Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Except neither science nor you understand any of this. Why is earth the exact right distance from the sun? Science would basically say fluke. The problem is that there are a whole plethora of things that work in perfect balance and harmony to allow life to be random. As for knowing what the fundamental forces really are and why they exist as they do...or at all.you do not know. Be honest.

We do understand the basic process. You wanted to take it a step further. In fact you raised a separate topic because you know that you are wrong. And no, science is not saying that the constants are a fluke. Not knowing why does not justify that conclusion.

And even more important you still lose. You are still using an argument from ignorance fallacy. I don't know does not imply God. On the good side it does not imply no God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except neither science nor you understand any of this. Why is earth the exact right distance from the sun? Science would basically say fluke. The problem is that there are a whole plethora of things that work in perfect balance and harmony to allow life to be random. As for knowing what the fundamental forces really are and why they exist as they do...or at all.you do not know. Be honest.

There is no "right distance from the Sun". Creationist sources have no clue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are then declaring the holy prophets like Daniel, that Jesus Personally affirmed was His true prophet a con job. In so doing you are also fingering Jesus and the apostles etc.

What is reasonable is to look at whether the prophecy about kingdoms to follow Babylon was accurate or not. The problem for scoffers is that is is so accurate, they must claim it was written after the fact. Period.
The prophesies in the bible such as in Daniel are extremely perfectly accurate.

1. 
   That is what we are talking about here Bible prophecy.
   
   Nothing vague about the kingdoms that followed Babylon.
   
   To have a virgin from Israel, from the lineage of David, born in a predicted year, in a precise little village, that would be betrayed for an exact price to death, and have His hands and feet pierced, lots cast for His garment, and would rise from the dead, etc is not only improbable but impossible
   
   The witnesses were many, and you simply invoke Last Thursdayism to deny anything that cannot be placed under your nose today.
   This is incoherant nonsense. Of course the future is unknown in the past.

TLDR.

One point, you don't really know what Jesus said. The Gospels appear to be a case of "telephone". They are anonymous "books" written forty years or more after Jesus died. Where did he make that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The prophesies in the bible such as in Daniel are extremely perfectly accurate.

No, they are not. In fact all sorts of bad assumptions have to be made to get them to"work".

But I could be wrong. Please show how they are accurate without unjustified assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To have a virgin from Israel, from the lineage of David, born in a predicted year, in a precise little village, that would be betrayed for an exact price to death, and have His hands and feet pierced, lots cast for His garment, and would rise from the dead, etc is not only improbable but impossible

Ooh. This is a major error. It fails in at least three ways. First the verse you are referring to does not claim a virgin. Second it refers to an event occurring at that time. Third Jesus was never called Manny by anyone during his time.

That is a massive failed prophecy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The witnesses were many, and you simply invoke Last Thursdayism to deny anything that cannot be placed under your nose today.

No, there are claims of witnesses, but none have been produced. And I do not think you understand Last Thursdayism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is incoherant nonsense. Of course the future is unknown in the past.

No, it makes perfect sense. Of course the future was unknown in the past. That was the whole point. There are some things that we can predict accurately.Eclipses of the Sun for example. That is unknown in a sense, but it is not prophecy. If an event is predictable without magic and it occurs then that does not count as prophecy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is what the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates. No other viable hypothesis has been proposed that passes muster based on the evidence.

What is the evidence for a unicell as the first living item?

 

[YoursTrue]

There are trillions of planets in our universe of many many variations, and bt shear odds we are not alone in the universe. Your efforts to argue from ignorance is a fallacy big time.

Odds are that humans do not exist anywhere but on the earth. Them's the odds.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the evidence for a unicell as the first living item?

The earliest known life in the geologic strata are colonies of filimentorus bacteria stromatolites 3.48 billion years old, and this article describes possible older fossils. The fossils depicted here are possible single celled tubular fossils found at mid-ocean sea vents, which would be more advanced single celled life forms than bacteria. ..

