Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Did they check it here and observe it here? That should tell you that it was in our time and space. Therefore do not try to assign times involved in reactions that are existing/seen here with the time involved out of the fishbowl.



Prove there are constants like constant time in the universe?? You see something in the fishbowl and declare it a universal constant. Ridiculous.
What they see is here. I have no predictions that they see it anywhere else! Nor do I suggest that when the light gets here, the spectra should unfold in any other time and space but OURS. Looking at things IN our time does not tell us about space and time far far far away.

The only thing ancient about light we see here on earth from stars is in your head. You declare it old because you think it is so far away, and you think it is so far away because you think it had to have taken a long time to get here! Circular in the extreme.

Excessive breaking up of a post is rude and often dishonest. You do not appear to even understand the concept of evidence. I have evidence, I have posted evidence, if asked I will link it again. You do not appear to have any. Both of us do need to be able to post evidence to support our claims. You have as of yet to post any.

So,since you do not appear to understand the concept of evidence why not have a discussion about the concept? It can only make you a better debater. Heck, you might even win a debate for once instead of constantly losing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

and you believe that a unicell went on through stages to produce your parents, don't you?

By that you mean .... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You apparently deny the supporting evidence of miracles, inspiration, angels, prophecy, the Ressurection, provision, inner peace, etc that lead most people on earth to believe in the spiritual. So what sort of supporting evidence do you want, a ghost in a test tube? People are the test tubes!

What evidence????????????????

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence????????????????

I have repeatedly asked for evidence and none has been given. Only deflection.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course Christians, including Jesus believe in Spirits. Of course, most religions and people also do. They are well-identified and even named.

That's great.

Hundreds of millions of children believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make Santa Claus real though, does it?
Many people used to believe Thor created lightning bolts. That doesn't make Thor real though, does it?

Science cannot identify a single one! Pathetic.

You acknowledge that people are supposed to have some sort of point when supposedly debating, right??

What does your response have to do with your lack of acceptance of a collective reality?

If you want to start talking about the human collective you must acknowledge that the reality is that most believe in spirits and always have!

Yes, they have. People believe in all kinds of creatures that reside in our collective imagination and in our folk tales.

In order for these things to be considered real, evidence is required to demonstrate their existence (to those who actually care in believing true things over false things).

That is reality. It cannot be denied. I assume you are trying to narrow down the definition of 'reality' to the set of beliefs of origin sciences? Ha. You can no more do that than you can limit what reality is to Mother Goose fables.

Actually, that would be your problem. Your beliefs about spirits and demons and whatnot are indistinguishable from Mother Goose fables.

Such as? What has science to do with spirits?

Science is a tool we used to determine what is going on around us. It requires observation, measurements, rigorous testing, repetition, etc. It's the only method we've come up with so far, that has led us to each and every discovery and bit of information we have made to date, about the world we live in. Old texts didn't give us that. Scientific investigation did that.

You say there are spirits. If such things exist, there must be some way to test to find out if they are actually there, or if they are just a product of imagination.

You say they are there, but you can't show anybody that they are there. Don't you see how that's a problem? And can't you also see that if that's the method we use to determine fact from fiction, imagination from reality, then we are stuck believing every single claim everybody has ever made about the existence of anything and everything? In other words, we can't ever really know anything, from your point of view.

If there was a 'Vague Blather' award, I'd put your name in for a contender.

Great. What's that got to do with what was said?

It means support your claim. Prove it. Evidence it. Discuss details of it.etc.

I’ve done that, in my very last post. And guess what? You avoided the point. Again.

Do you accept that the earth and planets orbit the sun?
Do you accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid?
Do you accept that all creatures are born, live, and then die?
Do you accept that 2+2 = 4?


That's the collective reality I'm talking about. Notice how the claims are demonstrable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It obviously is not possible to prove there are no spirits, and certainly not by using science. Any claim that no spirits influenced things is absolutely unsupportable.

