like a donkey could start talking at any time, demons, witches, and dragons are real, and the world is only a few thousand years old. These claims are both extraordinary and unsubstantiated.

    "I know human scientists don't want to think there is a being that could be more advanced than we are. In Star Trek, the people would wait until a civilization would reach a certain level before revealing themselves. This was to help them see they were not Gods but just technically more advanced. What I am trying to say is don't close your mind, miracles do happen, and there is a scientific reason behind it."

    I love it how you make a point and then immediately nullify it. Scientists love to think this. There are so many sci-fi books, movies, TV shows and even serious scientific papers talking about this.

    Science is not about knowing everything, science is about admitting you don't know something and then systematically finding the answer. Religion is about the opposite. Religion is about supposing you know an answer you really have no idea about, and then asserting it is true even in the face of conflicting evidence.

    "I do not believe God doesn't have a cause. I think his cause is beyond us, and not a concern."

    When I say a cause I don't mean a purpose. I mean x happened, this CAUSED Y Which CAUSED Z.

    " It could go on and on"

    I think we agree on this, I just take it to the next logical step and suppose that at some point there was an original event, or the universe has always existed, or causes itself. Something like this has to be true.

    It kind of seems like you are trying to find some way for a god to be plausible, and while I do think it is possible that something like this happened, for example simulation theory is proposes that this is likely and most life forms are sims. This however is very different from what is proposed by the bible, and it doesn't solve the crux of the problem. If we were indeed in a simulation, then there is a world external to ours that may have it's own world external to it, and so on. We then run into the same logical issue as before.

    I think it is much more likely that man made god and not the other way around. There are so many choices that can't all be true, so this means that at least most of them are invented. I just take this a step further and say they are all invented.

    You should keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Sometimes people will try to convince you the earth is flat or alternative medicine works.
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • VaulkVaulk 667 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @Vaulk

    Those actually are not issues at all. Those are missing pieces, at best, and any science has missing pieces. The primary goal of science is not to "learn everything" there is to learn, because it is simply physically impossible; the primary goal of science is to form phenomenological descriptions of various aspects of the physical reality around us that match the evidence as well as possible. The presence of all possible evidence from all periods of time is not required at all and can be extrapolated from the existing data.

    Another aspect of the kind of a theory science seeks is its superiority over reasonable alternatives. Let us suppose for the moment that we are unhappy with the precision the evolution theory features and want a better theory. What choices do we have? As of now, none. There are no theories that even remotely approach the precision in describing the evidence and the predictability power that the evolution theory features. If you are not happy with the evolution theory, then what would you be happy with? Saying "evolution theory is not perfect, and so I will assume that we know absolutely nothing and refrain from making any claims"? That is not a very practical position, and, again, not a very scientific one. Science is not supposed to be perfect; it is supposed to be practical.

    It seems to me that people not working in science tend to have a very skewed idea of what real science is like. A lot of ideas are derived from movies or books displaying scientists in a very stereotypical way, as well as the media that only pay attention to the major and easily explainable results and never go into the details of what the remaining 99.999% of the scientific world is like. They will show someone getting really excited about, say, some aspect of paleonthology and showing the audience beautiful pictures - but they will not show this scientist sitting at the table, analysing abstract boring data and getting frustrated over the lack of progress, and in practice 99.999% of that scientist's work is like that.

    People who criticise science for not having all the answers should really reflect on this. Science is brutally hard, and people expecting it to deliver what it possibly cannot deliver does not make it any easier. Theory of evolution does have its issues, but "we do not have enough evidence" is not one of them. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and the issues concern more the details in the description of particular narrow aspects of it.
    The fact that some pieces of evidence are missing does not suggest that the theory is problematic, but, rather, suggests new venues of research.
    @MayCaesar

    I'm no stranger to what real science looks like and I'm well aware that Science is a process of failure and "Try try again".  That said we are currently in a reproducibility crisis in 2019 and while I can respect your opinion that "Any science has missing pieces", I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.  Science has rules, rules that cannot be broken or bent to simply achieve one's agenda...that said when scientific research is published there are requirements for said research and those requirements cannot be "Missing".  But yet here we are with roughly less than half of all published research from the past few years being reproducible.

