If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?

[FearGod]

Why would it do that? Just because we learn a mechanism it doesn't mean someone else doesn't have one, too.

Science has been finding natural causes and mechanisms for all sorts of things that were once held up as evidence of God. People still believe. They just keep moving the goal post.

Do we really know what was before the initial singularity?
Assuming this whole universe started from a tiny point, then where
did this point came from and at which point it turned to the big bang,
It just happened to be so, was earth lucky to have life on it, the answer
yes, it happened to be so, no plans, and no luck, but just it happened to be so.
Do you really have a scientific answer why these things happened to be so,
other than "it just happened to be so".

 

[Valjean]

Not able to test for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist, for example
bacteria was always existing but we were able to prove it in the year 1670.

IOW if I can't prove to you that God exists doesn't mean that God doesn't
exist by default, but if you can prove that God really doesn't exist and that by creating life such us making babies in the lab, then this will prove that God isn't the creator since we can do what he did.

The actions and effects of bacteria were known long before the agent was discovered. Where are the mysterious actions and effects of this God?
Science keeps discovering natural, non-supernatural mechanisms for the mysteries previously attributed to God.
Sure, God might exist, but he's doing a good job of hiding himself. Nothing inexplicable, unexpected or miraculous seems to be happening these days. The supernatural shows no trace of itself.

Believing in something unevidenced simply because it hasn't been discredited is absurd. Believing everything till each belief is disproved is clearly unworkable. Nobody's proved unicorns or Cthulu or little green men don't exist, but I doubt you believe in them.

The reasonable approach is to believe that for which there is evidence, and withhold belief for things without supporting evidence, even if they may be possible.

 

[FearGod]

The actions and effects of bacteria were known long before the agent was discovered. Where are the mysterious actions and effects of this God?

Life itself, create babies in the lab and God is proven false.

Science keeps discovering natural, non-supernatural mechanisms for the mysteries previously attributed to God.

Such as ..

Sure, God might exist, but he's doing a good job of hiding himself. Nothing inexplicable, unexpected or miraculous seems to be happening these days. The supernatural shows no trace of itself.

You believe what you can see, do you think God is a man or a woman
or something similar to us to show himself up?

Believing in something unevidenced simply because it hasn't been discredited is absurd. Believing everything till each belief is disproved is clearly unworkable. Nobody's proved unicorns or Cthulu or little green men don't exist, but I doubt you believe in them.

I believe in logical thinking, thinking that life and the complexity
of it and how human brains work to think of it as just happened
to be so without any prior plan is like thinking that Monkeys can
make cars.

The reasonable approach is to believe that for which there is evidence, and withhold belief for things without supporting evidence, even if they may be possible.

Life is evidence.

 

[Howard Is]

If the Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin's Theory is wrong in its title already?

Music theory.
It isn't 'music hypotheses'.

 

[Shad]

Dialog:

- If the Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin's Theory is wrong in its title already?

- Evolution is a fact. Theory of Evolution is the theory of the fact.

- No, google "Cosmology Crisis" then. The Theory of Evolution is defined as having the following sections: Theory of Big Bang+Theory of Cosmic Evolution+Theory of Darwin+Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is the application of Evolution to Socium.

Opponent: "What?! Where did you get that?"

Enter my own quest for truth or stay outside: Wikipedia can lie because the authors can be liars or wrong.

Theory has a different meaning in science. You are using the layman's defination

 

[Shad]

Life itself, create babies in the lab and God is proven false.

This wouldn't prove God false. Babies are already created in labs using reproduction cells. Beside Dr Craig Venter did this already. By your logic you must stop believing in God. I will wait....

 

[FearGod]

This wouldn't prove God false. Babies are already created in labs using reproduction cells. Beside Dr Craig Venter did this already. By your logic you must stop believing in God. I will wait....

That isn't creating life once we have the reproduction cells, of course
I won't believe in God once I see a factory making living babies.

 

[tas8831]

What about the theory of God did it?

That is not theory.

Can any one show a significant evidence that God wasn't involved
from the point of nil to the existence of man?

Better question - what is the evidence that any particular deity WAS involved in anything?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not able to test for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist, for example
bacteria was always existing but we were able to prove it in the year 1670.

IOW if I can't prove to you that God exists doesn't mean that God doesn't
exist by default, but if you can prove that God really doesn't exist and that by creating life such us making babies in the lab, then this will prove that God isn't the creator since we can do what he did.

Correct, but it does tend to mean that there is no reliable evidence for God.

For a rational person the time to believe is after a claim has been supported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That isn't creating life once we have the reproduction cells, of course
I won't believe in God once I see a factory making living babies.

One can believe almost any false idea if that person improperly shifts the burden of proof.