I didn't ask for proof that something doesn't exist.
I asked for evidence that something does exist.

So then you say that spirits "influence things."
If spirits do, in fact, "influence things" then such influencing actions should be detectable (i.e. measurable) in some way. So if you claim that "spirits influence things" then you'll need to go ahead and support that with some sort of evidence. Evidence which, of course, should exist, if spirits do in fact, "influence things." Show me evidence of a spirit influencing something.

Otherwise, it sounds like you're admitting to believing in things for which there is no evidence. Which of course, leads me to wonder why you believe such things in the first place.

You were also told that supernatural claims would not be possible to evidence with physical-only natural science. Evidence for the supernatural involves the supernatural.

The thing is though, you don't get to just claim that "the supernatural exists" without demonstrating it in some way.
Demonstrate that there is a supernatural anything in the first place.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to say that spirits "influence things" while simultaneously claiming that they're undetectable. As noted above, if spirits "influence things" then their actions should be detectable in some way.

Man does not produce spirits, that is absurd. They exist on their own and may appear to man, or may inspire, hinder, illuminate, deceive, etc.

It's absurd to say that human beings create spirits in their imaginations? How so?
We know human beings have the capacity for great creativity and imagination. Surely you don't believe in every creature that human beings have claimed to have existed, right? You don't believe in say, a winged horse named Pegasus, do you?

False. ALL history includes spiritual aspects. What there is no history of is science knowing one way or the other.

You didn't read what I said.

What I said was, "Sorry, there is no history of the existence of spirits, or ghosts, or goblins, etc."

Unsupportable claim!

Now you're just being nonsensical.

Do you not understand that human beings have worshiped many thousands of different deities throughout our history. Surely you don't accept that they have all existed.

You cannot prove that all claimed spiritual events and experiences are false. Get a grip. You can choose to deny and disbelieve.

You're not reading what I'm saying. Never have I said that "all claimed spiritual events and experiences are false."
What I say is, "you claim that spiritual events and experiences take place. What evidence do you have to indicate that such things occur?"
Do you not see the difference?

I don't know. Perhaps some spirits in the past somewhere manifested themselves as little people to deceive or influence some folks. Maybe not. I am not going to declare any spiritual connection as impossible here. I do not make stuff up.

So I'm still stuck asking, why do you believe in things for which there is no evidence?

Most people who believe in the spiritual feel that they have some sort of evidence...none of which falls into the realm of physical science.

People feel all kinds of things. It's not evidence for the existence of deities.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The process that gave you life (got you born) is what is from God. Not you in particular. The process.

Can you demonstrate that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You don't "go along with others like him" because he has pointed out the logical fallacies in your arguments?

Oh dear.

Instead, might I suggest re-evaluating your arguments so that they don't contain logical fallacies and instead are actually logically sound?

 

[dad]

Excessive breaking up of a post is rude and often dishonest. You do not appear to even understand the concept of evidence. I have evidence, I have posted evidence, if asked I will link it again. You do not appear to have any. Both of us do need to be able to post evidence to support our claims. You have as of yet to post any.

So,since you do not appear to understand the concept of evidence why not have a discussion about the concept? It can only make you a better debater. Heck, you might even win a debate for once instead of constantly losing.

Trying to break it down for you elicits rude responses. Not my problem. If you claim time is the same in all the universe pony up. Proving that time is the same does not involve looking only at one observation point in the fishbowl.

 

[dad]

What evidence????????????????

The evidence that people have seen. The evidence science is not equipped to deal with.

 

[dad]

That's great.

Hundreds of millions of children believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make Santa Claus real though, does it?
Many people used to believe Thor created lightning bolts. That doesn't make Thor real though, does it?

Or the big bang...etc. Pick your fable. Now when people experience spiritual realities, that is another matter. Spiritual events have effects on lives and are observed and felt and experienced.

What does your response have to do with your lack of acceptance of a collective reality?

