The Big Bang and Evolution

[omega2xx]

Omega... there's a HUGE difference between Siti not providing the evidence you asked for and you simply not comprehending the evidence Siti provided. Anyone who understands basic physics understands that in this case you fall into the latter category. Your ignorance of the subject matter doesn't invalidate it, it simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. .

Your ignorance of what constitutes evidence is underwhelming.

Hint: Evidence and be repeated and observed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I can do better than that, It's called faith. I have complete faith in what the scriptures say about creation! It states that God did create everything, and He sustains it each and every day. It also states in the Bible that God can not lie. He is essence of truth, if He said something that is good enough for me, I believe Him. That is my belief you cannot change it, so don't feel that you need to call for more facts or evidence, I can only offer my faith in what is written.

ronandcarol

And I know a bunch of idiots who had 'complete faith' that if they flew planes into buildings filled with people that God would be very pleased. That's all the 'evidence' they required. Yeah, this 'complete faith' things sounds wonderful. We should definitely rely of THAT instead of pesky facts and evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Your ignorance of what constitutes evidence is underwhelming.

Hint: Evidence and be repeated and observed.

HINT: The studies that were cited show EVIDENCE that was REPEATEDLY OBSERVED. The more you keep ranting about how there is NO EVIDENCE just provides proof for the rest of us that you've never once actually LOOKED AT the evidence people keep providing for you. And if you actually DID look at it then clearly you just don't possess the proper basic scientific background to understand it.

 

[ChristineM]

Is there a way to show the date and time of posts or posts that are since my last visit?

I don't know, what I've been doing is clicking my name, top right, then the flag which shows which posts reference your posts. If there are new posts a red number ( for number of posts) is shown.

Still getting used to the interface, Maybe there's an easier way.

 

[ChristineM]

The saddest excuse in the fossil record is that all fossils are transitional. "Do pakicetus evolved into a whale in one generation. Why do they still show about 6 or 7 fossils from pakicetus to whales?



What did they tell you and what evidence did they offer?



Sweetie I have not mentioned religion and ICR is based on science, not religion.



Saying a comment is not true, is not calling you a liar. It is saying you believe something is true that is not, or at least something for which you have no evidence.

This simply shows you have no concept of evolution, those fossils are transitional, not generational

I've already said what they told me, which has you so incensed. The evidence is in the form of questionnaires and polls to all members of the academy taken over 60 years.

Honey, you are fixated on two creationist sites, creationism is extreme religion. The irc site despite its claims is a religious based site which had no interest in the scientific method just so long as they can make bogus claims about a bronze age book.

Say a comment is untrue is calling the author of that comment a liar. Even Christian morality does not excuse you from that.

I'm new here and you don't know me. Here's a heads up, unless evidence exits, i will not make a statement.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Further, there was a statistical scientist who figured out that with the age of the universe there was not enough time for random chance to form it all.

Please DO provide the name of this statistical scientists and a link to the paper he/she published on the subject. I've heard people make this claim before and I find it ridiculous. With so many unknown factors involved in exactly how the universe was formed, how could anyone possibly calculate exactly how long it would take in order to form it? I've yet to find anyone who can cite the actual study involved, it's always "I heard about this statistical scientist..." but no one seems to know exactly who figured this out or how.

I mean seriously, if there's someone out there who has figured out all of the various processes required for the creation of the universe to the point that they were able to accurately calculate how long it would take for the universe to form naturally then this individual has FAR greater knowledge about how the universe was formed than the entire scientific community. Since this statistical scientists has obviously discovered the secrets of dark matter in order to make his/her calculations, I wonder why his/her findings aren't HUGE news in the scientific community? I mean, science has been trying to solve this mystery for decades, yet this statistical scientist understands it enough to calculate how long it would take the universe to form naturally. Why is he/she keeping this information to his/her self?

 

[Dogen]

There use to be a theory that there was only one blood type. It has been PROVEN there is more than one. It has been proven that all living matter contains DNA. They don't give nobel prizes for opinions.

No, if there was a theory about bloodtypes (which I have never seen) finding new types would falsify the original theory. It would not prove how many there are.

All living matter being made of DNA is not proven. In fact, even with the limited information we have it depends on how you define life. There are viruses that are built on RNA.

Theories by definition are not facts.

Yes,...... so?

If you think a theory is a fact, we will never advance.

I have ALREADY SAID that a theory is NOT a fact. It can NEVER be a fact. It can NEVER be proven.

I read links for over 20 years. Not one offered any scientific evidence, so i quit.

