Origins of the Universe

[Tychus]

Why is there no proof of evolution?

no proof... on creation.com? what do you mean?

Why is there no fossils of partially evlolved species?

what does "partially evolved" mean?

Why is there no remains of Homo erectus or other sub-humans?

why do you say there aren't any?

[Garnier Fructis]

Anyways: Creation.com

Go read it, instead of discarding it without even having a look. They are trying to scientificaly prove how earth was created.

We more or less have a complete picture of how the earth was formed from modern science. What is the need, then, to 'prove' how it was 'created?' Because for them, the starting point is the Bible and if any modern science contradicts it, they throw it out. Assuming the Bible as an infallible starting point is patently unscientific.

[Grimreaper]

There is proof of evolution. There are fossils of 'partially evolved species' as you put it. Crocs and blue whales haven't evolved because of a lack of evolutionary pressure.

All your supposed mysteries can be explained to you by google. But no, lets just go with a stab in the dark of techno god whose truth has been a bit warped over the years and website of nutjub religious creationists.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah if i read your reply before writing my rant I'd have copied it.

So ridicule is the only thing you could come up with?

[Eldar45]

I've read and watched many theories on the creation of the Earth and the Universe and have come to a singular conclusion: They are just as creditable as a belief in God. Yet to me the Extradimensional all powerful being actually makes more sense than a 1x10^400 random chance.

We are kind of doing the same thing with computer games. Creating worlds with people and animals living in it. At the point where they have actual intelligence then what difference will there be between a creature in a computer program and the real world?

[Grimreaper]

no proof... on creation.com? what do you mean?

There is no proof to be found on the theory of evolution that hasnt been debunked by actual scientists.

what does "partially evolved" mean?

So species dont evolve over millions of years then? There is only fossils found of completely evolved species, most of wich exists today and have been labelled something else that supposedly lived hundreds of millions years ago...

why do you say there aren't any?

None that havent been debunked.

[tss]

I've read and watched many theories on the creation of the Earth and the Universe and have come to a singular conclusion: They are just as creditable as a belief in God. Yet to me the Extradimensional all powerful being actually makes more sense than a 1x10^400 random chance.

Yes, that's exactly what the science says, that everything we know just popped into existence as it is today from some cosmic dice roll

lmao

[Garnier Fructis]

So ridicule is the only thing you could come up with?

Ah yes, respond to the ridicule and not to the actual point of the post, which is that there is proof of evolution.

[tss]

There is no proof to be found on the theory of evolution that hasnt been debunked by actual scientists.


So species dont evolve over millions of years then? There is only fossils found of completely evolved species, most of wich exists today and have been labelled something else that supposedly lived hundreds of millions years ago...


None that havent been debunked.

Cite the debunking.

Also nice god of the gaps nonsense regarding evolution, Dr. Hovind

[Garnier Fructis]

I've read and watched many theories on the creation of the Earth and the Universe and have come to a singular conclusion: They are just as creditable as a belief in God. Yet to me the Extradimensional all powerful being actually makes more sense than a 1x10^400 random chance.

We are kind of doing the same thing with computer games. Creating worlds with people and animals living in it. At the point where they have actual intelligence then what difference will there be between a creature in a computer program and the real world?

And where did that seemingly ass-pulled chance come from?

- - - Updated - - -

There is no proof to be found on the theory of evolution that hasnt been debunked by actual scientists.

The overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept Evolution, so you're implicitly making the argument that only like < 3% of scientists are 'actual scientists.'

So species dont evolve over millions of years then? There is only fossils found of completely evolved species, most of wich exists today and have been labelled something else that supposedly lived hundreds of millions years ago...

Evolution is a gradual process, not a discrete one. Every step along the way you have an animal that differs ever so slightly from the previous one. You don't have one species go through some weird ass transformation into something different. The problem is the act of classifying things into different species is artificial, which might contribute to this confusion.

[Nerovar]

In chronological order:

1. No idea
2. Big Bang
3. Stuff happened
4. Planets and shit
5. Abiogenesis - the formation of life
6. Evolution
7. Dinosaurs
8. Humans
9. Trump

Which part do you want explained? Is it 1-4, or 5-6?

Actually I would like to have part 9 explained to me.

[Adam Jensen]

Nothing profound in the truth.

Much of those that were were scientists held religious beliefs.
Don't need to go any further. Except people need to stop trying to deny that in favor of their own shitty alternative history. (I'm reminded of the idiotic meme that claimed Marcus Aurelius was an atheist)
You can be devout in your religious belief and still be awesome in science.

