Are scientists any closer

[YoursTrue]

Let me ask you this. What difference do you think it makes whether we know the identity of the last common ancestor of man and chimps? You seem to think it means something. I am curious what that is.

First of all, do we know the identity of what the first chimpanzee came from? Answer that with certainty and then try to answer if you believe Jesus even existed at all. After that, perhaps you can answer if you think it matters that you call yourself a Christian, yet don't believe if Jesus existed, don't believe he performed resurrections, don't believe he himself was resurrected. (OK?)

 

[YoursTrue]

So you don't have the courage to come out and say it. Didn't see that coming. Given that I have said nothing in response to your questions, I cannot see how you understand much about me. This seems like what I would expect once you have failed to uphold your end of your own OP and provide support for it.

In essence you are saying that if I don't pass your tests I am not a Christian. I had no idea. You aren't even mentioned in the Bible.

I am saying that if you don't believe that Jesus existed, don't believe he performed miracles, don't believe he was resurrected, yes, that's what I am saying. You have a false moniker.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So let me ask you this: do you believe Jesus? Do you even believe he existed? : As far as fitting the criteria...

You claim that evolution has not been observed. Can you describe what you mean by this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First of all, do we know the identity of what the first chimpanzee came from? Answer that with certainty and then try to answer if you believe Jesus even existed at all. After that, perhaps you can answer if you think it matters that you call yourself a Christian, yet don't believe if Jesus existed, don't believe he performed resurrections, don't believe he himself was resurrected. (OK?)

This is the core of my question. Why do you think it needs to be known? What is the result of our current state of not knowing? Let's stay on topic here. If you would like to make a thread on Dan from Smithville and how you believe he is a false Christian, then we can discuss your other questions there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am saying that if you don't believe that Jesus existed, don't believe he performed miracles, don't believe he was resurrected, yes, that's what I am saying. You have a false moniker.

Dan from Smithville is my moniker. How do you know it is false?

Again, if you wish to attack me personally, make another thread in the appropriate place. Let us stick to the debate around your OP.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am saying that if you don't believe that Jesus existed, don't believe he performed miracles, don't believe he was resurrected, yes, that's what I am saying. You have a false moniker.

I think what you are trying to say is that I cannot accept the conclusions made about evidence by science if I am a Christian. You will have to explain to me how that works. How am I supposed to, in essence, deny reality in order to be Christian.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When did you demonstrate otherwise... including the other claims you made?

That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden of proof. You don't get to just declare it's true until someone demonstrates otherwise.

Do you realize how many false things we'd believe if that's how we went about this?
I'm interested in believing true things.

What you know about planet earth, is only what you think you know. You haven't demonstrated probably 90% of it. You just rely on Sims, like you're in some video game.

Am I wrong. Then let me have it.

You can't demonstrate you know more than anybody else about the world, especially scientists. You are just asserting that you do.

Have you demonstrated that only humans wrote things.

Really! Please share with us how you did that.

Do you know of someone/something else that writes things? If you do, it would be great if you would share that with the world.

Who is claiming to know things they can't demonstrate? Ahem.

You.

FYI, 1) I am not saying God wrote the historical account, so I don't know where you got that idea in your head from.
Do I sound hostile?

That's exactly what it sounded like to me.

Who are you claiming wrote it then? Because again, no living beings existed at the time to record it. Like, until billions and billions of years later.

I wonder why some god who built this entire universe just for us waited so long to put actually create humans.

2) I'm saying, what was known was passed on, and those who received it wrote it down. That's how it usually goes. Isn't that true? How am I wrong?

Nothing was known about the origins of the universe or our planet until rather recently, thanks to science.

Who is it that you think "passed on" this information when there were no witnesses to it in the first place?

3) There is evidence demonstrating that there is one author of the Bible... not that he personally wrote anything, but just as a businessman s the author of the letter, even though his secretary wrote it, the Bible is writen by many secretaries, but there is one author - God.

The evidence indicates several authors of the Bible, all of whom were humans.