Yes, I am sure that not one site on the internet contains even one bit of scientific evidence.

The present one fact in the TOE that has been proved. Don't forget the HOW.

Your wording makes it difficult to determine exactly what you want here. Scientific theories don't prove things. That is not even their function.

Evolution itself (no theory here) is an observed fact.

The are all facts but the DO NOT prove evolution. You really don't understand evolution.

Here you say evolution again, but it is not clear if you are talking about Evolution (observed fact) or the Theory of Evolution (explanation of that fact).

Let me give you an example using your own words above.
You said "The are all facts but the DO NOT prove evolution. You really don't understand evolution."

So I say these are all facts (about gravity) but they DO NOT prove gravity. You really don't understand gravity.

Or

The are all facts (about relativity) but they DO NOT prove relativity. You really don't understand relativity.

You see I am using the same argument as you but the sentences don't completely make sense. Gravity, evolution, and relativity are all real, true, facts...whatever. But those are not the THEORIES about those things. Actually, we are far more informed about relativity and evolution than about gravity!!!

Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to give one, just one example of observed evolution and the mechanism that caused it.

This is like standing on a beach and being asked for a grain of sand. The example of whales was used earlier. They did not exist in the 50 million years ago. But we have a lineage leading up to them in the fossil record. We also have genetic data that show certain existing land animals are more closely related to them than any fish or shark. Then we have molecular clock data that agree with the timing. All those are scientific observations. We have observations in laboratory studies where new strands (species at that level) have formed in real time. Lastly there are observations in field studies of new species of animals and plants that did not exist a few years ago. This would also includ new types of infectious diseases which have evolved from old ones.

Those are the 4 areas of observation. Again, there are over 30 different ways (macro) evolution is proved.

There is not scientific evidence for macroevolution. Prove me wrong.

Just did. See above. There are over 30 different lines of observable evidence for macroevolution. I can list them if you like.

They become laws when they have been proven.

No. Again, that is not how theories, laws, hypotheses,.... work. A law has nothing to do with a theory except they are both science. It is like comparing a hammer and a 3D printer.

It becomes a law when it has been proven.

No theory (properly labeled) has ever been proven. None will ever become laws. If they did that would be a demotion!

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Actually, I know exactly what I am talking about. Understanding theories vs. laws is very basic. HS at the latest.

Nothing you said in the paragraphs is true and even if it was, it does snot explain how a mutation can be the mechanism for a change of species.

Well, I have not recited the entire theory of evolution for you, nor is it reasonable for me to attempt to do so here. However, mutations change the genome. Changes to the genome that endure will be subject to selection pressures. If the mutation has some value to the organism it is more likely to survive (but not a given) and the opposite if it does not survive. One mutation does not a new species make. Even in bacteria it usually takes several mutations and a number of generations before it can be clearly identified as a new strain.

Let me offer you some sound advice. Get a better education in real science.

My sound advice is for you to take your own medicine. I have not been presenting hardcore, cutting edge, science to you. Nor is this very simple stuff. I don't mind questions but the superior attitude you have when I am trying to explain these things to you is a bit much.

 

[Dogen]

Your ignorance of what constitutes evidence is underwhelming.

Hint: Evidence and be repeated and observed.

Um.. just to be clear, the data can be collected again, and the data (evidence) is observable. The formulation usually given is that science is:
Observable (has characteristics that can be observed or sensed or measured by equipment.
Testable (lends itself to the collection of data that can support or question the underlying assumptions)
Replicable (the tests can be repeated by others)
Falsifiable - there is a way it can be proven false if it is false.
and (ideally) Parsimonious - Is the simplest way to explain the observations accurately.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

Yes, there will always be gaps to shove that God fella into. As years go by he seems to have less elbow room those doesn't he?

 

[Bird123]

Please DO provide the name of this statistical scientists and a link to the paper he/she published on the subject. I've heard people make this claim before and I find it ridiculous. With so many unknown factors involved in exactly how the universe was formed, how could anyone possibly calculate exactly how long it would take in order to form it? I've yet to find anyone who can cite the actual study involved, it's always "I heard about this statistical scientist..." but no one seems to know exactly who figured this out or how.

I mean seriously, if there's someone out there who has figured out all of the various processes required for the creation of the universe to the point that they were able to accurately calculate how long it would take for the universe to form naturally then this individual has FAR greater knowledge about how the universe was formed than the entire scientific community. Since this statistical scientists has obviously discovered the secrets of dark matter in order to make his/her calculations, I wonder why his/her findings aren't HUGE news in the scientific community? I mean, science has been trying to solve this mystery for decades, yet this statistical scientist understands it enough to calculate how long it would take the universe to form naturally. Why is he/she keeping this information to his/her self?

This scientist actually wrote a book. It has been years and years ago. When I get time, I'll try to hunt it up. I believe the scientist's first name was Seth, but That's all I remember for now.

The age of the universe was calculated by the expansion of the universe. Once one figures the time, then the rest is cold hard math.

This scientist said that if the universe was running like a giant computer program that there was time for it all to unfold.

From this base I speculate that fractals would be a great time saving base in the formation of everything. I also speculate that quantum entanglement has to do with that a some point the program can not be altered or things would be a mess.

One thing is clear, there is so much that we all need to learn and discover before the entire truth shows itself. As I see it, God created it all so mankind would be able to figure it all out. The journey is going to be Glorious!!

Hmmm? Now where did I leave that book???

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

I don't know, what I've been doing is clicking my name, top right, then the flag which shows which posts reference your posts. If there are new posts a red number ( for number of posts) is shown.

Still getting used to the interface, Maybe there's an easier way.

I seem to be stumbling over the reply button without posting, but i like this new interface! I wish Topix had all this, but that's OK. I'm going to enjoy this and jumping back over to Topix for a little rough and tumble once in a while.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Um.. just to be clear, the data can be collected again, and the data (evidence) is observable. The formulation usually given is that science is:
Observable (has characteristics that can be observed or sensed or measured by equipment.
Testable (lends itself to the collection of data that can support or question the underlying assumptions)
Replicable (the tests can be repeated by others)
Falsifiable - there is a way it can be proven false if it is false.
and (ideally) Parsimonious - Is the simplest way to explain the observations accurately.

YAY! Hi Dogen!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

A polite evolution discussion, including dissenters? Who knew such a thing was possible.

I'll wade in: evolution has been observed, repeatedly, for over 100 years and counting. It's a fact--there is no getting around that, life *evolved* on Planet Earth.

There is a *theory* which purports to explain how life evolved; and it's pretty good at predicting things-- as any good theory should do.

So far, experiment continues to support the theory of evolution's mechanism, and indeed, using that theory, scientists have managed to create artificial life from *dead* cells. Pure, artificial DNA inserted in to non-living cells (having had their nucleus stripped out) caused the cells to behave as if they were alive. It's pretty safe to say they were/are. They reproduce, take up nutrients and excrete waste.

Claiming evolution isn't real, is like saying the sun is a 30 watt light bulb in a dome-shaped "sky"...

 

[omega2xx]

HINT: The studies that were cited show EVIDENCE that was REPEATEDLY OBSERVED. The more you keep ranting about how there is NO EVIDENCE just provides proof for the rest of us that you've never once actually LOOKED AT the evidence people keep providing for you. And if you actually DID look at it then clearly you just don't possess the proper basic scientific background to understand it.

I have challenged all the evo to cut and paste what they consider evidence. None INCLUDING YOU have done that. I have to assume you can't.

The most common example has been bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics. The problem is they remained bacteria. Surely you understand that evolution requires a change of species. For all you know some of the bacteria may have already been resistant. Otherwise they would have died and that particular variety would have become extinct.

 

[omega2xx]

This simply shows you have no concept of evolution, those fossils are transitional, not generational

Then why does whale evolution show a series of intermediates?

I've already said what they told me, which has you so incensed. The evidence is in the form of questionnaires and polls to all members of the academy taken over 60 years.

Talk is cheap; post some evidence. Let me assure you, you do not have the ability to cause me to be incensed.

Honey, you are fixated on two creationist sites, creationism is extreme religion. The irc site despite its claims is a religious based site which had no interest in the scientific method just so long as they can make bogus claims about a bronze age book.

Sweetie that cite does support creationism but the do it with proven science. Talk Origins does not provide any evidence fore what they say---prove me wrong.

Say a comment is untrue is calling the author of that comment a liar. Even Christian morality does not excuse you from that.

That simply is not true. Someone can say something they BELIEIVE is true, but it is not. They are not lying, they are misinformed. Lying id deliberate.

I'm new here and you don't know me. Here's a heads up, unless evidence exits, i will not make a statement.

You already have. You said all fossils are intermediate. I just showed you several intermediate fossils determined by evolutionists linking a land animal to whales. That is so absurd it is sad for anyone to accept it as evidence.

When you said all fossils are intermediates, you were not lying although your sttement is wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

No, if there was a theory about bloodtypes (which I have never seen) finding new types would falsify the original theory. It would not prove how many there are.