Your idea of collective reality is made up, and consists largely of denying spiritual realities that you cannot prove or disprove. Sorry if you thought your deliberate personal doubting carried any weight at all.

Yes, they have. People believe in all kinds of creatures that reside in our collective imagination and in our folk tales.

Great. So what? Who cares what is believed or not? Is this not a thread on evolution? The issue here is a belief in evolution. Science does and cannot deal with spiritual things. Period.

In order for these things to be considered real, evidence is required to demonstrate their existence (to those who actually care in believing true things over false things).

In order to be evidence for things that science cannot deal with we must expand what is considered evidence beyond the tiny box of scientific evidence.
But you must have solid evidence for your science claims!

Actually, that would be your problem. Your beliefs about spirits and demons and whatnot are indistinguishable from Mother Goose fables.

To you, yes. So? Your science claims ought to be distinguishable!

Science is a tool we used to determine what is going on around us.

It is also a tool of doubters to try and limit all that goes on to the physical only criteria that science can deal with.

It requires observation, measurements, rigorous testing, repetition, etc.

Therefore it has no value or place or application in dealing with things it cannot see or test, such as the spirit world. It must be confined to its little box.

It's the only method we've come up with so far, that has led us to each and every discovery and bit of information we have made to date, about the world we live in. Old texts didn't give us that. Scientific investigation did that.

NONE of those discoveries deal with anything supernatural. None of those discoveries pertain to the theory of the evolution of life. Not sure why you bring up science in a thread about evolution, when you have none to post!

This is a science forum and thread. Spirits are not in the domain of poor little so-called science.

You say they are there, but you can't show anybody that they are there. Don't you see how that's a problem? And can't you also see that if that's the method we use to determine fact from fiction, imagination from reality, then we are stuck believing every single claim everybody has ever made about the existence of anything and everything? In other words, we can't ever really know anything, from your point of view.

Angels and God and creation are not scientific claims. Claims regarding them are not supported by physical-only science.

Do you accept that the earth and planets orbit the sun?

Yes.

Do you accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid?
Do you accept that all creatures are born, live, and then die?
Do you accept that 2+2 = 4?

Creatures who accept Jesus and His gift of eternal life never die. Math also depends on what 'objects' are being counted or included! 2 angels plus two oranges equals 2 oranges as far as science can tell!

That's the collective reality I'm talking about. Notice how the claims are demonstrable.

What has orbits of the present time have to do with evolution of life on earth?

 

[nPeace]

Is there objective verifiable evidence that all life descended from one common ancestor?
Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth

Circumstantial evidence is claimed to support the hypothesis, but it has not been verified.
As regards the objective evidence, the only ones saying that, are those on these forums... it seems

 

[dad]

I didn't ask for proof that something doesn't exist.
I asked for evidence that something does exist.

You were told that people that believe in spirits have all sorts of evidence. Science is inept.

So then you say that spirits "influence things."
If spirits do, in fact, "influence things" then such influencing actions should be detectable (i.e. measurable) in some way.

I would think Mary detected Jesus in her womb. I would think that the family, friends, and disciples of Christ detected Him after He rose from the dead. I would think that the people who had their blind eyes opened detected that they could see. Don't blame us if science can't detect all this.

Show me evidence of a spirit influencing something.

The bible is evidence a Spirit inspired it. People who are healed are evidence spirits did something. People who have their lives influenced and changed and impacted by God show they were affected. Stick one of them in a lab and science would still be unable to detect anything!

The thing is though, you don't get to just claim that "the supernatural exists" without demonstrating it in some way.

Most people throughout history believed in it for real reasons. People today who experience things supernatural believe in it. Science can't confirm or deny it.

Demonstrate that there is a supernatural anything in the first place.

Stop denying for no reason what was demonstrated to most people on the planet.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to say that spirits "influence things" while simultaneously claiming that they're undetectable. As noted above, if spirits "influence things" then their actions should be detectable in some way.