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'
By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

• 1 March 2017

Image copyrightM DODD
Image captionAncient life: These clumps of iron and filaments show similarities to modern microbes
Scientists have discovered what they say could be fossils of some of the earliest living organisms on Earth.

They are represented by tiny filaments, knobs and tubes in Canadian rocks dated to be up to 4.28 billion years old.

That is a time not long after the planet's formation and hundreds of millions of years before what is currently accepted as evidence for the most ancient life yet found on Earth.

The researchers report their investigation in the journal Nature.

As with all such claims about ancient life, the study is contentious. But the team believes it can answer any doubts.

The scientists' putative microbes from Quebec are one-tenth the width of a human hair and contain significant quantities of haematite - a form of iron oxide or "rust".

Matthew Dodd, who analysed the structures at University College London, UK, claimed the discovery would shed new light on the origins of life.

"This discovery answers the biggest questions mankind has asked itself - which are: where do we come from and why we are here?

Image copyrightDOMINIC PAPINEAU
Image captionThis bright red "concretion" of iron-and silica-rich rock contains the features interpreted as microfossils
"It is very humbling to have the oldest known lifeforms in your hands and being able to look at them and analyse them," he told BBC News.

The fossil structures were encased in quartz layers in the so-called Nuvvuagittuq Supracrustal Belt (NSB).

The NSB is a chunk of ancient ocean floor. It contains some of the oldest volcanic and sedimentary rocks known to science.

The team looked at sections of rock that were likely laid down in a system of hydrothermal vents - fissures on the seabed from which heated, mineral-rich waters spew up from below.

Today, such vents are known to be important habitats for microbes. And Dr Dominic Papineau, also from UCL, who discovered the fossils in Quebec, thinks this kind of setting was very probably also the cradle for lifeforms between 3.77 and 4.28 billion years ago (the upper and lower age estimates for the NSB rocks).

He described how he felt when he realised the significance of the material on which he was working: "I thought to myself 'we've got it, we've got the oldest fossils on the planet'.

"It relates to our origins. For intelligent life to evolve to a level of consciousness, to a point where it traces back its history to understand its own origin - that's inspirational."

Image copyrightCREDIT: MATTHEW DODD
Image captionIron-rich tubes from the Quebec rocks provide additional evidence for life
Any claim for the earliest life on Earth attracts scepticism. That is understandable. It is often hard to prove that certain structures could not also have been produced by non-biological processes.

In addition, analysis is complicated because the rocks in question have often undergone alteration.

The NSB, for example, has been squeezed and heated through geological time

At present, perhaps the oldest acknowledged evidence of life on the planet is found in 3.48-billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, which are bacteria stromatolites.

The simplist intermediates between self reproducing metabolic life and none life is bacteria and related simple organic forms. Most scientists consider bacteria not truly life, but the evolutionary intermediate between pre-life forms and living self reproducing life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Odds are that humans do not exist anywhere but on the earth. Them's the odds.

Them's not the odds if you consider the possibility of all possible forms of life. You are still 'arguing from ignorance' and not the topic of the thread. As far as humans as we know advanced primates you may be right, but as far as life and intelligent life you lack the information to make this determination given possibly trillions of planets..

 

[night912]

Odds are that humans do not exist anywhere but on the earth. Them's the odds.

The odds of humans not existing anywhere but in earth is quite high. The reason for it is because, as far as we know, human existence began from earth. Humans evolved to survive the conditions of earth. Even if we discovered planets that are similar to earth to the point where it can support human life, the chance of humans living there are slim. That planet's history would have to be exactly like earth, and even that doesn't guarantee that life would have exist like here.

The probability of humans living there because they traveled there though a stargate and/or some other means, are higher. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that human life began on earth and not from a different planet.

 

[Bear Wild]

The earliest known life in the geologic strata are colonies of filimentorus bacteria stromatolites 3.48 billion years old, and this article describes possible older fossils. The fossils depicted here are possible single celled tubular fossils found at mid-ocean sea vents, which would be more advanced single celled life forms than bacteria. ..