    And you are absolutely correct, science isn't supposed to be perfect, it's supposed to be practical...which is why it must follow procedure and methods prescribed throughout the history of science.  When we deviate from the scientific method then we lose the value of scientific research.  This is one of the things you spoke of regarding the difficulty of science, it is indeed brutal, but much of the difficulty in science has been created by science itself whenever someone from the field steps out and knowingly makes wide arcing mistakes in the scientific process yet seeks to publish the research or theory despite it.  No one expects science to be perfect...but imagine another field of expertise where people regularly disregarded the scientific method and published critical information into respectable journals of, let's say automotive for example.  If an automotive technician theorized that a new engine system was not only possible but more probably than the currently used model...then he went about seeking to be published for his new engine and succeeded in convincing people on paper that his engine design was better than the currently used model and then  people started to test his design only after it had replaced the previous design and found out that it was absolutely impossible to use and that he had to have known that prior to having the design published...what do you think might happen to the field of automotive design after 10 or so technicians did something like that?  Because that's where we are with the reproducibility crisis across all fields of science.

    I'd never criticise science for not having all the answers, instead I criticize the idea that you can take a theory that has been built upon countless assumptions of facts that aren't supported by evidence and simply continue on from there, nevermind that it's built upon assumptions of things like abiogenesis and that something of that nature has never been observed in the history of the world...but it must've happened because we can't explain otherwise.  This is a classic case of making the evidence fit the narrative, "We're alive today therefor the evidence we have must suggest something improbable that can't be tested...nevermind that, proceed with the theory".  

    Science will always be changing and there will always be scientists that are wrong.  But there's also SUPPOSED to be something called peer review and there's supposed to be a standard for getting scientific research and theory published into prestigious scientific journals and apparently...that hasn't been the case recently.  With the current rate of failure to reproduce the results in over half of all the scientific research tested...that means that people have been publishing garbage for a hot minute and no one's been checking them on it until very recently.  In short, I don't expect science to be perfect...I expect it to have rules that are followed.


    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".



  • There are many misconceptions with regards to the state of reproducibility in science many people have. "Reproducibility crisis" is a bit of a misleading term, as it assumes that there was a time in the past when science was in a better state with regards to reproducibility, and that is hardly the case. One could say that the standards have been lowered some with regards to scientific rigor, and I do not necessarily disagree with it - but there are practical reasons for why this is the case, and it is not necessarily a bad thing.

    First of all, reproducibility is not supposed to be very high to begin with. Consider the fact that a large fraction of all published studies point out a new result and refrain from its interpretation. This result very well may be an outlier and defy reproduction, and in that case several more papers will follow, pointing it out. Reproducibility is going to be somewhat low in the cutting edge science, because there scientists deal with novel phenomena and do not have very well tested theories for them developed yet. Mistakes are going to be made, and they are going to be corrected in the following papers. It is a normal course of science: not only positive results are published, but also negative results, and they are no less important for the scientific progress. Science is full of failures, and it is important to know at what other scientists fail, so you could take over their work and succeed.

    Then, not all scientific journals are equal. There is a lot of small journals that do not have any meaningful peer review process and anyone can publish anything in them, often for a decent financial contribution. Every scientist with a bit of experience in their fields knows what journals to take seriously and what journals to ignore, but if you do count them when estimating the fraction of the reproducible results, then they obviously are going to affect the results significantly.

    Next, a progressively bigger and bigger fraction of all papers is published by PhD students and Postdocs, which do not yet have the writing skills developed, do not have enough experience to know what should be put in the paper and what should be omitted, and can make some mistakes in the research process itself. The referee review process can sometimes overlook some of those mistakes, because the work the researchers do can be based on proprietary data not available for public use, or can be sophisticated enough to not be reasonably fully analysed at the referee review stage. Hence the paper ends up being published, and later mistakes in it become obvious.
    This is why it is important to look at the list of authors before reading the paper, and if you are an experienced researcher in your field and all the authors on some paper are unknown to you, then something is fishy here and you might want to take some time to learn who these people are - they may very well be all PhD students with no experience.
    Again, this is something that is easily avoidable, as long as you are careful. It is not a very significant problem. Science is inherently collaborative, and new researchers learn quickly how to navigate the community. And, again, journals serious enough will not publish anything without a very detailed inspection, so it is safe to assume that everything you read there is high quality work.