Again, you're just asserting God's existence (and not only that, but the particular one you believe in) and divine inspiration without any demonstration. Basically you've just doubled down.

4) When did I demonstrate that the specific god I believe in exists and wrote down anything?
He demonstrated it. Not me. I don't have to do a thing.

The answer is you didn't. I asked you for the demonstration, not the deity you believe in but can't demonstrate the existence of.



Boy, you really demand a lot from science that you can't come anywhere near producing yourself, when it comes to your own claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, do we know the identity of what the first chimpanzee came from? Answer that with certainty and then try to answer if you believe Jesus even existed at all. After that, perhaps you can answer if you think it matters that you call yourself a Christian, yet don't believe if Jesus existed, don't believe he performed resurrections, don't believe he himself was resurrected. (OK?)

Do you know who your great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother was?

 

[nPeace]

Nothing was known about the origins of the universe or our planet until rather recently, thanks to science.

Who knows the origin of the universe and our planet? Tell me.

Who is it that you think "passed on" this information when there were no witnesses to it in the first place?

I told you. You didn't listen.

 

[Thief]

You are speaking of if I can throw in the Edenic account and creation of Adam and Eve into evolution? Not really. I mean I could try, but then it would be like a flying plate -- so I'm willing to hear your idea.

Man was created on Day Six.....male and female
no names
no garden
no law
go forth, be fruitful and multiply....dominate all things

that would be Man as a species

Man was set to overrun this planet and it's resources......before any 'spirit' would gel
and a nasty lean to grab and run had taken hold
along with dominating each other

so......a play of manipulation
a chosen speciemen......ideal living conditions
Adam is a chosen son of God

he was laid to a deep sleep.....what we know as anesthesia
surgery to remove a sample of flesh
clone the sample to full stature.....with genetic alteration to yield a female

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride
Eve was not born of woman.....no navel

science
up one side and down the other

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who knows the origin of the universe and our planet? Tell me.

We know how the universe and the planets formed, thanks to the diligent work of scientists, and no thanks to the Bible.

Photo Timeline: How the Earth Formed | Live Science
Formation and Evolution of the Universe | AMNH.

I told you. You didn't listen.

I responded to your post with much more than you've quoted here. Why did you leave the rest out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who knows the origin of the universe and our planet? Tell me.


I told you. You didn't listen.

It is not very honest to try to strawman a debate. The fact is that others know far more about how our universe started than you do because they are not afraid to learn. Fear keeps the creationist trapped in a myth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What you know about planet earth, is only what you think you know. You haven't demonstrated probably 90% of it.

Why would that matter? I can't demonstrate that I was gestated in a womb and then delivered, but I know it's true.

The flaw in this kind of thinking - that one has to demonstrate or have witnessed first hand abiogenesis or the history of the universe or earth or evolution to know things about the past - is wrong. We use the evidence available now to determine the past. We don't have to go into the past or reproduce it all in the present to know about much of what happened. If we find a dead body on the street with a bullet in the back, that's the evidence available now that tells us what happened in the past even if we weren't there to see it. To just simply say that because you didn't see the shooting, you can't know about it is simply incorrect. Perhaps you don't know about the history of the universe and our planet because you haven't been interested enough to learn, but that doesn't mean that it can't be known by others.

The sine qua non of evidence is that it be evident to the senses. That means present here and now. We infer the past from what we see now. And from those inductions, we make predictions of what future evidence will look like. If these predictions are accurate, then we know our assumptions can be considered knowledge, which is the collection of ideas considered correct because of their ability to predict outcomes. Looking for more, such as ultimate, objective, or absolute truth is pointless, impossible, and unnecessary.

There is evidence demonstrating that there is one author of the Bible

The opposite is true. There are multiple writing styles.

Who knows the origin of the universe and our planet?

Much is known about each. I know many things about their origins, as does everybody else interested enough about Big Bang cosmology and geology to have studied them. You can know these things as well, but you'll have to do the reading like all of the rest of us.

