On Evolution & Creation

[Pogo]

It weighed a lot more than man, and was heavier than the air around it.
Enjoy.

Oh, Buoyancy.

 

[icant]

The difference in calling it an hypothesis and theory is not relevant to whether it is valid or not.

The Difference in a Theory and a hypothesis is:
More Scientist support the Theory than the hypothesis.

Both are based on an assumption made by a scientist that thinks he has the answer for some imaginary event taking place.

When it comes to the creation of the universe that would be to accept as a fact that the universe begin to take place in their imagination where there was no-space, no-time, no-energy, existing in non-existence.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Sounds like you are believing in Hinduism, or the more obvious you are using circular reasoning to justify your intentional ignorance of science.

Nope, I don't believe in Hinduism.

I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. Because any entity that could supply the energy to create the mass that forms this universe would be God.

I don't know who the most ignorant is, science or me. There is a lot of things that science teaches that I do not agree with and will not until I see the evidence.

There is one thing I know for a fact, and that is that Theory of General Relativity going back in time gets to a point the math breaks down and can not supply any information about what has been labeled as a singularity. That means you can talk about your Quantum Gravity and Quantum World there is no such place beyond that singularity, as of today. Even that very small, very dense volume of something that expanded into this universe. did not exist. That little thingamabob only exists in the minds of Scientist as of today. Now the things that science and scientist say took place after about 500 million years of existence I would not have much problem with.

Enjoy,

 

[wellwisher]

Terrible circular reason to self-justify a religious agenda without science.


More self justified nonsense.

Again no concept of proof in science. The above confirms the priority of your religious agenda over science

My theory for evolution is based on water. That is not religious. That is Bio-Physical Chemistry. Even the DNA needs water to work. Beta-DNA which is the most common to life, has the most hydration water. Z-DNA which has the least hydration water reversed the handedness of the DNA double helix. Evolution took the path of maximum DNA water of hydration and right handedness. Most textbooks do not even show water as part of the active state of the DNA. The naked DNA double helix is not bioactive, and does not exist that way in evolving life. A more advance evolutionary model will not omit the water from the DNA. That is fact.

The foundation premise of the current Evolutionary theory are the first replicators. From these templates molecules, you can generate protein, which build and evolve, until they start to combine and the even feedback to the DNA. That is fine, but lack of direct proof for these first replicators, leave open the religious assumption. Did God place them there, since we cannot show how they came to be naturally or if they ever existed as the starter of life. I am being facetious, since this replicators path is based on faith, not hard science.

I use the thought example of God in the black box of statistics; devil's advocate, so show how the dice and cards methods gives too much cover to any theory. I also presented this for a Creationist loophole, using dice and cards science. It is a clever way to place God on a level playing field. Science wants hard proof of God, but it will slack on evolution via black boxes and dice and cards. God in the black box was to reduce the fuzzy proof requirement to that enjoyed by evolution.

If we place anything in the black box we can never come to a full understanding of what is inside, leaving mystery, that cannot be fully unraveled by input and output, alone. There is where faith is involved. Faith is fine with religion but is pseudo-science.

Proof in science cannot come from any black box. It can come from reason if it reason is predictive. In projectile motion, you can predict a future outcome, since it obeys rational laws and proof will be in pin point prediction demonstrated with experiments. Dice and cards is not that advanced. Empirical is not the only form of science. That is old school science, used by the Alchemists, before the age of reason.

I peck at empirical, since it is easy toy with, lacking a solid line of reasoning since nothing is 100% sure. But it gets close.

 

[Argentbear]

The Difference in a Theory and a hypothesis is:
More Scientist support the Theory than the hypothesis.

Both are based on an assumption made by a scientist that thinks he has the answer for some imaginary event taking place.

When it comes to the creation of the universe that would be to accept as a fact that the universe begin to take place in their imagination where there was no-space, no-time, no-energy, existing in non-existence.

Enjoy,

No a hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
a Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a natural phenomenon that is based on observation and experimentation. It is constructed using the scientific method and is testable.

 

[Astrophile]

A man on the moon could not walk around without a spacesuit on. The strongest gravity would be pulling him away from the moon not toward it.

A few minutes with a calculator should convince you that on the Moon's surface the gravitational attraction of the Moon itself (1.66 N/kg) far exceeds the gravitational attractions due to the Earth (0.0027 N/kg) or the Sun (0.0059 N/kg). What is this 'strongest gravity' that you are talking about?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A few minutes with a calculator should convince you that on the Moon's surface the gravitational attraction of the Moon itself (1.66 N/kg) far exceeds the gravitational attractions due to the Earth (0.0027 N/kg) or the Sun (0.0059 N/kg). What is this 'strongest gravity' that you are talking about?

