solid proof of evolution

Darth Omar said:
The reigning consensus is that life will form under the proper conditions plus sufficient time: it’s why life is *assumed* to exist on other planets in the galaxy.

How is it ‘scientific’ just to accept that assumption at face value?
Click to expand...

Nope. Ass-backwards dead wrong, a false analogy, and an uninformed assertion. What you are referring to is a hypothesis, an educated guess, and scientists have been very clear about that, especially when extrapolating to extraterrestrial life. It is certainly not a "scientific consensus" that results from repeated testing, observation, and probing of multiple lines of evidence.

If you want to claim scientists have it wrong on evolution, and if you genuinely respect the scientific method, it is incumbent upon you to come up with an alternative hypothesis - one that fits a century's worth of all the observational, genetic, and empirical data...one that does not invoke magic, the supernatural, conjecture, or supreme beings.
 
Last edited:
Life on other planets is not a scientific assumption, although I'm sure 999/1000 astronomers wouldn't bet against it.
After all, they are rational people. There are 8 planets in our tiny solar system and 1 is teaming with life.
What are the odds that with trillions of other solar systems, no life exists?
 
Cypress said:
Nope. Ass-backwards dead wrong, a false analogy, and an uninformed assertion. What you are referring to is a hypothesis, an educated guess, and scientists have been very clear about that, especially when extrapolating to extraterrestrial life. It is certainly not a "scientific consensus" that results from repeated testing, observation, and probing of multiple lines of evidence.

If you want to claim scientists have it wrong on evolution, and if you genuinely respect the scientific method, it is incumbent upon you to come up with an alternative hypothesis - one that fits a century's worth of all the observational, genetic, and empirical data...one that does not invoke magic, the supernatural, conjecture, or supreme beings.
Click to expand...

I’m talking about the origin of life and you’re talking about evolution.

I thought they were two separate things.

‘Scientific consensus’ isn’t really a scientific term, anyway. It only signifies that there is a general agreement among scientists on a general subject. So I’m not even sure what you’re arguing about.

But there’s absolutely a ‘general agreement’ amongst scientists, and the general public, that all that is needed for life to form are the right conditions and lots of time.

Point blank: That is an assumption.

Given that vast quantities of time are involved, I’m not even sure it’s a testable hypothesis. You can’t duplicate ten million years in a lab.

Ironically, both sides of their debate have their own untestable hypotheses.
 
Micawber said:
Life on other planets is not a scientific assumption, although I'm sure 999/1000 astronomers wouldn't bet against it.
After all, they are rational people. There are 8 planets in our tiny solar system and 1 is teaming with life.
What are the odds that with trillions of other solar systems, no life exists?
Click to expand...

Assuming, life can form from non-life, the odds are excellent.

If it’s not an assumption, what are the physical properties of matter that make such an event deterministic?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Meh...I don’t believe so. Not without changing the definition of science.
Click to expand...

If God exists, why wouldn't there ultimately be a scientific explanation for that existence?

It might exist outside of the specific scientific rules of this universe, but ultimately - if we could ever have access to origins and evidence - the existence of God should be just as provable via the scientific method as anything.
 
rjhenn said:
The thing of it is, there's absolutely no evidence for the existence of any gods. That's at odds with the idea of an omnipotent God who is both benevolent and wants us to believe in Him. The rational conclusion is that there is no such beast.
Click to expand...

yet it is impossible to come to the rational conclusion that there is no god, since there are no facts on which to base your logic......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
Click to expand...
what is the difference between a god of the gaps argument and the fake science of the gaps argument?.......
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational


Definition of rational
1
a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable a rational explanation rational behavior
2
: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3
: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers a rational root of an equation
 
Darth Omar said:
Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
It is fundamental to science that when an set of conditions is met, the result will be the same.
If that was not the assumption, there would not be the requirement of replication.
If the result can not be replicated then nothing has been discover, except that the experiment has been shown to be invalid.
If the recipe only has the same result for some percentage, that is reported with the understanding that something is unknown
that is knowable. Never is it thought some religious pixie dust is lacking from the procedure, despite the joy it may
bring god in the gaps crowds.

Once god was on high riding a winged horse, now he has to hide in quantum fuzziness or inside black holes.
We are winning, bigly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
????......God hasn't changed.......regardless of who Satan uses as a puppet, he lost a long long time ago......
 
Thing1 said:
If God exists, why wouldn't there ultimately be a scientific explanation for that existence?

It might exist outside of the specific scientific rules of this universe, but ultimately - if we could ever have access to origins and evidence - the existence of God should be just as provable via the scientific method as anything.
Click to expand...

Science is one thing—philosophy is another.

Any intelligent agency is disqualified at the starting line in science. But that by no means precludes one. The apparent fine tuning of the physical constants can only be explained away by invoking infinite universes.

But like God, you can’t see them lol.
 
Cypress said:
Nope. Ass-backwards dead wrong, a false analogy, and an uninformed assertion. What you are referring to is a hypothesis, an educated guess, and scientists have been very clear about that, especially when extrapolating to extraterrestrial life. It is certainly not a "scientific consensus" that results from repeated testing, observation, and probing of multiple lines of evidence.

If you want to claim scientists have it wrong on evolution, and if you genuinely respect the scientific method, it is incumbent upon you to come up with an alternative hypothesis - one that fits a century's worth of all the observational, genetic, and empirical data...one that does not invoke magic, the supernatural, conjecture, or supreme beings.
Click to expand...

you've just admitted all you have is only an educated guess.......does that somehow stack up higher than a statement of faith in your mind?.....or did you think you have some repeated testing of macro-evolution?........
 
quit pretending religion is better than science

science and religion are completely different things

there is ONE science


there are a plethora of religions who say many many different things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top