Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

So for the sake of argument, you want us to assume the logically impossible? Well then maybe it was unicorns and vampires... Or something.

An artificially created virus would use the mechanisms of evolution to make them, so it could not be impossible.

The *rate* of evolution would be highly improbable if not impossible. Instead of several animal hosts the *artificial* selection would occur in a sequence in viral culture.

Notice how that explains their inability to find the intermediate host between bats and humans or even the population of bats where it *supposedly* originated.

Educate yourself on the topic and come back later.
 
In a way it is good to have you around. Some Deplorables are always howling in protest that anti-science, evolution-denying conservatives are an aberration, totally rare, and completely insignificant.

And then you, and others, come along and prove them wrong.

The Theory of Evolution is not science. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). It is YOU that is denying science. Inversion fallacy.
 
too right you are.

If there is a God, it purposefully imbued us with reason....for a reason.

Isaac Newton, Renee Descartes, Johannes Kepler,, other scientists of the early scientific revolution assumed God had given us the mental faculties to gain insight into divinity through the study of nature.

I do not understand why bible thumpers are so freaked out about scientists studying and hypothesizing about evolution or abiogenesis.

All we are looking for is a mechanism. A physical and biological explanation of how it happened.

Asking why it happened is outside the realm of the scientific method.

Name dropping fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy. Neither Newton, Descrates, or Kepler discussed the Theory of Evolution nor the Theory of Abiogenesis as science.

There are two mechanisms, both described nonscientific theories:
The Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis.

It is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened. Neither theory is falsifiable. Neither theory is a theory of science.
Any scientist studying either of these theories is studying a religion, not science.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less. That's it. That's all.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. You can't go back in time to see what actually happened.
 
I'm sure that you are aware that the BIG BANG THEORY was proposed by a Roman Catholic Priest ...
Yes, and the father of genetics was a Catholic Benedictine monk.

The take away is that science and religion coexist and are not mortal enemies, except in the minds of rightwing American Christian fundamentalists.
 
Oldest Homo sapiens fossils ever found push humanity's birth back to 300,000 years

Digging on a hilltop in the Sahara Desert, scientists have found the most ancient known members of our own species, undermining longstanding ideas about the origins of humanity.

The newfound Homo sapiens fossils — three young adults, one adolescent and a child of 7 or 8 — date back roughly 300,000 years, says a study in this week’s Nature. The next-oldest fossils of Homo sapiens, the scientific name for humans, are about 200,000 years old.

The 200,000-year-old fossils were found in eastern Africa, sometimes called the “Garden of Eden” for its supposedly pivotal role as the birthplace of humanity. But the new fossils are from Morocco in far northern Africa, supporting the theory that the evolution of modern humans was a piecemeal affair that played out across the continent.

“There is no Garden of Eden in Africa,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, co-author of two new studies describing the fossils and a paleontologist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Or if there is a Garden of Eden, it’s … the size of Africa.”

The new finds confirm “modern humans do not suddenly appear like the Big Bang, with all the bells and whistles that we associate with modern humans,” agrees paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who was not associated with the study.

Continued

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/scie...manitys-birth-back-to-300000-years/ar-BBCfiN0


evolution_poll.jpg
How 8s that bad news for republicans or are you just a natural moron?
 
The fossil record and all available evidence indicates something happened about 3.8 million years ago to cause the jump from an aqueous mix of inert organic and inorganic molecules, to complex bio-molecules and self-replicating cellular archea and prokaryotes.

We are way past the point of assuming it happened, chap.

What we are looking for now is a mechanism with explanatory power to give us insight into the physical and chemical conditions of how it happened.

Speculation. You are just spewing your religion again.
 
^ I am sure you thought that was clever when you typed it.

At some point prior to 3.8 billion years ago, life did not exist on Earth.

At some point subsequent to 3.8 billion years ago, primitive life emerged and did exist.

This is established by fossil and isotopic evidence.

Abiogenesis, emergence (take your pick of buzzwords) is a fact by the standards of scientific inquiry.

The only question now concerns the mechanism or cause for emergence.

Speculation. Science isn't standards. Science isn't an inquiry. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
^^ The take away here is you do not have a body of peer reviewed science or studies from reputable international health experts concluding COVID 19 was artificially genetically engineered in a laboratory.

You should have just said you have no credible evidence for your claim before wasting everyone's time.

At least with abiogenesis, we start with the premise it is a scientific fact. Primitive single celled life actually did emerge on earth in the remote past.

Science doesn't use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. Science doesn't need a 'reputation'. Science isn't 'experts'. Science isn't 'facts'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Learn what 'fact' means. Fact does not mean 'proof' nor 'Universal Truth'.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
 
Every biologist in the world uses evolution in their research. The fact you do not know this proves how little you know about the practice of science.

MICRO EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT; MACRO EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, OR PROVEN ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE.

OVER 100 MILLION GENERATIONS OF FRUIT FLIES..WITH AMAZING DIVERSITY OF FEATURES , (ALMOST ALL ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED), BUT THEY ARE STILL "FRUIT FLIES".

ANYONE TEACHING MACRO EVOLUTION AS FACT IS NOT A REAL SCIENTIST...JUST LIKE THE WARMISTS, WHO CANNOT CHEMICALLY PROVE THEIR CLAIMS.
 
Every biologist in the world uses evolution in their research. The fact you do not know this proves how little you know about the practice of science.

You don't get to speak for every biologist in the world. You only get to speak for yourself. You are not God.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

Science is not a 'practice', 'method', or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
 
Back
Top