I haven't googled this, but at face value it seems false. We literally have film footage of men walking on the moon, and it is quite obvious that the effects of gravity are less.

 

[shunyadragon]

My theory for evolution is based on water. That is not religious. That is Bio-Physical Chemistry. Even the DNA needs water to work. Beta-DNA which is the most common to life, has the most hydration water. Z-DNA which has the least hydration water reversed the handedness of the DNA double helix. Evolution took the path of maximum DNA water of hydration and right handedness. Most textbooks do not even show water as part of the active state of the DNA. The naked DNA double helix is not bioactive, and does not exist that way in evolving life. A more advance evolutionary model will not omit the water from the DNA. That is fact.

The foundation premise of the current Evolutionary theory are the first replicators. From these templates molecules, you can generate protein, which build and evolve, until they start to combine and the even feedback to the DNA. That is fine, but lack of direct proof for these first replicators, leave open the religious assumption. Did God place them there, since we cannot show how they came to be naturally or if they ever existed as the starter of life. I am being facetious, since this replicators path is based on faith, not hard science.

I use the thought example of God in the black box of statistics; devil's advocate, so show how the dice and cards methods gives too much cover to any theory. I also presented this for a Creationist loophole, using dice and cards science. It is a clever way to place God on a level playing field. Science wants hard proof of God, but it will slack on evolution via black boxes and dice and cards. God in the black box was to reduce the fuzzy proof requirement to that enjoyed by evolution.

If we place anything in the black box we can never come to a full understanding of what is inside, leaving mystery, that cannot be fully unraveled by input and output, alone. There is where faith is involved. Faith is fine with religion but is pseudo-science.

Proof in science cannot come from any black box. It can come from reason if it reason is predictive. In projectile motion, you can predict a future outcome, since it obeys rational laws and proof will be in pin point prediction demonstrated with experiments. Dice and cards is not that advanced. Empirical is not the only form of science. That is old school science, used by the Alchemists, before the age of reason.

I peck at empirical, since it is easy toy with, lacking a solid line of reasoning since nothing is 100% sure. But it gets close.

A rambling miss mash of confused "things" and maybe a few facts. Not able to respond.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, I don't believe in Hinduism.

This was sarcasm at your confusing post.

I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. Because any entity that could supply the energy to create the mass that forms this universe would be God.

I don't know who the most ignorant is, science or me.

You, of course.

There is a lot of things that science teaches that I do not agree with and will not until I see the evidence.

Agreement or not is your personal The overwhelming evidence is a available for you to see if you take the blinders off

There is one thing I know for a fact, and that is that Theory of General Relativity going back in time gets to a point the math breaks down and can not supply any information about what has been labeled as a singularity. That means you can talk about your Quantum Gravity and Quantum World there is no such place beyond that singularity, as of today. Even that very small, very dense volume of something that expanded into this universe. did not exist. That little thingamabob only exists in the minds of Scientist as of today. Now the things that science and scientist say took place after about 500 million years of existence I would not have much problem with.

Enjoy,

Not comprehendible.

 

[icant]

I peck at empirical, since it is easy toy with, lacking a solid line of reasoning since nothing is 100% sure. But it gets close.

"Geeze, and I thought there was a lot of things that we were 100% sure of.
I am 100% sure that the universe exists, as I reside in it.
I am 100% sure the earth exists, as I have farmed it and still live on it.
I an 100% sure the sun exists, as it gets hot in Florida in the summer.
I am 100% sure the moon exists, as I can see it.
I am 100% sure I am sitting at my desk typing this message.
I am 100% sure there is all kinds, of life on the earth.
I am 100% sure Science does not know how any of it got here.
I am 100% sure there are millions of people who are 100% sure what they believe is the absolute truth. That goes for religious people, and others like scientist and would-be know it all's.

I don't know it all yet, but one day I will know everything there is to know, or know nothing. I am absolutely 100% sure of that fact.
In the meantime, I will keep studying and searching for facts.

Enjoy,

 

[shunyadragon]

I am 100% sure Science does not know how any of it got here.

Incomplete and misleading as to how and what science knows. Nothing in terms of science is 100%

I am 100% sure there are millions of people who are 100% sure what they believe is the absolute truth.

Yes, particularly in terms of the many diverse conflicting religious beliefs/////___

That goes for religious people, and others like scientist and would-be know it all's.

Please do not include science or scientists in this 100% nonsense. The foundation of science is that science does not know 100% of anything.