We haven't "seen" evolution in the Darwinian sense. Mutations, yes. But not evolution of the kind that Darwin and his supporters claim.

That is evolution in the Darwinian sense. What we have seen is exactly what Darwin predicted we would see - genetic variation subjected to natural selection. And if you wait around ten million years, you'll see even greater change than we have had time to witness yet.

do we know the identity of what the first chimpanzee came from?

There was no first chimpanzee.

I am saying that if you don't believe that Jesus existed, don't believe he performed miracles, don't believe he was resurrected, yes, that's what I am saying. You have a false moniker.

My definition of a Christian is the same one you use when you tell me that there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world. Anybody who calls himself one. I understand that Christians judge one another by their conformity to certain doctrine, but the outsider doesn't care about that just as you don't care about the doctrinal distinctions between Sunni and Shia Muslims in judging whether they are Muslims or not. If they self-identify as Muslims, we don't argue with them, or test them to see if they are "true" Muslims. You're probably the same regarding Muslims as I just described. If so, perhaps you can understand why that would be my attitude regarding Christians as well. I don't care how much scripture they can quote, whether they pray to saints or not, whether they lie and steal or not (I do care, but not in determining whether to call them Christian), whether they go to church or not and if so, whether it's Saturdays or Sundays, if they baptize by sprinkling or immersion, or whether other Christians consider them "true" Christians or not, just like the people taking the census of people's religions, who also don't give a quiz to see if somebody really is a Christian or not.

 

[nPeace]

We know how the universe and the planets formed, thanks to the diligent work of scientists, and no thanks to the Bible.

Photo Timeline: How the Earth Formed | Live Science
Formation and Evolution of the Universe | AMNH.

So you don't know the origin of the universe and our planets... including our earth. Thank you very much.
Why did you say you did, when you don't?
Did you make a mistake, or you just spoke with that puffed up feeling, so commonly seen among believers in ideas of scientists?

I responded to your post with much more than you've quoted here. Why did you leave the rest out?

It was, to use your words...just a lot of ... nothing. So thanks anyway, I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't know the origin of the universe and our planet... including our earth. Thank you very much.
Why did you say you did, when you don't?
Did you make a mistake, or you just spoke with that puffed up feeling, so commonly seen among believers in ideas of scientists?


It was, to use your words...just a lot of ... nothing. So thanks anyway, I guess.

Still trying to twist the words for others. It apears that you know almost nothing about how the Earth formed and the beginning of the universe. The fact that others do not know everything does not mean that they know nothing. And they probably know more than you do since it is rather apparent that you do not want to learn.

 

[nPeace]

Why would that matter? I can't demonstrate that I was gestated in a womb and then delivered, but I know it's true.

The flaw in this kind of thinking - that one has to demonstrate or have witnessed first hand abiogenesis or the history of the universe or earth or evolution to know things about the past - is wrong. We use the evidence available now to determine the past. We don't have to go into the past or reproduce it all in the present to know about much of what happened. If we find a dead body on the street with a bullet in the back, that's the evidence available now that tells us what happened in the past even if we weren't there to see it. To just simply say that because you didn't see the shooting, you can't know about it is simply incorrect. Perhaps you don't know about the history of the universe and our planet because you haven't been interested enough to learn, but that doesn't mean that it can't be known by others.

The sine qua non of evidence is that it be evident to the senses. That means present here and now. We infer the past from what we see now. And from those inductions, we make predictions of what future evidence will look like. If these predictions are accurate, then we know our assumptions can be considered knowledge, which is the collection of ideas considered correct because of their ability to predict outcomes. Looking for more, such as ultimate, objective, or absolute truth is pointless, impossible, and unnecessary.

Based on such brilliant reasoning, I only have to give a simple response... I don't have to see God to know he exists.
See how easy that was.

The opposite is true. There are multiple writing styles.

So? I use multiple styles. Maybe it's someone else, or I am six different persons.

Much is known about each. I know many things about their origins, as does everybody else interested enough about Big Bang cosmology and geology to have studied them. You can know these things as well, but you'll have to do the reading like all of the rest of us.