Electricity is invisible yet it does stuff.

What I said was, "Sorry, there is no history of the existence of spirits, or ghosts, or goblins, etc."

All history records spiritual phenomena.

Do you not understand that human beings have worshiped many thousands of different deities throughout our history. Surely you don't accept that they have all existed.

None of which you are in any position to deny or confirm.

You're not reading what I'm saying. Never have I said that "all claimed spiritual events and experiences are false."
What I say is, "you claim that spiritual events and experiences take place. What evidence do you have to indicate that such things occur?"
Do you not see the difference?

You cannot confirm or deny the experience of anyone, especially the majority of all men and women that ever lived!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trying to break it down for you elicits rude responses. Not my problem. If you claim time is the same in all the universe pony up. Proving that time is the same does not involve looking only at one observation point in the fishbowl.

Please pay attention. My claim is that all of the evidence supports that the physical constants are the same everywhere. I can and have supported that with evidence. You on the other hand believe in a fishbowl universe. Not me. You believe in a God that lies. Which is probably why you cannot find any evidence that supports your claims.

So, what evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trying to break it down for you elicits rude responses. Not my problem. If you claim time is the same in all the universe pony up. Proving that time is the same does not involve looking only at one observation point in the fishbowl.

Please pay attention. My claim is that all of the evidence supports that the physical constants are the same everywhere. I can and have supported that with evidence. You on the other hand believe in a fishbowl universe. Not me. You believe in a God that lies. Which is probably why you cannot find any evidence that supports your claims.

So, what evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there objective verifiable evidence that all life descended from one common ancestor?
Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth

Circumstantial evidence is claimed to support the hypothesis, but it has not been verified.
As regards the objective evidence, the only ones saying that, are those on these forums... it seems

What makes you think that circumstantial evidence is not objective evidence? You appear to be using terminology improperly.

But I do love the first line of the paper:

Although overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth, it is still an open question whether the universal common ancestor existed or not.

And a definition of objective evidence:

"Objective Evidence
Documented field experience, test data, publications, finite element analysis or calculations that confirm performance characteristics, as applicable. "

Definition of Objective Evidence - IADC Lexicon

The conclusion that there is a UCA is based upon scientific evidence and that fits within the definition of objective evidence very nicely:
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

What makes you think that circumstantial evidence is not objective evidence? You appear to be using terminology improperly.

But I do love the first line of the paper:

Although overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth, it is still an open question whether the universal common ancestor existed or not.

And a definition of objective evidence:

"Objective Evidence
Documented field experience, test data, publications, finite element analysis or calculations that confirm performance characteristics, as applicable. "

Definition of Objective Evidence - IADC Lexicon

The conclusion that there is a UCA is based upon scientific evidence and that fits within the definition of objective evidence very nicely:
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

I'm not sure if you read the conclusion
It says...

Charles Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species as follows: “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from someone primordial form, into which life first breathed”. Darwin seems to have discarded multiple origins of life on Earth. However, as Theobald correctly noted, the theory of UCA allows for the possibility of multiple independent origins of life . The UCA hypothesis simply states that all extant life on Earth has descended from a single common ancestral species. There must have been a huge amount of extinctions during the course of the history of life, and there is no way to know what kinds of life became extinct during the early evolution of life. Still, it seems likely that a huge amount of trials and errors of different forms occurred during the emergence of life and that UCA if existed was just one of them. Further, as argued by Raup and Valentine , the probability of survival of life is low unless there are multiple origins. Even if the UCA hypothesis holds, the survival of the particular form of life does not imply that it was unique or superior.

For something to be verified, it must be demonstrated to be true.
That has not happened. That's why it is still a hypothesis.
It is possible that fairies exist, but we have not verified that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure if you read the conclusion
It says...