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'
By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

• 1 March 2017

Image copyrightM DODD
Image captionAncient life: These clumps of iron and filaments show similarities to modern microbes
Scientists have discovered what they say could be fossils of some of the earliest living organisms on Earth.

They are represented by tiny filaments, knobs and tubes in Canadian rocks dated to be up to 4.28 billion years old.

That is a time not long after the planet's formation and hundreds of millions of years before what is currently accepted as evidence for the most ancient life yet found on Earth.

The researchers report their investigation in the journal Nature.

As with all such claims about ancient life, the study is contentious. But the team believes it can answer any doubts.

The scientists' putative microbes from Quebec are one-tenth the width of a human hair and contain significant quantities of haematite - a form of iron oxide or "rust".

Matthew Dodd, who analysed the structures at University College London, UK, claimed the discovery would shed new light on the origins of life.

"This discovery answers the biggest questions mankind has asked itself - which are: where do we come from and why we are here?

Image copyrightDOMINIC PAPINEAU
Image captionThis bright red "concretion" of iron-and silica-rich rock contains the features interpreted as microfossils
"It is very humbling to have the oldest known lifeforms in your hands and being able to look at them and analyse them," he told BBC News.

The fossil structures were encased in quartz layers in the so-called Nuvvuagittuq Supracrustal Belt (NSB).

The NSB is a chunk of ancient ocean floor. It contains some of the oldest volcanic and sedimentary rocks known to science.

The team looked at sections of rock that were likely laid down in a system of hydrothermal vents - fissures on the seabed from which heated, mineral-rich waters spew up from below.

Today, such vents are known to be important habitats for microbes. And Dr Dominic Papineau, also from UCL, who discovered the fossils in Quebec, thinks this kind of setting was very probably also the cradle for lifeforms between 3.77 and 4.28 billion years ago (the upper and lower age estimates for the NSB rocks).

He described how he felt when he realised the significance of the material on which he was working: "I thought to myself 'we've got it, we've got the oldest fossils on the planet'.

"It relates to our origins. For intelligent life to evolve to a level of consciousness, to a point where it traces back its history to understand its own origin - that's inspirational."

Image copyrightCREDIT: MATTHEW DODD
Image captionIron-rich tubes from the Quebec rocks provide additional evidence for life
Any claim for the earliest life on Earth attracts scepticism. That is understandable. It is often hard to prove that certain structures could not also have been produced by non-biological processes.

In addition, analysis is complicated because the rocks in question have often undergone alteration.

The NSB, for example, has been squeezed and heated through geological time

At present, perhaps the oldest acknowledged evidence of life on the planet is found in 3.48-billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, which are bacteria stromatolites.

The simplist intermediates between self reproducing metabolic life and none life is bacteria and related simple organic forms. Most scientists consider bacteria not truly life, but the evolutionary intermediate between pre-life forms and living self reproducing life.

Thanks for the reference. The evidence is so amazing and how it supports the theory of evolution as predicted by the theory. The fact that the further we look the more evidence supports the theory. More importantly accepting the theory and it implications teaches us how we are connected in this world and not separate as so many practicing religious dogma. The greatest mistake humans made was seeing ourselves as separate from the rest of the world and not responsible for our impact.

 

[YoursTrue]

The earliest known life in the geologic strata are colonies of filimentorus bacteria stromatolites 3.48 billion years old, and this article describes possible older fossils. The fossils depicted here are possible single celled tubular fossils found at mid-ocean sea vents, which would be more advanced single celled life forms than bacteria. ..

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'
By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News...