 

[tas8831]

But one of these discoveries that Darwinists use for evidence — genetic similarities — is flawed.

Still waiting.

Based on genes, we’re more closely related to bananas than honey bees.

Go figure.

We’re closer cousins to a Plantae-Kingdom organism, than to an Animalia-Kingdom lifeform!

Source: Scientists Map Acorn Worm DNA, And Learn A Lot About Humans In The Process | HuffPost

I actually wasted the time to check out your claim (or rather his confidence in a HuffPo article).
The link for the honeybees did not take me to a NatGeo article, but I searched and found this:

Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera

"Comparison of the 2,404 single-copy orthologues present in exactly one copy in each of the insects and in human revealed that the mean sequence identity between honeybee and human is considerably higher than that of fly and human (47.5% versus 44.5%, with t-test significance of 10−11, see Fig. 6 and Supplementary Fig. 6) and also higher than between mosquito and human (46.6%). "


One will note the number of genes compared - 2404 (out of an estimated 10,000 in the honey bee). This means that of the ~20,000 genes humans have, there are 2404 that have orthologues in the honeybee, that is, genes that we share with honeybees via common ancestry. When these orthologues were sequenced and compared, they were ~47% (not 44% - that was flies) identical. But 2404/10,000 is but 24% (and 2404 out of 20,000 is 12%) of the honey bee genes have a match with humans, so already the numbers indicate something other than what they are often portrayed. Also, I bolded what I did intentionally - they specifically looked at orthologues that are present in only 1 copy. Why does that matter, well, many genes are present in more than one copy, sometimes, a lot of copies. They looked only at orthologues that were present in a single copy. They had their reasons for doing that, which I am not concerned about, but it would appear that this may be the source for the 44% claim.

For bananas, the 50% similarity link went to the Mirror, where there was just a list of crazy 'facts', some of which appear not to be facts. I was unable to find any actual scientific publications on this (I did not search very hard, I must admit) - lots of internet 'factoids' of course. I did find out some relevant actual facts however -
bananas apparently have more genes that humans (~36,000, but with a much smaller overall amount of DNA than us, only about 400 million bps), which shouldn't be a huge surprise, given that one of the common mechanisms for speciation in plants is genome duplication (any plant people out there, feel free to correct me). Since bananas have ~3x the number of genes as honey bees, the relevant issue here is orthologues. I came across a blog post by a knowledgeable fellow that already did the leg work -

Seems that, in real life, only 17% of genes are shared between bananas and humans.

Now, there were more orthologues, which, given the restrictions in the honey bee paper does not really surprise me, but the sequence identity was not indicated. It comes down to whether one compares numbers of genes, or actual sequence identity, but neither of those appear to rescue the claims.

Your implications are refuted before you even get started.

 

[FearGod]

That is not theory.

Nature or God, what difference it makes.
You believe it's the nature and that it happened to be so during
billions of years, why life existed on earth? the theory it just happened
to be so, no plans, how can you prove to me that it just happened to be
so ? why it happened that earth was suitable for life? why earth was suitable for evolution to happen?

Your theory , it just happened to be so, there were no plans for it to happen.

Better question - what is the evidence that any particular deity WAS involved in anything?

The evidence is life and our minds, will a cat think about a creator for this universe?

 

[tas8831]

Nature or God, what difference it makes.

It makes a lot of difference if you are going to use the word "theory."

You believe it's the nature and that it happened to be so during
billions of years, why life existed on earth? the theory it just happened
to be so, no plans, how can you prove to me that it just happened to be
so ?

When you do not know what a theory is?

Probably no one can 'prove' anything to you.

why it happened that earth was suitable for life? why earth was suitable for evolution to happen?

Why the puddle fills the hole that it is in and no more?

Your theory , it just happened to be so, there were no plans for it to happen.

You wrote that once already - running out of material?

The evidence is life and our minds, will a cat think about a creator for this universe?

Great rhetoric. It almost worked on me. Kidding - it is pretty juvenile and naive.

 

[Ouroboros]

Law is just a subset of the larger overall theory of gravity.

The law is merely a very small part of the theory, often a very short statement, often accompanied with a formula, equation or metric (or constant).

The theory of the gravity explained or should explain everything.

The current standard model of gravity, is the Theory of General Relativity. It doesn't completely replace Newton's theory on gravity, but Einstein does expand gravity theory to include astrophysics and spacetime.

You, Rinne, are some what out-of-date with physics.

Thank you for answering that. I was going to but got too busy.

Exactly what you said, there are both theory of gravity and law(s) of gravity. The laws in science are short and very distinct small facts that can be set into some form of equation, formula, etc. They're kind'a the expansion of facts, while theory try to explain the facts and laws and bind them into a larger understanding.