You guys know nothing evidently.
It's clear the self proclaimed experts here are not even familiar with their own god... I mean, science.

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

The BB describes the process of the evolution of the universe, according to your science.

The birth of the earth is hypothesized... i.e. people have ideas, but they don't know anything... other than, we are here.
Did anyone observe the earth form? Oh. Then to claim that the hypothesis of earth's formation and origin, is science, would make it what?
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

I don't usually send persons to do their own research on these things. I like to help out.

Origin of the Solar System
As the amount of data on the planets, moons, comets, and asteroids has grown, so too have the problems faced by astronomers in forming theories of the origin of the solar system.

I don't think, among those ideas, the Gaseous Hypothesis by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose hypothesis acclaimed world-wide appreciation but was later disproved since it was based on erroneous concepts and wrong application of Newtonian laws of gravitation, was mentioned. Not to mention, eronious assumptions.

However, along comes Laplace, the one who got that quote pinned on him... I had no need of that hypothesis
Interestingly, the quote is supposed to be against a god, but it fits nicely here.

The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other planetary systems). It suggests that the Solar System is formed from gas and dust orbiting the Sun.

So you don't know anything... literally.

Spoiler: Nothing

...about the origin of the universe and the earth.

If you want to argue about the Big Bang being the origin, You can simply read all about your science. It's not hard to find.
The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing: it assumes the whole machinery of quantum field theory, the modern description of how elementary particles of matter interact with one another, was already in operation.
The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time
This is an old one, but...
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

I have an idea.

Oh wait. Science don't consider that. Nor you. Too bad. Your lost.

That is evolution in the Darwinian sense. What we have seen is exactly what Darwin predicted we would see - genetic variation subjected to natural selection. And if you wait around ten million years, you'll see even greater change than we have had time to witness yet.

So the evolution of the universe is called the origin of the universe... but the origin of life is detached from the evolution of life. Interesting.

What you say here is totally false. That's why there are heatedly debating over the process.
Gradual evolution, or other? A tree, or a bush, or web? Etc. Etc.

There was no first chimpanzee.


My definition of a Christian is the same one you use when you tell me that there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world. Anybody who calls himself one. I understand that Christians judge one another by their conformity to certain doctrine, but the outsider doesn't care about that just as you don't care about the doctrinal distinctions between Sunni and Shia Muslims in judging whether they are Muslims or not. If they self-identify as Muslims, we don't argue with them, or test them to see if they are "true" Muslims. You're probably the same regarding Muslims as I just described. If so, perhaps you can understand why that would be my attitude regarding Christians as well. I don't care how much scripture they can quote, whether they pray to saints or not, whether they lie and steal or not (I do care, but not in determining whether to call them Christian), whether they go to church or not and if so, whether it's Saturdays or Sundays, if they baptize by sprinkling or immersion, or whether other Christians consider them "true" Christians or not, just like the people taking the census of people's religions, who also don't give a quiz to see if somebody really is a Christian or not.

You have a definition of Christian? I'd be interested to know ehat that is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based on such brilliant reasoning, I only have to give a simple response... I don't have to see God to know he exists.
See how easy that was.


So? I use multiple styles. Maybe it's someone else, or I am six different persons.


You guys know nothing evidently.
It's clear the self proclaimed experts here are not even familiar with their own god... I mean, science.

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

The BB describes the process of the evolution of the universe, according to your science.

The birth of the earth is hypothesized... i.e. people have ideas, but they don't know anything... other than, we are here.
Did anyone observe the earth form? Oh. Then to claim that the hypothesis of earth's formation and origin, is science, would make it what?
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

I don't usually send persons to do their own research on these things. I like to help out.

Origin of the Solar System
As the amount of data on the planets, moons, comets, and asteroids has grown, so too have the problems faced by astronomers in forming theories of the origin of the solar system.