While it may seem to make sense to some people, it does not make sense to me. Just because there are filimentorus bacteria stromatolites does not mean that life came about by stratospheric chance, or that's the way it was for life to emerge and continue evolving. It means that there are these things called filimentorus bacteria stromatolites that are said to be the first type of life from which it is claimed, every other living thing came. Nope. I don't believe that it just came about like that in that style by evolutionary chance (or 'successful' mutations). You can believe it, others can believe it, but I don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks for the reference. The evidence is so amazing and how it supports the theory of evolution as predicted by the theory. The fact that the further we look the more evidence supports the theory. More importantly accepting the theory and it implications teaches us how we are connected in this world and not separate as so many practicing religious dogma. The greatest mistake humans made was seeing ourselves as separate from the rest of the world and not responsible for our impact.

We ARE separate in a certain sense. Soon you will tell me that bacteria think.

 

[YoursTrue]

The odds of humans not existing anywhere but in earth is quite high. The reason for it is because, as far as we know, human existence began from earth. Humans evolved to survive the conditions of earth. Even if we discovered planets that are similar to earth to the point where it can support human life, the chance of humans living there are slim. That planet's history would have to be exactly like earth, and even that doesn't guarantee that life would have exist like here.
...

I'm in more than total agreement with that. There are no odds. Anything to the contrary is --- um, silly. Unthinking. Ridiculous. The only way this planet could support humans is because God made it possible, according to His design.

 

[YoursTrue]

Them's not the odds if you consider the possibility of all possible forms of life. You are still 'arguing from ignorance' and not the topic of the thread. As far as humans as we know advanced primates you may be right, but as far as life and intelligent life you lack the information to make this determination given possibly trillions of planets..

You're arguing from false representation of so-called facts leading to an erroneous conclusion. Ha ha, I love that -- trillions of planets. Yeeks. Do you believe aliens have visited the CIA?

 

[Bear Wild]

While it may seem to make sense to some people, it does not make sense to me. Just because there are filimentorus bacteria stromatolites does not mean that life came about by stratospheric chance, or that's the way it was for life to emerge and continue evolving. It means that there are these things called filimentorus bacteria stromatolites that are said to be the first type of life from which it is claimed, every other living thing came. Nope. I don't believe that it just came about like that in that style by evolutionary chance (or 'successful' mutations). You can believe it, others can believe it, but I don't.

So the fact that the evidence supports the theory as predicted you choose to not believe? Evolution predicts the progression from simple to more complex and we continually see more and more findings that support the theory. The fact we found this evidence is amazing and confirms what is predicted. No other belief or explanation has this support. So you may choose to ignore this exciting finding but it supports evolution and not other explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

The odds of humans not existing anywhere but in earth is quite high. The reason for it is because, as far as we know, human existence began from earth. Humans evolved to survive the conditions of earth. Even if we discovered planets that are similar to earth to the point where it can support human life, the chance of humans living there are slim. That planet's history would have to be exactly like earth, and even that doesn't guarantee that life would have exist like here.

The probability of humans living there because they traveled there though a stargate and/or some other means, are higher. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that human life began on earth and not from a different planet.

I imagine (and this is why I don't go along with him or others like him) that Shunydragon would say that is an "argument from ignorance." Which is another reason I think that type of argument (conjecture) to say that human life is possible on other planets is now bordering on the insane.

 

[YoursTrue]

So the fact that the evidence supports the theory as predicted you choose to not believe? Evolution predicts the progression from simple to more complex and we continually see more and more findings that support the theory. The fact we found this evidence is amazing and confirms what is predicted. No other belief or explanation has this support. So you may choose to ignore this exciting finding but it supports evolution and not other explanation.

The evidence for the backup of the theory is not there except in the eyes of those desiring to accept it. It has become to me almost like politics. People see what they want to see and come to conclusions about what's 'there.' What is there are fossils of things that scientists may say are the first life forms. And then without anything more than fossils, claim that means life came about as a result of chemical changes within the organisms leading by better sustaining mechanics to the present. I don't believe it. Do I believe there are mechanical natural chemical means of growth? Yes. But I do not believe that humans (and life itself) came about without a master designer. Do I believe that things (or organisms) happen that God did not design? Yes, I do.