Currently, the theory of gravity isn't complete. How is gravity coming about? General relativity is one take, but if I'm not mistaken there are attempts to understand gravity from a quantum mechanics perspective, and it's not clear yet. Gravitons? Higgs field? And where does dark energy and matter fit in? But even if gravity isn't fully explained, no one suggests that gravity then doesn't exist and must be created by pixies flying back and forth pulling things together.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gravity is (supposedly, I dispute that what we call gravity is actually gravity) a law. So are the others. That's why they call them laws, because the average person is able to believe in them without further proof .

Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia
Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia

Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.

In science, whenever you study something, you'll end up with theories that explains the things you study. Laws are rare to come by, and they're usually short and distinct puzzle pieces within a theory. The laws don't explain things as much as they show a distinct relationship between things. Newton's law of universal gravity is just a small part of the theory of gravity. Normally, the theory of gravity is just called "gravity" and nothing more. And the same goes for most other theories in science, we don't even bother calling them theory. If there's an explanation for something, then it's a theory, but it's redundant to constantly do it. So when we say "thermodynamics" we're referring to the theory (and/or specific branches of theories) of thermodynamics, including the laws. Many times theories include other theories as well.

 

[gnostic]

Not able to test for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist, for example
bacteria was always existing but we were able to prove it in the year 1670.

IOW if I can't prove to you that God exists doesn't mean that God doesn't
exist by default, but if you can prove that God really doesn't exist and that by creating life such us making babies in the lab, then this will prove that God isn't the creator since we can do what he did.

Again, you still don't understand how science work.

In science, nothing is "true" by default, FearGod.

Nature or God, what difference it makes.

There are no magic and no divine miracles involved in nature.

The only people who believe in miracles and magic are superstitious people, like yourself, who believe in powerful invisible being.

You are the one who believe in spirit, and there are no evidence to support the existence of such spirit that you called “God”.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Not able to test for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist, for example
bacteria was always existing but we were able to prove it in the year 1670.

IOW if I can't prove to you that God exists doesn't mean that God doesn't
exist by default, but if you can prove that God really doesn't exist and that by creating life such us making babies in the lab, then this will prove that God isn't the creator since we can do what he did.

The problem you have? Is that gods are Impossible Beings, as written.

They literally defy every single Law of Physics we have observed so far-- no exceptions.

Thus? You have to show that Impossible Beings are actually possible in the first place.

Until you do? All your claims about these Impossible Things remain null.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Life itself, create babies in the lab and God is proven false.

Been there. Done that. Your ignorance of the subject is evident.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thank you for answering that. I was going to but got too busy.

Exactly what you said, there are both theory of gravity and law(s) of gravity. The laws in science are short and very distinct small facts that can be set into some form of equation, formula, etc. They're kind'a the expansion of facts, while theory try to explain the facts and laws and bind them into a larger understanding.

Currently, the theory of gravity isn't complete. How is gravity coming about? General relativity is one take, but if I'm not mistaken there are attempts to understand gravity from a quantum mechanics perspective, and it's not clear yet. Gravitons? Higgs field? And where does dark energy and matter fit in? But even if gravity isn't fully explained, no one suggests that gravity then doesn't exist and must be created by pixies flying back and forth pulling things together.

On contrair, bon ami. (sorry about the poor French)

Ever hear of Intelligent Falling?

Intelligent falling - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

Do we really know what was before the initial singularity?

No. At the initial singularity there was no time. Without time, "before" is meaningless. The Big Bang is the point of creation of time, energy, physical constants, matter, &c.

Assuming this whole universe started from a tiny point, then where
did this point came from and at which point it turned to the big bang,

We don't know "where" this initial singularity came from. Without a universe there is no location, and without location "where" is meaningless.

The universe is expanding. We can track the expansion. If we reverse this expansion in a computer model -- like playing a film backwards -- the universe is seen to shrink back to a single point, ~13.8 billion years ago, from our present perspective. This is the current, best evidenced model.

We don't understand this process. It's currently a very active field of study.

You seem to think that because this phenomenon is poorly understood that this lack of understanding is evidence for a supernatural or magical creation by a conscious, intentional entity you call God, Allah, Brahma, &c. It does not. This is a logical error; a False Dilemma or black-and-white fallacy.

It just happened to be so, was earth lucky to have life on it, the answer
yes, it happened to be so, no plans, and no luck, but just it happened to be so.
Do you really have a scientific answer why these things happened to be so,
other than "it just happened to be so".

No, we don't have answers yet. Neither does religion, other than positing a causative agent.
Why do you think there must be a "why"?