I don't know it all yet, but one day I will know everything there is to know, or kw nothing. I am absolutely 100% sure of that fact.
In the meantime, I will keep studying and searching for facts.

So circular it bites you in the butt.

 

[icant]

Agreement or not is your personal The overwhelming evidence is a available for you to see if you take the blinders off

First I would have to start drinking (the Kool-aid) or, whatever most people here are drinking and I don't drink.
Then I would have to take my mule's blinders and put them on so I could only see down the straight and narrow path that most scientist look down.

Does evolution take place? Sure it does, I am a farm boy and know how evolution can take place among animals as well as devolution. It can be directed by mankind or by nature. Most of the population is as fat as a pig due to the GMO food we eat, because of science.
We have millions of people hooked on drugs because Big Pharm has to make a fortune. Get you hooked and keep you coming back.

There is good science, and bad science, and then there is speculative science. You don't hear much about the first two but that last one gets a lot of attention.

Where is the evidence? Everything about this universe and how it has progressed from the moment it began to exist until today is based on the assumption that a very hot, very dense, speck, about the size of a pin point began expanding into everything that exists in this universe.
I just want the evidence that thing whatever it was, existed, and if it did where did it come from? Not just an assumption of it was just there as it had to be because we say so.

Now when it comes to non-life producing life it has never happened as science has tried experiment after experiment with zero (0) results.

We used to have a question that come up every now and then on the farm. "What came first the chicken or the egg?"

An egg can produce a chicken if it is fertilized. But you must have a chicken to produce the egg first, and a rooster to fertilize it.

Enjoy,

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Difference in a Theory and a hypothesis is:
More Scientist support the Theory than the hypothesis.

Both are based on an assumption made by a scientist that thinks he has the answer for some imaginary event taking place.

When it comes to the creation of the universe that would be to accept as a fact that the universe begin to take place in their imagination where there was no-space, no-time, no-energy, existing in non-existence.

Enjoy,

Not exactly right. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation that is testable. It has also never been shown to be wrong. The explanation also makes predictions that can be used to confirm or refute it. Please note one cannot "prove" it, but it can at least possibly pass the tests given for it. Usually by the time that a lay person has heard of a hypothesis it has been confirmed several times. Please not, it could still be wrong.

A theory is the same thing, except that it covers a broader area of study and has been tested and confirmed countless times. A scientific theory is an idea that is extremely well supported by evidence and has never been refuted.

The theory of evolution may be the strongest theory in all of the sciences. It has been tested and confirmed millions of times. It is as close to being an "absolute fact" as possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First I would have to start drinking (the Kool-aid) or, whatever most people here are drinking and I don't drink.
Then I would have to take my mule's blinders and put them on so I could only see down the straight and narrow path that most scientist look down.

You have that backwards. You appear to be wearing blinders now.

Does evolution take place? Sure it does, I am a farm boy and know how evolution can take place among animals as well as devolution. It can be directed by mankind or by nature. Most of the population is as fat as a pig due to the GMO food we eat, because of science.
We have millions of people hooked on drugs because Big Pharm has to make a fortune. Get you hooked and keep you coming back.

Has "Big Pharm" been perfect? No, not even close. Do they still help mankind overall. Yes they do. You are sounding more and more like a science denier.

There is good science, and bad science, and then there is speculative science. You don't hear much about the first two but that last one gets a lot of attention.

And you clearly are a science denier. I think that we need to go over the basics of science and the concept of evidence.

Where is the evidence? Everything about this universe and how it has progressed from the moment it began to exist until today is based on the assumption that a very hot, very dense, speck, about the size of a pin point began expanding into everything that exists in this universe.
I just want the evidence that thing whatever it was, existed, and if it did where did it come from? Not just an assumption of it was just there as it had to be because we say so.

No, evolution does not rely on the Big Bang. And you got the Big Bang wrong itself. Lastly if you want to demand that people give you the evidence you first have to be willing to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Now when it comes to non-life producing life it has never happened as science has tried experiment after experiment with zero (0) results.

This is a foolish claim on your part. This again shows that you do not know how science is done. Experiment after experiment has been done with quite often positive results. As I said, you need to learn the basics of science and how problems are solved.

We used to have a question that come up every now and then on the farm. "What came first the chicken or the egg?"

Yes it is a very silly question because those asking it refuse to define what they mean by "chicken" and "egg".

An egg can produce a chicken if it is fertilized. But you must have a chicken to produce the egg first, and a rooster to fertilize it.

Enjoy,

Define your terms. If you define "chicken" as a particular assemblage of DNA and it was not a "chicken" until after it hatched then clearly the egg came first. Birds that have been laying eggs have existed for many millions of years.

 

[Astrophile]

I haven't googled this, but at face value it seems false. We literally have film footage of men walking on the moon, and it is quite obvious that the effects of gravity are less.

The surface gravity of the Moon is less than the Earth's surface gravity, in fact only a sixth as much. However, the Moon's surface gravity, which kept the astronauts on the Moon's surface, is much stronger than the external gravitational fields of the Sun and the Earth, which would tend to pull objects away from the Moon.

 

[Astrophile]

There is good science, and bad science, and then there is speculative science. You don't hear much about the first two but that last one gets a lot of attention.

Where is the evidence? Everything about this universe and how it has progressed from the moment it began to exist until today is based on the assumption that a very hot, very dense, speck, about the size of a pin point began expanding into everything that exists in this universe.
I just want the evidence that thing whatever it was, existed, and if it did where did it come from? Not just an assumption of it was just there as it had to be because we say so.

Three pieces of evidence for the origin of the universe in an initial state of high temperature and high density are the expansion of the universe, as evidenced by the recession of the galaxies; the cosmic abundances of helium isotopes and lithium; and the cosmic microwave background, which is the redshifted afterglow of the cosmic fireball at the recombination epoch, 380,000 years after the beginning. There is more evidence if you are willing to look it up.

You must not think of the universe beginning at a localised spot with a definite size and expanding into empty space. If I understand it correctly, at its origin the universe occupied the whole of space.

If somebody were to tell you where the initial high-temperature high-density state came from, would you accept it? If somebody were to say, 'nobody knows', would you accept that answer or would you say that our ignorance shows that the universe must have been created by the god that you worship?

 

[Audie]

I haven't googled this, but at face value it seems false. We literally have film footage of men walking on the moon, and it is quite obvious that the effects of gravity are less.

But don’t moon rocks etc just float away?

 

[icant]

Three pieces of evidence for the origin of the universe in an initial state of high temperature and high density are the expansion of the universe, as evidenced by the recession of the galaxies; the cosmic abundances of helium isotopes and lithium; and the cosmic microwave background, which is the redshifted afterglow of the cosmic fireball at the recombination epoch, 380,000 years after the beginning. There is more evidence if you are willing to look it up.

OK 3 pieces of evidence. I got no problem with a cosmic fireball.
I got no problem that the universe is expanding.
I got no problem with a glow from a very bright period of light in the past.
I got no problem with the galaxies receding away from us.

But none of those tell us where that little thingamabob came from or where it collected the energy and mass required to build this most magnificent universe in which we live. It is the most precision entity that has ever been built.

None of those things tell us how life formed on earth when there was no life.

You must not think of the universe beginning at a localised spot with a definite size and expanding into empty space. If I understand it correctly, at its origin the universe occupied the whole of space.

I have been told that the universe was contained in a volume no larger that a pin point when it began to expand. There is nothing outside our universe as it is a self-contained unit like Hawking's 'instanton'. Everything in our universe was in that little pinpoint. Give me a break, I am supposed to believe that.

If somebody were to tell you where the initial high-temperature high-density state came from, would you accept it? If somebody were to say, 'nobody knows', would you accept that answer or would you say that our ignorance shows that the universe must have been created by the god that you worship?

Sure if they had evidence to back up their claim.
If somebody tells me that don't know where it came from yes I would Believe, they actually did not know.

I don't have enough faith to believe that little pinpoint sized universe could stretch to be 93 billion light years in diameter which is the seen universe, and it is thought to be 7 trillion light years in diameter when you include what we can't see yet.

So, no I don't have that much faith.

Enjoy,

 

[Argentbear]

Now when it comes to non-life producing life it has never happened as science has tried experiment after experiment with zero (0) results.

That is false. There have been quite a few such experiments with positive results. The most well-known experiment related to abiogenesis is the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated the possibility of creating organic molecules like amino acids, the building blocks of life, from inorganic compounds under conditions simulating early Earth's atmosphere, using a mixture of gases like methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor with electrical discharges to mimic lightning strikes.

The Miler-Urey experiment has been replicated dozens of times and the results are consistent

 

[YoursTrue]

That is false. There have been quite a few such experiments with positive results. The most well-known experiment related to abiogenesis is the Miller-Urey experiment which demonstrated the possibility of creating organic molecules like amino acids, the building blocks of life, from inorganic compounds under conditions simulating early Earth's atmosphere, using a mixture of gases like methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor with electrical discharges to mimic lightning strikes.

The Miler-Urey experiment has been replicated dozens of times and the results are consistent

The miller urey experiment shows that given a set of contrived circumstances and passing an electric charge through the substances, things change.