Newton believed in Alchemy, spent most of his life looking for the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet that doesn't diminish the fact that he practically invented calculus and physics

[Grimreaper]

Newton believed in Alchemy, spent most of his life looking for the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet that doesn't diminish the fact that he practically invented calculus and physics

He was also a devout christian... teh horror!

[Halicia]

Newton believed in Alchemy, spent most of his life looking for the Sorcerer's Stone. Yet that doesn't diminish the fact that he practically invented calculus and physics

To be fair, many of the goals of Alchemy are now done on a daily basis at the industrial level. Just because he was barking up the wrong tree doesn't mean there weren't apples up there.

[Tychus]

There is no proof to be found on the theory of evolution that hasnt been debunked by actual scientists.

i see... what is an "actual scientist"? are there any of these that support evolution?

So species dont evolve over millions of years then? There is only fossils found of completely evolved species, most of wich exists today and have been labelled something else that supposedly lived hundreds of millions years ago...

what does "completely evolved species" mean? i don't understand what you mean by "partial" and "complete".

- - - Updated - - -

He was also a devout christian... teh horror!

sort of. he didn't believe jesus was god. a raving heretic according to mainstream christianity.

[ShimmerSwirl]

Oh boy... settling with "i don't know" is so challenging, i know. Our nature is to think of things as having a beggining and an end and to obey certain laws of physics. These concepts are all inadequate to understand an event that takes place in the quantum level.
No, belief isn't what you need. It's what you want. You feel unconfortable when a story doesn't have a resolution. We hate cliffhangers. It's human nature and it limits our understanding capabilities when we let it rule us.

I can settle with I don't know, thats the best answer often times. But to say even that means you have faith in science to someday prove what you currently believe without proof.

[Laerrus]

Big bang. Probably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History

Big History might be something you'd like to take a look at.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), the history of our universe and everything we know about it may have to be rewritten with this recent discovery.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-massiv...can-explain-it

[Dezerte]

But to say even that means you have faith in science to someday prove what you currently believe without proof.

Having a scientifically minded view does not necessarily mean that one believes that everything will eventually be solved by science. I think pre-The Big Bang may be one of those questions we may never know the answer to.

[Mihalik]

This is something that has always bothered me about this topic. To me, its impossible to not have faith in something. No one truly knows the origin of the universe it seems, so if you don't have faith in God, you must by default have faith in science itself. You believe something happened to make the universe start to exist at some point (I presume), yet you can't point to any proof to support that belief. Hence you have a blind faith, not at all unlike someone who believes in God.

I already explained this, in the post you quote and later in a different reply.

That literally doesn't mean anything. Faith is a human emotion. Especially applied to metaphysics it can very much be absent, it's called being non religious.

It also happens to be a fully unsubstantiated and untestable claim. With other words. Nonsense.

If you happen to mean "God is omnipresent" than that statement falls apart as soon as you raise either the question of evil or the question of causality. You are throwing out hollow, meaningless statements and mix in the occasional full blown lie.

Not believing in the metaphysical is very much possible.

There are several things you misunderstand.

1. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Science deals in empirical observation and testing. Even the most set in stone scientific principles are always up for analysis, adjustment and refutation. Science is a method, not a belief system, nor does it claim to be one, ever.

2. Unlike science, religion doesn't adjust its views, it is inherently unable to, but it tries to fit the natural world into its already established and unsubstantiated framework, it disregards evidence and is unable of self examination.

3. Knowledge and understanding starts at -I don't know. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. Starting from a blank slate with a question allows you to find working answers.

There is an extremely simple way to prove why science works and faith doesn't.

Think of a light bulb, connected to a light switch and power grid. It's creation, design and functioning is dependent on naturalistic laws. It is testable, it is replicable, it is reliable. When you hit the switch the light will turn on. It will always do so. If it doesn't, you can analyze the malfunction and repair it. But in general it will work, it will work whether you understand the principles behind its function or not, it will work for you, for me and for the isolated tribesman from the Amazon who never seen a light bulb. It doesn't require your faith. It just works.

That is science.

Take the natural world, eliminate science and try to come up with a reliable way to light your home in the dark using faith alone. It doesn't matter how hard you believe in the light, it will remain dark. You can pray, perform rituals but you will not get light. And those who claim that once they got light (miracle) are simply unable to replicate it on demand reliably, or tell you exactly why.

That is faith.

You cannot equate the two.

[Tijuana]

Religion and science have the exact same amount of evidence to explain the origin of the universe. Zero.

[melodramocracy]

Big bang. Probably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History

Big History might be something you'd like to take a look at.

And what was there before that?

I try to wrap my brain around the concept that time is really just a human-applied "condition" that the rest of existence doesn't necessarily follow. Or more specifically, things having a beginning and ending. The concept of nothingness gives me the same sort of headache