Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This is not "the scientific method "
I don't know. Which always seems to surprise some theists. As if admitting lack of knowledge means a concession to gods. But it's not. I don't need all the answers to think 'god did it' is a lazy non-answer to current physics and cosmological questions. An argument from ignorance (re: god of the gaps). Much the same way as those who don't understand atmospheric physics might then conclude that gods cause lightning. If all your god is, is the ever receding pocket of scientific mystery, then be ready to have that god undone at every new discovery.
Matter is information.
Consciousness is a function of matter in certain arrangements. It happened through evolutionary processes.
Our self-identity is destroyed (barring some science fiction recording of our brain function) along with the platform it runs on. Much the same as what happens to a program on a computer when the computer tower is destroyed.
Measuring light from stars, ice core dating (which records isotopes but isn't a radiometric dating method), fission track dating and molecular clock method.
No.
Yes. 'Life' as already been pointed out, is very loosely defined. A machine which can self-replicate, repair, construct new machines and gather resources is 'alive' in the strictest sense. As for abiogenesis specifically, yes, we've seen the synthesis of all the parts necessary for life. And although we can't exactly duplicate the specific situations that caused the chain reaction for the first self-replicating peptides (in much the same way we can't recreate the exact situation which produces any individual snowflake), we've seen nothing that would obstruct that chain reaction from occurring.
There is no 'proving' in science. You can no more prove evolution than you can prove cell theory, germ theory of disease, or gravity. You can only make more and more dynamic theories which describe their tenets. But you can test evolution. http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/dangerous-ideas/2008/feb/18/can-evolution-be-tested/
New genetic information happens every time duplicitous insertions, retroviral insertions, or unique gene switching happens. But no, new information is not required for evolution. The entirety of the avian line started with a gene which modified scales into feathers. It wasn't new information, just a unique revision of existing information.
Evolution doesn't require individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time. It just requires survival. A stupid person in a productive group will survive just as well as a smart person alone. What constitutes 'better'' in evolution is not so simple as an extreme specialization of a single idealized trait.
Evolution doesn't require any such thing. Evolution doesn't require anything at all.
There isn't one.
I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Things react all the time due to a combination of natural forces acting upon them.
Matter is information...
What's your standard for consciousness?
We cease living.
Before radioactive dating, geologists used a process called relative dating. Things that are lower down are obviously older. Outside of a few geological exceptions, old things can't move up through new things. Over a couple hundred years, large geologic chronologies were developed, helping geologists age new finds based on what was around them. Radiometric dating has helped to refine that practice, correct a few errors, and make the whole practice much more precise.
I hope you come to learn that the creationist idea of "Historical Science" is not actually a thing... It's an invention by creationists to help them justify their position.
Yes. You first have to decide what your standard for calling something "alive" is... But the answer is still going to be "yes".
Lots of them - a much easier thing to do, if you're certain of your position, is to falsify an evolutionary claim. Evolution is nothing more than descent with modification, which is something that you observe every single day.
Yes.
....Uh, you don't know what you're talking about here.
Science does not really have a concept of "proof" as such. The scientific method is the best available means for learning about the real world, though.
We could seek an anthropological or even biological question, but that is not really a matter of science, don't you think?
Get there from where?
You mean before the Big Bang? I am not very interested in Cosmology, but as I understand it it was probably some form of singularity that collapsed on itself.
Physical laws. Same as now.
This is a loaded question with poorly defined concepts.
It seems to be based on chemical reactions and electromagnetism. Again, not really an area I am well informed about.
We rot. And other people take our place and inherit and take charge of our roles in society, hopefully giving them their own spin.
Of lifeforms, you mean?
Again, that is a loaded, poorly-defined question. Do you want to elaborate on it, perhaps give some examples?
All living things that have genes, certainly. It depends a bit on how you define a "living thing", which is not as clear-cut as it may seem at first.
No. You are working under a deeply flawed understanding of what is genetic information. It is mostly random, even accidental.
No, because your premise is contaminated by the faulty understanding of evolution hinted by the previous question.
Ill speak for myself. Drugs and gangs was my primary focus and goal, so Now I have changed for the better and embrace education, while trying to educate myself.
I'm an atheist, not a scientist.
To live. To be alive is the purpose of life.
I have no idea.
Per my meger understanding, there was no "before."
The question makes no sense.
No. Matter is information. Matter can produce more matter/information can produce more information.
I don't believe it did. If we're conscious of matter, then it's obvious which came first (chicken/egg). (That's a joke.)
Mostly, we die.
I don't think even radiometric dating proves "millions of years." It's only a technique for measuring radiation. It's mostly the building of a chronology from evidence (geological, regional, cultural, fossil) that demonstrates age.
I seriously doubt it.
A dead seed turns into a living tree.
Record living things. Then come back in a while and record them again. Repeat for at least three or four dozen generations.
In the Twentieth Century, the majority of African elephants had tusks. Poachers have been systematically eliminating the elephants with tusks. Now the elephants that are tuskless are becoming the majority, with each new generation.
Evolution has no such agenda. It's no better or worse, just different.
Same thing is happening here. Big game animals like elk and moose, with impressive antlers, are selected against by hunters with rifles. So modern herds tend not to have such impressive racks.