View attachment 50492

I don't think, among those ideas, the Gaseous Hypothesis by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose hypothesis acclaimed world-wide appreciation but was later disproved since it was based on erroneous concepts and wrong application of Newtonian laws of gravitation, was mentioned. Not to mention, eronious assumptions.

However, along comes Laplace, the one who got that quote pinned on him... I had no need of that hypothesis
Interestingly, the quote is supposed to be against a god, but it fits nicely here.

The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other planetary systems). It suggests that the Solar System is formed from gas and dust orbiting the Sun.

So you don't know anything... literally.

Spoiler: Nothing

...about the origin of the universe and the earth.

If you want to argue about the Big Bang being the origin, You can simply read all about your science. It's not hard to find.
The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing: it assumes the whole machinery of quantum field theory, the modern description of how elementary particles of matter interact with one another, was already in operation.
The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time
This is an old one, but...
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

I have an idea.

Oh wait. Science don't consider that. Nor you. Too bad. Your lost.


So the evolution of the universe is called the origin of the universe... but the origin of life is detached from the evolution of life. Interesting.

What you say here is totally false. That's why there are heatedly debating over the process.
Gradual evolution, or other? A tree, or a bush, or web? Etc. Etc.


You have a definition of Christian? I'd be interested to know ehat that is.

What do you do to know that God exists?

Do you have anything except twisting words and a flippant style?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based on such brilliant reasoning, I only have to give a simple response... I don't have to see God to know he exists.
See how easy that was.


So? I use multiple styles. Maybe it's someone else, or I am six different persons.


You guys know nothing evidently.
It's clear the self proclaimed experts here are not even familiar with their own god... I mean, science.

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

The BB describes the process of the evolution of the universe, according to your science.

The birth of the earth is hypothesized... i.e. people have ideas, but they don't know anything... other than, we are here.
Did anyone observe the earth form? Oh. Then to claim that the hypothesis of earth's formation and origin, is science, would make it what?
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

I don't usually send persons to do their own research on these things. I like to help out.

Origin of the Solar System
As the amount of data on the planets, moons, comets, and asteroids has grown, so too have the problems faced by astronomers in forming theories of the origin of the solar system.

View attachment 50492

I don't think, among those ideas, the Gaseous Hypothesis by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose hypothesis acclaimed world-wide appreciation but was later disproved since it was based on erroneous concepts and wrong application of Newtonian laws of gravitation, was mentioned. Not to mention, eronious assumptions.

However, along comes Laplace, the one who got that quote pinned on him... I had no need of that hypothesis
Interestingly, the quote is supposed to be against a god, but it fits nicely here.

The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other planetary systems). It suggests that the Solar System is formed from gas and dust orbiting the Sun.

So you don't know anything... literally.

Spoiler: Nothing

...about the origin of the universe and the earth.

If you want to argue about the Big Bang being the origin, You can simply read all about your science. It's not hard to find.
The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing: it assumes the whole machinery of quantum field theory, the modern description of how elementary particles of matter interact with one another, was already in operation.
The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time
This is an old one, but...
Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

I have an idea.

Oh wait. Science don't consider that. Nor you. Too bad. Your lost.


So the evolution of the universe is called the origin of the universe... but the origin of life is detached from the evolution of life. Interesting.

What you say here is totally false. That's why there are heatedly debating over the process.
Gradual evolution, or other? A tree, or a bush, or web? Etc. Etc.


You have a definition of Christian? I'd be interested to know ehat that is.

I believe he gave his definition of Christian. You should try reading what people actually post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you don't know the origin of the universe and our planets... including our earth. Thank you very much.
Why did you say you did, when you don't?
Did you make a mistake, or you just spoke with that puffed up feeling, so commonly seen among believers in ideas of scientists?


It was, to use your words...just a lot of ... nothing. So thanks anyway, I guess.

Why are you trying to obfuscate?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why are you trying to obfuscate?

I'm more baffled by @nPeace 's notion that if you don't see something occur, then you "know nothing" about it. Makes me wonder if he's ever served on a jury.

"We the jury have concluded that since there were no eye-witnesses to the crime, we cannot know anything about it."