    Finally, more science nowadays is commercialised than ever before. Commercialised science is very hard to peer-review for obvious reasons, including non-disclosure of private details, expenses required to reproduce the results, intellectual property restrictions, etc. It is not clear to me if Nature includes corporation-funded research in its data.

    I do not see any of these as an issue significant enough to declare a "crisis". In practical terms science performs better than ever before, and we are constantly developing new technology that is more stable, more efficient, more modulable than ever.

    I do think that there are certain systematic issues in some fields, such as sociology, economics or climate science, where the reproducibility standards are not high to begin with, and the issue is compounded by them strongly conflicting with various political agendas. But as far as more precise sciences go, such as physics or chemistry, I do not see any significant difference in reproducibility compared to, say, 100 years ago.

    At the same time, I cannot refrain from expressing my deep disappointment with language precision standards in most fields. The only field I am satisfied with in this regard is mathematics, where ambiguity is not allowed in, pretty much, any possible way - which is why it is my field of choice. Granted, it is to some extent inavoidable in natural sciences, as it is in principle impossible to describe any observational data with infinite precision. Nonetheless, I would like to see more care taken when making statements such as, "This indicates that X is likely a Europium-enriched star". Instead of "likely", I would like to see "with a confidence of at least 95% according to methods A and B". People should not throw sentences around to satisfy the word count requirements, and should go out of their way to make the statements as objective and unambiguous as possible.
    In mathematics, we do not do this. We do not use words like "likely" lightly. If we do not have a quantitative result to characterise the probability of something, then we will usually refrain from talking about it altogether.
  • SandSand 110 Pts

    >>> it is similar to a baby growing up into an adult, the only link we are capable of seeing is a different appearance over a long amount of time.

    Nevertheless, the process of a baby growing up can be detected over a 20 year period.


    >>>slow biological changes in a species which eventually led to another species are almost impossible to detect in fossils simply because the bones are all that are left.

    If it is so slow it is impossible to detect then we cannot apply science to it.
    If something is untestable then it cannot be science.
    It is just hypothesizing.


    >>>there is nothing that does not evolve over time.

    As far as small changes yes they happen, hair, eye color, skin, etc.
    But nothing major like someone having dog chromosomes, elephant chromosomes, or even monkey chromosomes.

    They studied macroevolution.
    This scientist studied Microevolution for 70 years
    He was the pioneer in macroevolution.
    His conclusion.
    “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
    "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
    Book - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation

    There is a limit to macroevolution.

    No documented human changes in 6,000 years.
    I believe that it is long enough to determine a hypothesis is not true.
    Until we have something where a dog has pig chromosomes or something similar, evolution needs to stay a hypothesis.

    Thanks for your patience.
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    edited December 1
    first your statement about if we can not test something, then it is not science simply isn't true. it just means we have not found a way to test something yet. the baby was only a representing example of an entire species and its changes to adulthood was millions of years, not 20 years. you are looking at evolution from the outside in, not from the way it began.  even in a laboratory today we can change over time many key traits and produces changes in plants and small animals such as mice. I do not agree about 6000  years being enough time for 1 species to change. I am talking about millions of years.  as well, I think you should look up on how closely related biologically that we are to chimps, if you wish to argue chromosomes.  as well, you seem to be stuck on one point, macro evolution; one species into another; so it must be apparent, that you are talking about one particular spieces, and that is humans for as far as I know you do not have any other speices in mind. if we evolved from a chimp like creature, then we may never find any proof because of how gradual it was. a change here and there every thousands of years makes a big difference. we do find fossils who are not quite ape nor quite not human either. once again, 6000 years is a drop in the bucket to evolutionary time. let me ask a question: until the rise of society and its laws, were not the weakest simply weeded out? of course they were. The weakest simply do not survive on their own and in todays world, we protect them and allow them to breed causing who knows what changes to the human race.  now go to the  animal kingdom and since they do not have the protection of laws and retaliatory assistance by the strong to the attackers, the race is more pure. nature itself is helping evolution in the animal kingdom. Humans with their intelligence are changing the rules yet in doing so are only changing the evolutionary path that they normally would have gone through in the absence of such intelligence. in thje lab we have created new species of plants that can no longer host a seed with its original hosts; complete with different chromosones form the original.. @Sand
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch