solid proof of evolution

Eagle Eye said:
So if one cannot see or prove something it must not exist. Is that your hypothesis? Is space limitless? There are some things that can't be proven but we must accept. So just because we can't prove that God created life we do know it exists. To the best of my knowledge science can only assume how life started as there is no positive proof on how it happened. Of all the planets in our solar system why is this the only planet the life evolved. No pal I believe there was a higher power at work here than just plain luck.
Click to expand...

I like this view.
 
PraiseKek said:
Within the multiverse all non-zero probability events can, will, and have happened so in effect the fact that random proteins came into alignment to form the building blocks of life, no matter how infinitesimal the likelihood, was a certainty.
Click to expand...
And that’s the same statistic flaw as those who claim the opposite. That the probability of such an event occurring being to remote to be likely. You can’t calculate the probability of an event occurring which has already occurred.
 
Eagle Eye said:
I have asked this several times. Why would it be impossible for God to have created life and set the prameters for that life to evolve? There are other options beside's pure creationism and pure evolution.
Click to expand...

That's actually fairly close to what I personally believe. I wish people wouldn't be quite so literal about everything & make it an either/or, but I get that it's just part of some belief systems.
 
NOVA said:
You were slightly more civil so I'll reply....my point was to admit I don't know or come to finite conclusions without some sort of proof....you do.
I don't claim to know if a god exists or doesn't ....you do..you seem to use the lack of proof as proof....thats not smart.
Whether the old guys were Christians or not isn't irrelevant....their ideas may be outdated today but their worth was in their the rational approach to question the world they lived in....unlike you.
You pick and choose what ?...All the ancient findings have worth as its all we have to educate us on our early history....you don't pick and choose to suit you per-conceived notions, scientists don't do that...again, its narrow minded....
The Bible ?... never read it.....but certainly untold scholars have so it must undeniably have at least some historical value...the places mentioned, the events, the thoughts of the various authors, the religious beliefs, the social life of the times and moral values it relates to us.....
denying its importance is akin to denying the importance of the The Pyramid texts carved on the walls and sarcophagi in the pyramids or ignoring the ruins of the Roman Empire.
We learn from everything at our disposal....
Click to expand...

I didn't claim to prove that God does not exist. Try again.

I claim that in a natural world with billions of observers, deep space telescopes trained all over the universe, radio telescopes listening for intelligent life,
electron microscopes looking at things of tiny scale, billions of adherents building places begging the dude to show up, etc etc etc.

there isn't a single bit of credible evidence that he does.
 
Eagle Eye said:
I have asked this several times. Why would it be impossible for God to have created life and set the prameters for that life to evolve? There are other options beside's pure creationism and pure evolution.
Click to expand...
Well nothing. It’s what I happen to believe. It’s just not science. Science has its limits and one its self imposed limits is that it can only invoke natural causation.

The belief that God was the ultimate creator of life and established natural law may very well be true for all I know. It just isn’t science.
 
PraiseKek said:
There is no evidence for the hypothesis that there is a god so we must accept the null hypothesis that there isn't until evidence to the contrary is presented, the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim that god exists.
Click to expand...

That’s wrong. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God as it is a question completely outside the scope of science.
 
Thing1 said:
I agree w/ the basics of that, but some in the scientific community actually think that w/ the primordial conditions, chances of proteins coming together in that way (given the vast timeframes involved) was actually somewhat commonplace, at least on a relative scale.

I think it helps to think about the logic of a multiverse, if it exists. Why would it exist? Is that a random event, or by design so that every aspect of the physical plane that can possibly be imagined can be experienced? And if it's the latter, you would want the conception of life to be easy & commonplace, and not rare.
Click to expand...

The multiverse escapes the ‘God problem’ but it comes with a hefty price.

If the probability of life arising by chance is so infinitesimally small, then there is no practical chance of duplicating it. Science relies on repeatability in order to be science, so the multiverse places the origin of life beyond science.

The second irony is that the multiverse shares at least one attribute of the judeo christian God: eternal existence.

It’s easier to just to accept the distinct possibility that creation requires a Creator.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Well nothing. It’s what I happen to believe. It’s just not science. Science has its limits and one its self imposed limits is that it can only invoke natural causation.

The belief that God was the ultimate creator of life and established natural law may very well be true for all I know. It just isn’t science.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, everything could be science - even the existence of a god. It's just not science we have or understand right now.
 
Darth Omar said:
The multiverse escapes the ‘God problem’ but it comes with a hefty price.

If the probability of life arising by chance is so infinitesimally small, then there is no practical chance of duplicating it. Science relies on repeatability in order to be science, so the multitude places the origin of life beyond science.

The second irony is that the multiverse shares at least one attribute of the judeo christian God: eternal existence.

It’s easier just to accept the distinct possibility that creation requires a Creator.
Click to expand...

I think the bolded is a faulty premise - or at least a faulty "if" statement. We have no idea that the probability is even small, much less infintesimally so.

The last part is why I generally don't like that reason given for a belief in god (even though I technically believe in god) - it's just easier than trying to figure out or contemplate how something could happen scientifically.
 
Eagle Eye said:
So if one cannot see or prove something it must not exist. Is that your hypothesis? Is space limitless? There are some things that can't be proven but we must accept. So just because we can't prove that God created life we do know it exists. To the best of my knowledge science can only assume how life started as there is no positive proof on how it happened. Of all the planets in our solar system why is this the only planet that life evolved on. No pal I believe there was a higher power at work here than just plain luck.
Click to expand...

It's not that there can't be a creator if science holds the truth, it's just that the Biblical version of God doesn't seem very likely.

Thing1 said:
That's actually fairly close to what I personally believe. I wish people wouldn't be quite so literal about everything & make it an either/or, but I get that it's just part of some belief systems.
Click to expand...

The fundies have to have their Biblically approved form of God and nothing else. If it isn't spelled out for them in a book or on paper, they can't accept it.
 
Thing1 said:
It's probably true that you heard about 2 people say that, and then implied that the entire "other side" is a bunch of idiots because of that.

Typical PMP stuff. It's why you never win any debates on here.
Click to expand...

so fuckwad, do you believe when I said "I have even heard....." I was saying the entire bunch of you idiots believed it?.........if you are unhappy about losing debates to me you could always not argue with me......
 
Thing1 said:
Literally millions of people have speculated on and tried to explain how life could have begun.

But no one who knows anything have tried to frame that speculation in the context of "evolution."

You need to read what PMP was saying.
Click to expand...

I stand behind it.....that argument has been used HERE, it is not rare......in fact I expect someone will be along soon to argue in favor of it.....
 
PraiseKek said:
Within the multiverse all non-zero probability events can, will, and have happened so in effect the fact that random proteins came into alignment to form the building blocks of life, no matter how infinitesimal the likelihood, was a certainty.
Click to expand...

so why isn't it still happening?......
 
PraiseKek said:
There is no evidence of an intelligent designer, but through quantum physics and string theory we do have mathematical evidence (and through the LHC experimental evidence) of the infinite multiverse and within the multiverse all non-zero probability events can, will, and have happened making intelligent design advocates' claims regarding things; such as, the probabilities regarding the Goldilocks zone and the like, moot.
Click to expand...

there is no evidence its all here because shit just happens either.........
 
Thing1 said:
I think the bolded is a faulty premise - or at least a faulty "if" statement. We have no idea that the probability is even small, much less infintesimally so.

The last part is why I generally don't like that reason given for a belief in god (even though I technically believe in god) - it's just easier than trying to figure out or contemplate how something could happen scientifically.
Click to expand...

It’s not a faulty premise: Life can’t be made to happen even when we try.

What’s faulty is the assumption that life can occur anytime the right conditions are in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top