Charles Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species as follows: “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from someone primordial form, into which life first breathed”. Darwin seems to have discarded multiple origins of life on Earth. However, as Theobald correctly noted, the theory of UCA allows for the possibility of multiple independent origins of life . The UCA hypothesis simply states that all extant life on Earth has descended from a single common ancestral species. There must have been a huge amount of extinctions during the course of the history of life, and there is no way to know what kinds of life became extinct during the early evolution of life. Still, it seems likely that a huge amount of trials and errors of different forms occurred during the emergence of life and that UCA if existed was just one of them. Further, as argued by Raup and Valentine , the probability of survival of life is low unless there are multiple origins. Even if the UCA hypothesis holds, the survival of the particular form of life does not imply that it was unique or superior.

For something to be verified, it must be demonstrated to be true.
That has not happened. That's why it is still a hypothesis.
It is possible that fairies exist, but we have not verified that.

No, you have an incorrect definition of "verified". In the sciences evidence is verified when it is found repeatedly. I don't think that you understand how science works. You want "proof" and there is none in the sciences. Heck there is no "proof" in that sense anywhere except for in mathematics. And it is still a hypothesis because the evidence is there, and it is "verified" and it is "objective" but it does not quite meet the standards of being a theory as of yet. Even theories are only provisionally true. For example gravity is taken to be provisionally true. But if you accept gravity as a fact then by the same standards you should be accepting the theory of evolution as a fact. It is only the very beginnings and some of the niggling details that are still being worked on. The concept as a whole is extremely well supported.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm not sure if you read the conclusion
It says...

Charles Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species as follows: “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from someone primordial form, into which life first breathed”. Darwin seems to have discarded multiple origins of life on Earth. However, as Theobald correctly noted, the theory of UCA allows for the possibility of multiple independent origins of life . The UCA hypothesis simply states that all extant life on Earth has descended from a single common ancestral species. There must have been a huge amount of extinctions during the course of the history of life, and there is no way to know what kinds of life became extinct during the early evolution of life. Still, it seems likely that a huge amount of trials and errors of different forms occurred during the emergence of life and that UCA if existed was just one of them. Further, as argued by Raup and Valentine , the probability of survival of life is low unless there are multiple origins. Even if the UCA hypothesis holds, the survival of the particular form of life does not imply that it was unique or superior.

For something to be verified, it must be demonstrated to be true.
That has not happened. That's why it is still a hypothesis.
It is possible that fairies exist, but we have not verified that.

Fairies are just as real as the god in the bible. As for the implications of this paper, it is only proposing that in the very earliest time of origin of life, there may have been more than one initial form of life created. The article only supports evolution completely and does not exclude a common ancestry. It does show the genetics supports common descent if you read it carefully.

 

[Bear Wild]

You were told that people that believe in spirits have all sots of evidence. Science is inept.

I would think Mary detected Jesus in her womb. I would think that the family, friends, and disciples of Christ detected Him after He rose from the dead. I would think that the people who had their blind eyes opened detected that they could see. Don't blame us if science can't detect all this.
The bible is evidence a Spirit inspired it. People who are healed are evidence spirits did something. People who have their lives influenced and changed and impacted by God show they were affected. Stick one of them in a lab and science would still be unable to detect anything!

Most people throughout history believed in it for real reasons. People today who experience things supernatural believe in it. Science can't confirm or deny it.
Stop denying for no reason what was demonstrated to most people on the planet.
Electricity is invisible yet it does stuff.


All history records spiritual phenomena.


None of which you are in any position to deny or confirm.

You cannot confirm or deny the experience of anyone, especially the majority of all men and women that ever lived!

The bible is evidence that humans created a god to take care of them and not all humans and that's all. There are many things that that are not seen that can be demonstrated including electricity. They have a way of being tested. Spirits, unicorns, gods and goddesses alike cannot be demonstrated. Yes people in general want to believe there is a being outside of this world to take care of them but than does not make it real only desired. Evolution has evidence and your ideas do not and that's why you keep denying the evidence but that does not make it go away.