All living matter being made of DNA is not proven. In fact, even with the limited information we have it depends on how you define life. There are viruses that are built on RNA.



Yes,...... so?



I have ALREADY SAID that a theory is NOT a fact. It can NEVER be a fact. It can NEVER be proven.




Yes, I am sure that not one site on the internet contains even one bit of scientific evidence.



Your wording makes it difficult to determine exactly what you want here. Scientific theories don't prove things. That is not even their function.

Evolution itself (no theory here) is an observed fact.



Here you say evolution again, but it is not clear if you are talking about Evolution (observed fact) or the Theory of Evolution (explanation of that fact).

Let me give you an example using your own words above.
You said "The are all facts but the DO NOT prove evolution. You really don't understand evolution."

So I say these are all facts (about gravity) but they DO NOT prove gravity. You really don't understand gravity.

Or

The are all facts (about relativity) but they DO NOT prove relativity. You really don't understand relativity.

You see I am using the same argument as you but the sentences don't completely make sense. Gravity, evolution, and relativity are all real, true, facts...whatever. But those are not the THEORIES about those things. Actually, we are far more informed about relativity and evolution than about gravity!!!



This is like standing on a beach and being asked for a grain of sand. The example of whales was used earlier. They did not exist in the 50 million years ago. But we have a lineage leading up to them in the fossil record. We also have genetic data that show certain existing land animals are more closely related to them than any fish or shark. Then we have molecular clock data that agree with the timing. All those are scientific observations. We have observations in laboratory studies where new strands (species at that level) have formed in real time. Lastly there are observations in field studies of new species of animals and plants that did not exist a few years ago. This would also includ new types of infectious diseases which have evolved from old ones.

Those are the 4 areas of observation. Again, there are over 30 different ways (macro) evolution is proved.



Just did. See above. There are over 30 different lines of observable evidence for macroevolution. I can list them if you like.



No. Again, that is not how theories, laws, hypotheses,.... work. A law has nothing to do with a theory except they are both science. It is like comparing a hammer and a 3D printer.



No theory (properly labeled) has ever been proven. None will ever become laws. If they did that would be a demotion!



Actually, I know exactly what I am talking about. Understanding theories vs. laws is very basic. HS at the latest.



Well, I have not recited the entire theory of evolution for you, nor is it reasonable for me to attempt to do so here. However, mutations change the genome. Changes to the genome that endure will be subject to selection pressures. If the mutation has some value to the organism it is more likely to survive (but not a given) and the opposite if it does not survive. One mutation does not a new species make. Even in bacteria it usually takes several mutations and a number of generations before it can be clearly identified as a new strain.



My sound advice is for you to take your own medicine. I have not been presenting hardcore, cutting edge, science to you. Nor is this very simple stuff. I don't mind questions but the superior attitude you have when I am trying to explain these things to you is a bit much.

All post that long are full of rhetoric with no evidence. Let me suggest you use the KISS principle.

How do you know some life forms don't have DNA?

 

[omega2xx]

Um.. just to be clear, the data can be collected again, and the data (evidence) is observable. The formulation usually given is that science is:
Observable (has characteristics that can be observed or sensed or measured by equipment.
Testable (lends itself to the collection of data that can support or question the underlying assumptions)
Replicable (the tests can be repeated by others)
Falsifiable - there is a way it can be proven false if it is false.
and (ideally) Parsimonious - Is the simplest way to explain the observations accurately.

Talk is cheap, give me an example.

 

[ChristineM]

I seem to be stumbling over the reply button without posting, but i like this new interface! I wish Topix had all this, but that's OK. I'm going to enjoy this and jumping back over to Topix for a little rough and tumble once in a while.

That reply button is a bit of a pain for sure, only caught me out once but I'm sure it will happen again

 

[ArtieE]

Then why does whale evolution show a series of intermediates?

OK... given that there has been life on the planet for about four billion years, that there is an estimated 8.7 billion species on the planet today and over 99% of all species are extinct and a god started designing and creating different species four billion years ago. How many different species did this god design and create and when? Remember, all the animals above must have been separately designed and created.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The most common example has been bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics. The problem is they remained bacteria.

No, **your** problem is this: bacteria are not **species**.

Your comment is complaining that mammals remain ... mammals. You demonstrate here, that you seriously have no clue how biology classification works.

Humans *have* observed evolution in bacteria, including evolution into new species.... of _bacteria_

You need to study-up on what constitutes "species" before making such statements.